For writers who write with a passion, and not because they are paid by certain lobbies to do so, there are at times high emotional costs for the positions they take. For if one writes because of conviction in certain principles then one is so driven that one can only follow the principles and not the individuals; the result being that one ends up being tough and harsh on people, who one otherwise respects, when they deviate from those principles. As a writer who had turned into a furious critic of Benazir Bhutto and the PPP since the emergency due to Benazir’s willingness to deviate from the basic principle of the party, that of non-engagement with the establishment, one has had to pay that price. It was difficult not to paint her black when she chose to return to Pakistan after a deal struck with the military under the US blessing. It was even more so when after her meetings with the US and the UK officials she refused to ask General (r) Musharraf for the reinstatement of the judges removed under the PCO. But, that is not to say that one ever doubted the calibre or the intellect of that dynamic (and of course, a very beautiful) woman, who has had to pay a high price for ideals.
Who can ever forget that sweet sense of hope one had when after Ziaul Haq’s plane crash Benazir Bhutto was sworn in as prime minister. To most of us it seemed that she had so much on her side: the best of political grooming, elite western education, intelligence, the aura, but most importantly the credibility inherited from her father, who had contributed so much to this country and suffered so unfairly. But, even when she was tainted, there was never a moment that one doubted her credentials, her competence, or the fact that within her peers, she was the only Pakistani political figure of real international standing.
What one was trying to criticize were the flaws in her strategy, and not to argue that she had actually sold out either to the US or the Pakistani intelligence: the Bhutto family has sacrificed too many lives for Benazir to have ever done that. What one was trying to point out all along was that the shift in her mindset visible during this year where she believed that change could come through negotiations with the military if she convinced the US and the UK to back her was flawed. They can never be genuine partners and her death is a proof of that. If we just quickly recount the events of this year, isn’t it too much of a chance that Benazir fully paid her part of the deal by curtailing lawyers and civil society dissent against Musharraf when he was the weakest and giving him new lease of life, but when the time of elections came closer and it was time to get her share of the deal struck with General (r) Musharraf under US blessing, she was so easily taken out of the picture. It is only General (r) Musharraf and his western backers who have benefited from this deal and not her. Why she trusted her western backers so much will remain a bit of a mystery.
This in turn is directly linked to the current controversy about who should investigate her assassination. Gordon Brown’s offer to provide services of the Scotland Yard need to be resisted by anyone interested in an independent inquiry. Would the US dare to offer support given that all Pakistanis know and so do the US officials that the US has zero credibility in Pakistan? Then what gives the UK a better status: a country, which has supported the US in each and every controversial policy of the US towards Pakistan in the name of ‘war on terror’ and is forcing this country toward the brink of collapse. How can we even forget the Iraq dossier full of fake information that Blair used to lead the country into the Iraq war?
Any remaining doubt of the UK’s intentions towards Pakistan was removed when Britain refused to support the civil society’s demand to ask for the reinstatement of the judges removed under the emergency. If a US-led investigation today would have no legitimacy in the public eye, same is the case for the UK: they are both biased parties; biased in favour of military rulers in Pakistan, so how can we expect their state machinery to carry out honest probe into the killing of the top democratic leader of the country. We have had enough of the British hypocrisy; enough of their pretence of being sincere and more principled than the US while doing just the same. In fact, an investigation led by Scotland Yard will actually be a big disservice to Pakistan: the outcome of such an investigation will only be that the current regime will get a UK stamp, and greater international legitimacy, to blame Benazir’s assassination on Al Qaeda and Islamist radicals.
Any international investigation into the assassination should be carried out only by an independent UN committee constituting internationally credible figures. Most importantly, Asma Jahangir should be a part of the supervisory committee of such a body. She is undoubtedly the most credible and dynamic defender of democracy that we have in Pakistan, and she should head the UN-led investigation into the assassination. The fact that such an independent committee does not suit the UK and the US is visible from the fact that after Zardari has asked that the investigation be led by a UN committee and not the UK, the US has already come out to say that there is no need for involving the UN. It is critical that those who have been expressing their love for Benazir since her assassination actively lobby for a UN-led investigation. We can’t let the US and the UK take yet another critical decision.