Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category Extrajudicial Killings by PPP Government

Barrister Akram Sheikh’s Questions for Asif Zardari & his Actions & Role in Benazir’s Assassination

images-8

A list of questions posed by Mr. Akram Sheikh to Asif Zardari, regarding the planned assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. These questions are very probing and timely and if left unanswered will directly implicate Asif Zardari in Benazir’s death. Mr. Akram Shaikh has has raised some good and valid questions for everyone to ponder over

 

 

 

 

 images-1

1. With the NRO still around, striking down all corruption cases, and having become president of PPP and also having sole control over all of Benazir’s property and assets, is there anyone in the world who has benefited more from late Benazir’s death than Mr. Zardari?

 

2. Does it not make him Suspect Number One for her murder, especially when he is also facing various murder charges, including that for murder of Mir Murtaza Bhutto?

 

3. Mr. Zardari is already implicated in a murder case.  Benazir knew about the workers’ and her party leaders’ reservations about Mr. Zardari.

 

4. Why did she not consult or even share this decision with the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the party?

 

5. And if not the CEC, is there any person in the whole world who can testify that she shared with him or her, the decision that, after her death, Mr. Asif Zardari will to lead the party?

 

6. If Benazir was so careful to write a will, then what was so secret about it? She should have taken the CEC into confidence or announce it at a rally, to protect Mr. Zardari from any later claims that the will is fake.

 

7. Keeping secret the contents of the will must have been a huge burden for Mr. Zardari.

 

  1. 8.  From 18th October till her murder, did Mr. Zardari share with any person Benazir’s will or decision that in case of her death, she wanted him to lead the party?

 

9. Why has Mr. Zardari not made the whole document, the will, public?

 

  1. On the excuse of the document being the property of Bilawal, Mr. Zardari has kept hidden that document in his pocket on the basis of which he has claimed to be head of one of the largest parties in Pakistan. This will makes all the difference.

 

  1. Why is it a secret?

 

  1. Why would Benazir want her father’s party to be headed by a man who didn’t love or respect her and who she did not even think worthy of giving him a party ticket for running as a Member of National Assembly?

 

  1. The foundation of all murder investigations is the postmortem. It confirms cause of death, which then becomes the focus of all investigation. It was not any Pakistan Muslim League party official or government official, but it was Mr. Zardari himself who stopped the authorities from conducting a postmortem and buried Benazir Bhutto without it.

 

  1. What did he have to hide, if anything at all?

 

  1. Why is it that since her arrival in Pakistan on the 18th of October and till her assassination on the 27th of December, Mr. Zardari was not by her side, looking after the security of his wife? Is it not the foremost responsibility of any husband to ensure safety of his wife? Yet when it came to ensuring her burial without a postmortem and taking over her party, he rushed to be in Pakistan in no time.

 

  1. On the death of his beloved wife, has Mr. Asif skipped shaving for a single day? [This question may sound silly but it says a lot about the spouse’s mental condition after such a tragedy.]

 

  1. The suicide bomber and the shooter(s) were working according to a plan. And their plan depended on Benazir coming out of the sunroof, with Makhdoom Amin Fahim safely inside.

 

  1. Why were they so sure that Benazir would come out? It was a gamble. Could it be possible that Mr. Fahim encouraged her to stand up and wave to party workers outside?

 

  1. So far, the one person who has benefited most from that secret document, Benazir’s will, is the very person who is keeping custody of that document and who produced it at the time when CEC was in session to decide the question of party leadership. No one, not even any party leader, has read that document, let alone confirms that it is in Benazir’s handwriting.

 

  1. Had Mr. Asif Zardari and Makhdoom Amin Fahim planned what they will do in case of Benazir’s murder?

 

  1. Why none of these two (future Chairman and future Prime Minister) looked confused or angry on the day of the murder?

 

  1. They worked together with strange smoothness and coordination. There was no outburst and no anger. Both knew their moves.

 

  1. Why was it that the only person who cried and showed anger at Benazir’s death was her biggest political rival, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, and not her husband?

 

  1. After her death, what is Mr. Zardari going to do with the sale proceeds of Surrey Palace and other assets that the couple have all over the world?

 

  1. Close party circles have information about the nature of relationship between Mr. Zardari and Benazir. Was he used to beating and abusing Benazir?
  2. Only party officials who were close to Benazir can shed light on this.

 

  1. And, finally, is Mr. Zardari remarried to anyone else?

 

 Mr. Akram Sheikh is a prominent Pakistani lawyer. 

 
 Pakistan Think Tank Comment:
 
 We would like to add one more question to Mr.Akram Sheikh’s brilliant set of questions:
 
Asif Zardari, as a citizen of Pakistan and holding property in a foreign country has to pay taxes to the Federal Board of Revenue on sale of such property. Has he paid 20 percent Pakistan taxes on sale of Surrey Palace. Since, Mr.Zardari has not paid a single rupee in taxes to date, he is liable for prosecution as a tax evader under Pakistan Penal code. Has he paid 20 percent tax on sale of Surrey Palace? if, not, he is liable for all tax as a tax scofflaw and liable for prosecution and imprisonment as a tax evader.
 
The next elected Government of Pakistan should initiate legal proceedings against Mr.Zardari for evasion of taxes on the sale of Surrey Palace. He should be tried in an independent Tax Court under the administration of Judicial branch of the Government of Pakistan.

, , , ,

No Comments

JUDY BELLO: Pakistan Pays the Price for Its Defiance

Obama Shows His True Colors

Pakistan Pays the Price for Its Defiance

by JUDY BELLO

Leading up to the NATO Conference in Chicago last Friday, the U.S. was hopeful that President Zardari of Pakistan would announce the reopening of U.S. military supply routes in Pakistan, according to an article published in the Guardian of London on May 21, but their hopes were dashed. Zardari, who was invited at the last minute for a trilateral conference with U.S. President Obama and Afghan President Karzai, said, in a bilateral meeting with Hillary Clinton, that he would open the supply routes, but first the U.S. would have to apologize for killing 24 Pakistani soldiers during an air attack on a military base on the Afghan border last December and commit to ending Drone strikes inside Pakistan. President Obama did not give a private audience to the Pakistani President. In fact, it appears that American officials were not shy about expressing their displeasure with Pakistan at the Conference.

“Obama, at the opening of the second day of the NATO summit Monday morning, demonstrated his displeasure with the Pakistan government by singling out for mention the Central Asia countries and Russia that have stepped in to replace the Pakistan supply route. He made no mention of Pakistan, even though Zardari was in the room at the time. To ram home the point, the US defense secretary, Leon Panetta, also held a meeting at the NATO summit with senior ministers from Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Panetta expressed his “deep appreciation” for their support.”

This is a sharp rebuke, given the level of ongoing support that Pakistan has provided to the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan, which has lasted more than 10 years. Mr. Zardari was apparently under some serious pressure to capitulate. According to an Article in the Christian Science Monitor on May 22, there were high hopes for a deal when he attended the NATO meeting. It appears, however, that he offered to reopen the routes, without demanding the cessation of the Drone Strikes, at a price about 20x higher than what the U.S./NATO had been paying before the routes were closed, an offer unlikely to be accepted . Meanwhile, back in Pakistan, according to any number of sources, Prime Minister Gilani has been convicted by the powerful Supreme Court of Pakistan for refusing to reopen an old corruption case against President Zardari. Their government is in a very vulnerable position.

This is not a happy circumstance in a country where the civilian government has frequently been removed by a military coup, and Mr. Zardari’s father in law was actually executed by Zia al Haq, the military dictator, supported by the U.S., who removed him from office. From the viewpoint of the Pakistani government, this is a defeat any way you look at it. If even the reputedly corrupt Asif Zardari cannot bring himself to reopen the supply routes while the drone strikes continue to wreak havoc on the civilian population of North Waziristan, and cause upheaval in the general population of Pakistan, then it might be time to revisit the policy. However, the self proclaimed Masters of the Universe do not see it that way. This is their world and they will have their way. Violence, humiliation and oppression are their tools of choice. The lives of individuals have no meaning for them, and their mantra of freedom and democracy is meant to drown out the cries of the impoverished and brutalized masses of their victims. As you may imagine, an insult to a already debased opponent was hardly an adequate response to the refusal of a chattel to provide the expected services. So, that wasn’t the end of the affair.

images-72Even as the beleaguered President of Pakistan was being shown the good will of the U.S. Government and their NATO allies along with their contempt for his country and the people who live there, a successful Drone Strike that targeted an Egyptian Jihadist named Saeed al-Masri, or Yazid, killed half a dozen men and 3 small children. “The Face of Collateral Damage”, an article by Jefferson Morley onSalon.com provides the details and a photo of one of the children, a small girl named Fatima. Fatima was not a member of Yazid’s family (not that that should matter) but the child of an associate who had already been killed along with his wives and other children in a previous drone strike on his vehicle. Fatima was killed in the compound where she lived in the village of Mohammed Khel in North Waziristan not far from the other villages listed below. Apparently this strike was not counted with the ones listed below because there was an actual ‘militant’ targeted. Despite the deaths of several children, it didn’t play into the global accounting.

Beginning the same day the conference closed, on May 21, 22 and 24, 3 separate U.S. Drone Strikes in North Waziristan killed 20 people and wounded many more. On the Monday the 21st of May, a compound (in our frame of reference, that would be a home) in the town of Mirinshah was hit with 2 Hellfire missiles, resulting in 4 deaths and a number of injuries. On Tuesday, a Mosque in a nearby village was struck by 2 Hellfire missiles during morning prayers, resulting in 10 fatalities and more injuries. On Thursday, a bakery in another village in the region was struck with Hellfire missiles, resulting in 5 fatalities. My Google Drone Alert was flooded with these events for the entire week. Headlines in India, Pakistan, Russia, China, the U.S., U.K. and Canada echoed “Drone Attack Kills 10″, “US Drone Strike ‘Kills 5′ in North Waziristan” , “5 Killed in Pakistan Drone Strike” ,, “Drone Attack in North Waziristan Kills 5″ and on and on. These were so called Signature Strikes so they did not target any identified individual.

Unknown-10Local people said that those killed in these strikes were ‘villagers’. Across the international press, the victims were referred to variously, as ‘militants’, ‘suspected militants’ and ‘people’. Some of the U.S. press presented them as ‘suspected’ militants and ‘supporters’ of terrorists. Even after looking at all those articles, I don’t know their names. I don’t believe the people who called the strikes know who they were. ABC News referred to the victims as militants in every case, and helpfully provided a Google terrain map with a single marker designated ‘Pakistan’. At least I can name the towns, and provide maps showing the locations of the strikes. The town struck on Monday was Mirinshah, a significant town in the region. The Mosque struck on Tuesday was in the village of Mir Ali, about 15 miles East of Mirinshah, and on Thursday the Bakery was struck on Thursday in the village of Khassokhel, not far from Mir Ali.

The Western press coverage of these events provides the big picture. The Global Post, an internet news source has “Back to Back U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Test Diplomatic Standoff Over Supply Lines”, and then “Drone Strikes Continue to Pound Pakistan’s Northwest”. Yes, I’ll say that’s a test of the diplomatic standoff. An ‘official’ is quoted in the article as saying the victims were Uzbeks and other foreigners. They give no evidence of how he would know. Speaking of officials, the day of the first strike, the Christian Science Monitor ran “Pakistani Official: Position to Soften on NATO Supply Line”, where they cite a Pakistani official and a prominent Pakistani journalist saying that Pakistan is going to have to bite the bullet because they can’t win this one. They indicate that the negotiations were derailed by Zardari’s request for higher transit fees. But the bottom line is that there is nothing to negotiate because the Pakistani people will no longer tolerate U.S. Drone attacks and the U.S. has no intention of discontinuing them. The next day, the headline was “US Drone Strike in Pakistan Highlights Divergent Interests if US, Pakistan”. I would say, the strike[s] highlight the near infinite disparity in power between the US and Pakistan; at least that is what the U.S. seems to be asserting.

images-188The article elaborates the inconvenience that Pakistan has cause to the U.S. and NATO by closing the supply lines, and says that inviting President Zardari to the NATO Conference was a goodwill gesture. So, Zardari spent 17 hours or so on an airplane twice, so he could spend a few hours schmoozing with the folks who matter because they thought he was finally going to give in and violate the wishes of his domestic constituency by offering them what they want, but he spoiled the gesture by refusing to do so.

Two later pieces of news summarize the U.S. perspective on this situation. On Friday, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette ran “Drone Strikes Continue in Pakistan as Tensions Increase and Senate Panel Cuts Aid”. Punishment is being piled on punishment, insult added to injury, in an attempt to bring the Pakistani government to it’s knees. All that is left is Regime Change. Interestingly, if you look at the first few paragraphs of this article, it seems like that is where they are heading. And then, today in the New York Times, “Secret Kill List Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will”, 8 pages of arrogant, bluster, wherein we read such gems as:

“When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.”

and

“Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks. “

following a reference to “the president’s attempt to apply the “just war” theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict.”

Then we have:

“Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”

and

“Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counter-terrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions. And he knows that bad strikes can tarnish America’s image and derail diplomacy. ” [You could have fooled me]

and yet

“In Pakistan, Mr. Obama had approved not only “personality” strikes aimed at named, high-value terrorists, but “Signature” strikes that targeted training camps and suspicious compounds in areas controlled by militants.” [What principle guides this decision?]

The Republicans ‘get it’:

“Their policy is to take out high-value targets, versus capturing high-value targets,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the intelligence committee. “They are not going to advertise that, but that’s what they are doing.”

images-54Mr. President, I have to ask, “What Principles are reflected here? It would appear that Mr. Obama is playing God. Seduced by the power of the Presidency, and at the same time barred from constructive domestic action, President Obama has turned to the minute details of day to day issues of life and death for strangers on the far side of the planet who do not have it in their power to protect themselves from his personally structured version of state terrorism. And last week, his eminence apparently decided to teach the Pakistanis a lesson about defying the mighty powers of the American Olympians. Perhaps, Mr. Obama, you would deign to look down from your lofty post and say a few words of comfort to little Fatima and the dozens of others like her.

Judy Bello is currently a full time activist thanks to the harsh and unforgiving work environment in the Software Development Industry. Finally free to focus on her own interests in her home office, she is active with The Upstate Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars, and with Fellowship of Reconciliation Middle East Task Force and often posts on their blog at http://forusa.org. She has been to Iran twice with FOR Peace Delegations, and spent a month in the Kurdish city of Suleimaniya in 2009. Her personal blog, Towards a Global Perspective, is at http://blog.papillonweb.net and she is administers the Upstate anti-Drone Coalition website athttp://upstatedroneaction.org.

 

 

, , ,

No Comments

Akram Qureshi : PPP Masterminded attacks near Abbas Town and in Lahore Christian basti

PPP masterminded attacks near Abbas Town and in Lahore Christian basti for this purpose; but they did not condemn the heinous killing of Arshad pappu, who was kidnapped in Defence and brought to Liari and nobody stopped the caravan.
We know that Arshad was no saint but what was done is a message from the killers that Karachi has fallen in their grip.
 Unknown-20
 
Comment:
 
Zardari Pal Tappi freed PPP Killer Arshad Pappu to Replace PPP Killer Uzair Baloch
 
akchishti : It was Tappi who took Arshad Papu out from Jail to replace Uzair Baloch in Lyari -the operation never worked, PPP had to deal with UZ 
 

Karachi court orders confiscation of Uzair Baloch, Baba Ladla assets: Report

Published: October 3, 2012

The verdict was given in a case pertaining to illegal arms supply in Lyari. PHOTO: FILE

KARACHI: A local court on Wednesday ordered the confiscation of properties belonging to PPP Jiyala & Banned People’s Amn Committee head Uzair Jan Baloch and two of his aides, reportsDawnNews.

The verdict was given in a case pertaining to illegal arms supply in Lyari after the investigating officer informed the court that the charge sheet was presented after three suspects arrested in the case gave statements against the banned organisation’s leader and his aides.

The court’s order also included confiscation of properties of two aides of Uzair Baloch, Zafar Baloch and Baba Ladla. Baloch and Ladla were declared fugitives.

In August, Uzair Baloch and 15 others had been declared absconders by the Anti-Terrorism Court III on charges of attempted murder and mischief.

 
 

, , , ,

No Comments

American Press Toe US Government Line to Build-up US Puppet Zardari.

The Inept, Makaar, Conniving, Incompetent & Murtaza Bhutto’s Murderer Asif Zardari 

FROM:LOS ANGELES TIMES

 

Pakistan leader’s legacy: The art of political survival

As President Asif Ali Zardari ends a history-making five-year term, his approval ratings are low, but he has hung on. 

Asif Ali Zardari

The government of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, center, ended its five-year term Saturday, setting the stage for the country’s first transfer of power from one civilian government to another. (Emilio Morenatti / Associated Press /September 6, 2008)

 
By Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times

March 16, 2013, 11:09 p.m.

 

ISLAMABADPakistan — Throughout his presidency, Pakistan’s Asif Ali Zardari has looked over his shoulder. Would the military bounce him from office? Would an aggressive Supreme Court find a legal lever to send him packing? Would infighting and dissent erode his fragile coalition government?

Now, as he and his government make history by becoming the first civilian administration to ever complete its five-year term — despite public approval ratings as low as 14% — Zardari’s legacy is clear. He turned political survival into an art form.

“You give Zardari a roomful of politicians, and he will find you 51%. That’s an art he has perfected that no one really knew he had,” says Cyril Almeida, a Pakistani newspaper columnist. “By and large, he has done his own thing and cut whatever deals he needs. But he hasn’t gone after enemies and opponents, and that has kept the political temperature at a manageable level.”

Known to most Pakistanis as “the accidental president,” Zardari fell into the job after the slaying of his wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, assassinated in 2007 as she was launching her political comeback. Many Pakistanis still call him “Mr. 10%,” a reference to corruption allegations that have followed him since stints in previous decades as a Cabinet minister.

Zardari’s government ended its five-year term Saturday, setting the stage for the first transfer of power from one civilian government to another in Pakistan’s 65-year history. Every other civilian government’s term has been interrupted by military coups or politically motivated ousters.

A caretaker government is slated to assume power as the country embarks on a campaign season that will culminate in parliamentary elections, expected in May. Members of the federal and provincial assemblies will then select a president later in the year. Zardari, 57, remains president and, unless he wins reelection, will step down upon the inauguration of a new president.

Zardari’s prime minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf, will step down as soon as the ruling Pakistan People’s Party and its main opposition, the PML-N, agree on a caretaker replacement. Parliament and the Cabinet dissolved Saturday.

The transfer of power through the ballot rather than military might is seen by most Pakistanis as a crucial step in the country’s democratic evolution.

But as Zardari’s PPP enters what is sure to be a tumultuous campaign, it faces an electorate deeply disappointed with the ruling government’s failure to remedy the country’s biggest ills.

Daily power outages that in the summer can last 12 hours or more shackle the economy and make everyday life miserable. Zardari has never been able to tamp down Islamist terrorism, and a recent wave of sectarian attacks by Sunni Muslim militants against the country’s minority Shiite Muslim community poses a new national security threat with the elections around the corner. The federal government remains heavily indebted to international lenders, and corruption taints every echelon of society.

An annual “Worldwide Threat Assessment” report delivered to the U.S. Congress last week by James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence, criticized Zardari’s government for being unwilling to tackle “problems that continue to constrain economic growth. The government has made no real effort to persuade its disparate coalition members to accept much-needed policy and tax reforms, because members are focused on retaining their seats in upcoming elections.”

The same sense of frustration with Zardari’s government runs through Pakistani society.

“This government has ruined the country in the last five years,” says Azhar Iqbal, 50, owner of a cookware shop in one of Islamabad’s central shopping districts. “It’s bad everywhere. Every night when we go home and turn on the television, we hear about this or that number of people killed.”

Despite popularity ratings as low as 14%, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, Zardari and the ruling PPP government aren’t necessarily doomed in the upcoming elections, and in fact might be able to garner enough backing to engineer another coalition government and retain power.

The PPP and its primary rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif‘s PML-N party, already have entrenched support bases, and cricket legend Imran Khan’s upstart Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party is expected to cull more voters from Sharif’s vote bank than the PPP’s, analysts say. And while dissatisfaction with the government is widespread, historically Pakistanis haven’t expressed their frustration at the ballot box. Turnout in Pakistan’s national elections has always been low, ranging from 36% to 45%.

The ultimate winner may not be the top vote-getter, but the better coalition builder.

“Political polarization in Pakistan is sharp,” says Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based political analyst. “The PPP may lose some seats in Parliament, but they still will have the capacity to form a coalition government. Whereas Sharif isn’t seen as someone who can build a coalition. … So by default, the PPP may be able to pull through because they can produce a better coalition.”

During the last five years, Zardari’s most formidable opposition has not come from Sharif, but from the military and the Supreme Court, both institutions that have always viewed the president as a liability. Both the court and the army have hounded Zardari, at times stoking fear within society that the government would collapse.

But neither institution ever pushed Zardari and his government over the edge. The Supreme Court ousted Ashraf’s predecessor, Yousuf Raza Gilani, on a contempt charge in 2012, but since then has eased up on the government.

“While the army’s high command is angered by the mismanagement of the economy by the Zardari government, there’s also an understanding that they don’t really have solutions themselves,” newspaper columnist Almeida said. “And the Supreme Court can’t oust a political government because its entire public standing is based on the fact that it resisted unconstitutional moves by [former President Pervez Musharraf] in 2007.”

That year, Musharraf, who saw Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry as a threat to his authority, ousted him, a move decried by lawyers and opposition parties as illegal.

“So the routes have been shut,” Almeida continued. “There’s no obvious route to dismantling this government.”

[email protected]

, , , ,

No Comments

The broken bloodline

 

The broken bloodline

Fatima Bhutto is Benazir’s niece. The resemblance is striking: the long nose, the headstrong personality, the burning rage about a father’s violent death. Declan Walsh meets the woman who would have been the heir to Benazir’s throne – if it weren’t for the family feud that came between them

Fatima Bhutto

Fatima Bhutto. Photograph: Declan Walsh
Watching him receive a verbal pistol-whipping from Jeremy Paxman at a London press conference this week, it was hard not to feel sorry for Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the 19-year-old heir to Pakistan’s most perilous throne. Did the Oxford fresher really think he was up to the job of heading the Pakistani opposition, even nominally? At home in Pakistan, critics found other faults. “He’s not a Bhutto, really, he’s a Zardari,” muttered a party loyalist, a few days after she was assassinated. “We need a true Bhutto to do the job.”

Bilawal may be happy to slip back to Oxford, secret service bodyguards in tow, for another three years. But in Karachi there is another young Bhutto who, if dynasty is your game, seems perhaps better qualified to lead the Pakistani opposition.

Fatima Bhutto is clever, sassy and savours the salty taste of Pakistani public life. She has two books under her belt, writes a punchy newspaper column, and, as a close lieutenant to her vote-seeking mother, is a politician in training. There are some obvious parallels between Fatima and Benazir 30 years ago. Both their lives have been shaped by the untimely and violent deaths of their fathers; both are headstrong, with deep reserves of charm and, when called for, a sense of entitlement. Both are western-educated. The physical resemblance can also be striking. One television interview this week showed Fatima in profile before a portrait of a young Benazir – the same long nose, wide forehead and calm bearing were evident.

Fatima is 25 and eligible to run for public office. (Bilawal must wait another six years.) And for what its worth, she even has the endorsement of Jemima Goldsmith. “At least she has some work experience,” wrote Goldsmith, who was once married to cricket star Imran Khan, in last week’s Sunday Telegraph. (Goldsmith’s expertise in Pakistan, which she left several years ago, was less clear.)

But Fatima says she has no political ambition and, at any rate, is unlikely to eclipse her famous cousin anytime soon. The reasons spring from a half-forgotten chapter of the Bhutto history. It is a story written in broken bloodlines that illuminate the Greek tragedy that this extraordinary South Asian dynasty has become.

Last October, two nights before Benazir was due to return from exile in Dubai, I went to see Fatima and her Lebanese stepmother Ghinwa at their home in Clifton, Karachi’s oldest and plushest suburb. They offered a simple dinner – pizza in the box – with apologies: they had just returned from their ancestral home in Larkana, 200 miles to the north, further up the Indus river, where they had been visiting prisoners in the local female jail.

We ate in the upstairs lounge of 70 Clifton, the sprawling house built by Fatima’s great-grandfather, Shah Nawaz, in 1954. It reeked of history. Benazir paced these corridors during her detention under the military dictator Zia-ul- Haq in the 70s and 80s. In the garden in 1986, she married Asif Zardari, a polo-playing society lad. Later Benazir would relinquish the house to her brother Murtaza – Fatima’s father – but was said still to covet her father Zulfikar’s fine library downstairs, rumoured to hold an extensive collection of books about his hero, Napoleon.

That night the city was zinging with excitement. For the first time in years the streets were plastered with Benazir posters, and yahooing men on motorcycles zipped through the traffic, honking their tinny horns. But the gate of 70 Clifton had a lone, defiant poster of Murtaza, who died in a hail of police gunfire in still disputed circumstances in 1996. Since then Fatima and Ghinwa have held Benazir “morally responsible” for his death. The bitterness was palpable and public.

Over dinner, the pair were cheerless at the prospect of her aunt’s imminent return. “If she didn’t sign the death warrant, then who had the power to cover it up? She did,” said Fatima indignantly. In support of her case she cited dead-end investigations, dodgy policemen and the mound of court papers and other testimony about her father’s death that she had collected fastidiously in the office next door.

Ghinwa, with a shock of black curls and a supply of long, thin cigarettes, added: “The more there are delays, the more it incriminates those who encouraged those delays.”

The origins of the feud stretch back to 1979 and the epochal event that traumatised Pakistan’s political psyche and, ultimately, split the Bhutto clan. After the family patriarch Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a charismatic but flawed prime minister, was hanged by Zia, the military dictator who had deposed him two years earlier, his children scattered. Benazir stayed at home in Pakistan, enduring harsh imprisonment, looking after their ailing mother, Nusrat, and tending to the persecuted People’s party that would rise from the ashes after Zia’s death nine years later. But Zulfikar’s sons, Murtaza and Shah Nawaz, took a different path.

Young, brash and angry, they started Al Zulfikar, or the Sword, an armed movement that sought to overthrow Zia. The revolutionaries shot to fame in 1981 with the hijacking of a Pakistan International Airlines jet that was forced to land in Kabul, where the Bhutto brothers lived in exile under the communist government. The precise details of what unfolded are still disputed, and Murtaza’s family claims that he was not involved in the plot (but did act as a negotiator). But a young army officer aboard the plane was executed, some Bhutto supporters were released from jail and flown to Libya, and the brothers became A-list enemies of the powerful military establishment.

Along the way, the Bhutto brothers married two Afghan sisters, the daughters of an Afghan foreign affairs official. Murtaza had a daughter, Fatima, with his wife Fauzia, but they divorced three years later. The brothers flitted to Tripoli then to Europe, sheltering with sympathetic governments. But in 1985 exile took a dark turn when Shah Nawaz, the younger brother, was poisoned during a family holiday in the south of France. The Bhuttos blamed Zia, the CIA, or both.

Murtaza and Fatima found a home in Syria where they met Ghinwa Itoui, a Lebanese woman who had fled the war at home and was giving ballet classes in the basement of a Catholic church. Fatima was among her students. Murtaza and Ghinwa fell in love and married in 1989. At home, Murtaza faced serious allegations, but his daughter idolised him. “He was a wonderful father. We had so much fun,” she said, recalling one day when he whipped her out of school for an impromptu excursion to the snow-capped Syrian mountains.

The split came in 1993 when Murtaza ended his 16-year-exile. Sparks flew with Benazir, then elected prime minister for the second time. Murtaza wanted to assume a senior role in her party, possibly the leadership – a demand in keeping with the patriarchal assumptions of the Sindh province’s landlord classes. Benazir was having none of it. The rows multiplied, the rift grew deeper, and Murtaza formed a splinter party, which had little success.

It came to a tragic climax three years later, in 1996, when Murtaza, who used to travel with an entourage of armed bodyguards, got into a gunfight with some police, who were ostensibly trying to arrest him. His death rocked Pakistan – another Bhutto dead – and Benazir was said to be distraught. “Our paths were different but our blood is the same,” she said. Her government fell six weeks later.

But the grief-stricken Fatima and her mother came to believe that Benazir or her husband, Zardari, had a hand in the killing. Stories circulated that Zardari had had a fight with Murtaza in which his moustache was shaved off – an immense insult. Benazir believed that the shooting had been orchestrated by her enemies. “Kill a Bhutto to get a Bhutto,” she told friends. But as with so many political deaths in Pakistan, the truth has never emerged.

Fatima is at great pains to distance herself from her aunt. She did her masters at London’s School of African and Oriental Studies, not Oxford, she points out, and instead of heading a debating society, she wrote her dissertation on the resistance movement to Zia. She published a book of poetry, Whispers of the Desert, at the precocious age of 15, followed in 2006 with a collection of stories about the 2005 earthquake that killed 73,000 people in Kashmir and North West Frontier Province. “The comparisons are largely cosmetic,” she said. “In terms of political ideology, what we read, how we think, we are very different. I don’t think that I’m anything like her.”

Her weekly column touches on social and political issues. She won plaudits for her reports of the 2006 war in Lebanon – she was in the country when the fighting started – and keeps a poster of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah on the door of her office. She yearns to visit Kabul, her birthplace, but her mother discouraged it on grounds of danger.

Benazir clearly loved her niece – her autobiography Daughter of the East has several warm references – but Fatima believes she tried to split the family apart. Benazir disparaged Ghinwa as a “Lebanese belly dancer”, and six months after Murtaza’s death persuaded Fatima’s biological mother, Fauzia, to return to Karachi to seek parental custody. “It was just vulgar and crude,” recalled Fatima. “I was in biology class in ninth grade. Then the principal came and said, ‘There’s a woman here who claims to be your mother.'” Fatima locked herself in the nurse’s office as the press swarmed outside. A few years later, Fauzia launched an unsuccessful court bid for custody. She later returned to the US. “It sounds like a soap opera but unfortunately it was very real,” said Fatima. “It felt very orchestrated and designed to humiliate.”

But she was also keen to distance herself from her aunt’s shadow. She didn’t like her grievances being aired as a “catfight”, she said. “As someone who cares about this country, I’m upset by what’s happening. The fact that she’s my aunt is just a footnote … In this country, politics has become entertainment. It’s become sleaze, quick and tawdry, because we don’t want to talk about things that really matter.”

What mattered, she said, was her politics. As she spoke, Ghinwa lit her cigarettes with a box of personalised matches. “For the house of 70 Clifton,” read the packet. The box had been printed by a supporter from Ghinwa’s political vehicle, the Pakistan People’s party – Shaheed Bhutto (“Bhutto the martyr”), which she kept alive after her husband’s death. But the flame is barely alive. PPP-SB failed to win even one provincial seat at the last elections. After Benazir’s return, and the suicide bombing that killed 140 people, I met Ghinwa again. The rift was raw as ever.

“I hoped that she wouldn’t die, of course. I think it will be a bigger punishment for her to live. I feel terrible about all those people, and angry for exposing them like that,” she told me.

In life, Benazir was touchy about allegations that she bore any responsibility for Murtaza’s death. Instead, she blamed the powerful intelligence services for engineering the killing to split her family. If she was right, the strategy worked spectacularly well. Last month Fatima sent around a link to a YouTube clip of a television interview. It showed Benazir being aggressively questioned about Murtaza’s death, breaking into tears and storming out of the studio. “Her reaction is amazing,” wrote her estranged niece in an acerbic tone.

Then, two weeks ago, everything changed. In the wake of Benazir’s death I found Ghinwa, Fatima and her 17-year-old brother, Zulfikar Ali junior, at the Bhutto ancestral home in Larkana, a 20-minute drive from Benazir’s grave. The town centre was still smouldering after the violent reaction to the assassination, and a charred vehicle was parked outside the house. Fatima was shrouded in a black veil, her face was drawn, her cheeks were stained with tears. “It’s been a real shock,” she said.

Fatima and her mother had been on the election trail, canvassing door to door, when the news broke. She went home and wrote a bittersweet farewell to Benazir for the News. The prose was staccato, the sentiment raw. “My aunt and I had a complicated relationship. That is the sad truth,” it started. She remembered fondly that they used to read children’s books together, shared a passion for sugared chestnuts and were troubled by the same sort of ear infections. “In death, perhaps there is a moment to call for calm. To say enough … We cannot, and will not, take this madness any more.”

Yesterday Fatima was back in Karachi, still receiving condolences. “My first thought was that it was just too familiar. It felt like we had been through this too many times before,” she said by phone. “When I heard that she had been shot in the neck, I thought of my father. The bullet that killed him was also fired into his neck, though at point blank range. It seems like every 10 years we bury a Bhutto killed violently and way before their time.”

She had not changed her mind about her father’s death, she said. “Her government never adequately explained its role. But now that she’s gone …” She paused. “We’ll remember her differently.”

But the Bhutto legacy is not at rest yet. Mumtaz Bhutto, the self-described head of the Bhutto clan, stirred the pot recently in suggesting that Fatima’s brother, Zulfikar Ali, is the real heir to Benazir’s title. But he is highly unlikely to take on the mantle, and Mumtaz’s comments may be a product of his longstanding rivalry with Bilawal’s father, Zardari. They are also a product of a bygone age – the succession of Bilawal and the bypassing of the bloodline proves that Pakistan opposition politics are about Benazir more than Bhutto.

Soon Fatima and her mother will return to Larkana, to continue the campaign for elections in five weeks’ time. “I don’t believe in birthright politics,” she said. “I don’t think, nor have I ever thought, that my name qualifies me for anything. I am political through my writing. I have no interest in parliamentary politics for now. I’m too young. There’s a lot to learn”.

 

 

 

 

Ref

 

, ,

No Comments