Book is a biography of Zulfiqar Bhutto, the charismatic leader of Pakistan's largest socialist party (Pakistan People's Party) who became the strongest civilian PM of the country, only to be hanged for this transgression by a military dictator. The biography, written by his childhood Parsi Indian friend, is very nicely contained, starting with a young Zulfi in Bombay who goes to US and England for higher studies before returning to Pakistan to lead his family estate. It's interesting that in the feudal system, the estate and family are pretty much run on a patriarchal basis, thus providing basis of a political career. Bhutto was elected as the family head, inheriting on the best hunting resorts in the country. This hunting resort was instrumental in building relationships with Pakistan's Governor General Iskander Mirza which landed him ministerial roles when he was 30 only. Bhutto's ideal had always been the founding father of Pakistan MA Jinnah, who himself was not a politician, rather political consultant par excellence, someone who never stood in any constituency. Jinnah's strategy was to pick on faults of the nationalist Congress Party and exploit these in front of a sympathetic British ears. According to the author, Bhutto used the same template when dealing with the East Pakistan situation but managed completely different results. Guess the difference was people power, Jinnah had people on his side in 1947 while Bhutto did not enjoy any support among the Bengalis.
The author also gives credit to the secular nature of Indian Constitution. 'If the constitution fails to deliver, at least it won't be the fault of its creators rather than placing the fault on its enforcers.' It's a pretty powerful point which I agree with.
Apparently the Author also credits himself with suggesting the name of 'Islamabad' during a chance meeting with Ayub Khan, the first military dictator of the country. Guess we have to give him credit otherwise until then the most favourite name (chosen by sycophants) was Ayubabad. Imagine living in Ayubabad after Ayub's end, we would probably be faced with a unique situation of changing the name of our capitol City every time a new dictator came into power. Zia-abad, Musharaffabad, actually the last one does have a rhyme to it.
Its fascinating also to read Bhutto taking on the might of Ayub Khan after 1965 war. This was at a time when he was just starting with his his new political party against the night of a Field Marshal. After subduing one field marshal he successfully took on another military dictator in Yehya Khan. No wonder Bhutto felt confident in taking on Zia ul-Haque as he must have felt very confident in his huge party set against a general which he had appointed himself.
The book was written well before Bhutto was hanged by yet another Pakistani dictator General Zia. It was probably for the best that the author did not write the book after Bhutto's death otherwise he would have skipped all the fine details of the East Pakistan war and Simla Agreement which was a miracle of diplomatic achievement for Pakistan. I have little doubt that Bhutto was the single most able leader to have emerged from Pakistan and should have been allowed to live, whatever his faults were. A lot more inefficient and corrupt leaders before and after him have died in their beds so why not him?
But I guess as Bhutto himself used to say that 'consistency is the hallmark of mediocracy', he was unable to finally deal with the most mediocre of them all, a one General Zia ul Haq. Maybe sustained mediocracy can result in profound betrayal?
Nevertheless his death was a profound tragedy for the people of Pakistan.
The author also gives credit to the secular nature of Indian Constitution. 'If the constitution fails to deliver, at least it won't be the fault of its creators rather than placing the fault on its enforcers.' It's a pretty powerful point which I agree with.
Apparently the Author also credits himself with suggesting the name of 'Islamabad' during a chance meeting with Ayub Khan, the first military dictator of the country. Guess we have to give him credit otherwise until then the most favourite name (chosen by sycophants) was Ayubabad. Imagine living in Ayubabad after Ayub's end, we would probably be faced with a unique situation of changing the name of our capitol City every time a new dictator came into power. Zia-abad, Musharaffabad, actually the last one does have a rhyme to it.
Its fascinating also to read Bhutto taking on the might of Ayub Khan after 1965 war. This was at a time when he was just starting with his his new political party against the night of a Field Marshal. After subduing one field marshal he successfully took on another military dictator in Yehya Khan. No wonder Bhutto felt confident in taking on Zia ul-Haque as he must have felt very confident in his huge party set against a general which he had appointed himself.
The book was written well before Bhutto was hanged by yet another Pakistani dictator General Zia. It was probably for the best that the author did not write the book after Bhutto's death otherwise he would have skipped all the fine details of the East Pakistan war and Simla Agreement which was a miracle of diplomatic achievement for Pakistan. I have little doubt that Bhutto was the single most able leader to have emerged from Pakistan and should have been allowed to live, whatever his faults were. A lot more inefficient and corrupt leaders before and after him have died in their beds so why not him?
But I guess as Bhutto himself used to say that 'consistency is the hallmark of mediocracy', he was unable to finally deal with the most mediocre of them all, a one General Zia ul Haq. Maybe sustained mediocracy can result in profound betrayal?
Nevertheless his death was a profound tragedy for the people of Pakistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment