An example of this analytical clarity appeared in the social media yesterday when a noted writer and commentator of Pakistan, Mr Raza Rumi, unabashedly laid the blame for the 70’s debacle right at the ZA Bhutto’s doorsteps.
Source/Credit: Ahmadiyya Times
By Imran Jattala | January 27, 2013
This article was written in reaction to a string of Twitter post by Raza Rumi, a Pakistani columnist, journalist, and analyst.
After Asif Ali Zardari finished his presidential tenure in Pakistan last year, there has been a general shift in one specific area of liberal positions – that which pertains to the legacy of the late prime minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who descended onto the Pakistani political scene with fervor in the late 1960s, and his actions thereafter have left a lasting negative impact on religio-political and socio-economic culture in the country.
ZA Bhutto, who was later deposed by General Ziaul Haq and hanged for the crime of ordering the murder of a political rival, has generally escaped scrutiny for his worst blunder - caving to the religious clerics’ influence and commingling of religion and politics in the Pakistani constitution - upon which General Zia was able to successfully build the now infamous radicalization and Islamization of Pakistan.
After General Zia died in a plane crash in 1988, and a bastardized version of democracy reappeared, for wounded liberals the dead dictator served well as a punching bag for all things gone wrong with their culture resulting in a not-so-liberal mindset in Pakistan.
With only two political clans in the country and a small collection of regional mafia-style influences, a system of corruption by consensus emerged quickly and came to be seen as a glorified beast of its own nature – a sort of Islamized democracy. The fake and corrupt charade did not last long after resources were quickly plundered by musical-chair governments. The so-called civilian governance was again deposed by the armed forces in 1999 and a degree of normality was restored for the day-to-day life of the general public of Pakistan.
When the civilian rule emerged again in 2007 after the murder of the Pakistani politician and ZA Bhutto's daughter, Benazir Bhutto, much enhanced colours of corrupt liberalism were further manifest. Benazir Bhutto‘s well known husband, the infamous Mr. 10 percent, Asif Ali Zardari, somehow ended up as the sole beneficiary after the tragic end of his wife. For probably the first time in the history of any democracy, a political party was transferred as a part of the family inheritance to the spouse and an underage child. And, no one from any liberal corners seriously complained. The entire drama was played out in public and it was quietly accepted with majority consensus by the ‘liberals,’ setting a fine example of the Pakistani democracy, first established by ZA Bhutto himself in the early 1970s.
Now, with Zardari no longer at the helm, there are subtle attitude and perception changes underway about ZA Bhutto.
For the hardcore Bhuttoists, who probably saw Zardari as the last bastion of the ‘liberal’ title, they felt orphaned last year and felt a need for the first time to redeem ZA Bhutto legacy by showing him as a victim of the evil circumstance of the 1970s.
For the soft liberals, who until a few month ago probably just felt obligated to hold on to the hard positions on ZA Bhutto’s legacy, politics and principles -- and wouldn't even admit any history existed before the Zia’s 80s -- are now able to see past Zia’s doings and truly examine the failings of ZA Bhutto.
An example of this analytical clarity appeared in the social media yesterday. The responses were remarkable when a noted writer and commentator in Pakistan, Mr Raza Rumi, unabashedly laid the blame for the 70’s debacle right at the ZA Bhutto’s doorsteps.
Now, Mr. Rumi is neither the only intellectual nor the first commentator to have said it this straightforward. And, to my knowledge, nor has Mr. Rumi ever claimed a monopoly over such an analysis. However, there is one specific nuance that particularly caught my attention, which I have been trying to impress upon liberals but not many have wanted to acknowledge. It is this realization and statement by Mr. Rumi that the late Mr Bhutto squandered away the one and the only chance there ever was to eradicate mullahism in Pakistan.
It is true that when ZA Bhutto had arrived on the political scene in the late 1960s, he had excited the Pakistani public unlike ever before. But it is of equal importance to note that the public had no idea what were they excited about. People were still in their political infancy and the public fixation with Mr Bhutto was more from the novelty of the situation and his mesmerizing personality than their political awareness, and thus Bhutto had commanded their attention. If he was any genuine leader, he would have set the course right for the country during public’s politically formative years. But, apparently, he only wanted to be the leader of his personal destiny, and unfortunately he slipped and took a fall -- slid straight to the gallows.
For some diehard Bhuttoist, on the other hand, it is quite a difficult proposition to even come close to acknowledging that Bhutto was anything less than a god-incarnate. Mr Rumi, who during the past few years has came across more as a vocal Zardari apologist, does not appear to be a diehard Bhuttoist and his boldness in independent thinking seems to have seen a significant uptick in recent months.
The following is from Raza Rumi’s timeline on Twitter. I have cleaned up only a few textual oddities that were caused by the 140-character limitation.
In #Pakistan we have come to a point where religious extremism cannot be fought with secularism - no takers here. Moderate Islam the only way.
Liberal/secular notions have lost their validity and legitimacy. Bhutto Saheb by caving in to Mullahs set the trend. The only chance lost.
After Bhutto Saheb, there has been a downward slide. Zia changed the nature of state and undertook social engineering. Another #Pakistan was born.
In this #Pakistan, liberals, moderates, seculars cannot even talk about discriminatory laws such as blasphemy. They will be killed. Simple.
State’s declaration of kufr fatwa against one sect in 1974 has unleashed forces that profited from jihadism in the region. Takfiris rule.
And we must not forget it was not the state but ALL politicians ALL religious sects who declared one sect as non-Muslim thru secular means.
1974 Parliament had the representation of all political parties and it was a near consensus decision by pious (oops) legislators #goodtaliban
We are complaining about politicians. Supreme Court of Pakistan used branding of Coke as an argument to uphold 1974 constitutional amendment.
Another ‘Zionist conspiracy,’ Coca Cola and its branding right was used by the court to declare on the brand of Islam. True story. LOL.
From Supreme Court judgment: "It is thus clear that intentionally using trade names, trade marks, property marks or descriptions of others to make believe others that they belong to the user thereof amounts to an offense and not only the perpetrator can be imprisoned and fined but damages can be recovered and injunction to restrain him issued. This is true of goods of even very small value. For example, the Coca Cola Company will not permit anyone to sell, even a few ounces of his own product… marked Coca Cola. Further, it is a criminal offence . . . . principles involved are: do not deceive and do not violate the property rights of others . . .” #Ahmadis
-- The article has been updated to correct typos and add clarity.
This content-post is archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news Islam Ahmadiyya. The views expressed by the author and source of this news archive do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Ahmadiyya Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.