Skip to main content

Benazir’s assassination indicates the state of insecurity in South Asia, wherein top politicians can almost be killed at will!!

What a venue they chose to assassinate Benazir Bhutto. At the same venue, in the year 1951, Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated. Fifty six years later, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on 27 December 2007, indicating the state of security quagmire Pakistan has been in. The state of affairs is so appalling that the assassins could have terminated her life whenever they had wished. The fact is that the perpetrators had plotted to blow Benazir up targeting the day she had returned to Pakistan. They missed! And after that, within themselves, they must have discussed casually – ‘Well, no issues, we missed today, will try again, next month!’ It is unbelievable how easily they almost killed her once (during the first blast) and then actually killed her in a matter of a few more days. These shocking incidents only indicate the state of security quandary that the South Asian countries face, wherein the killing of top political figures is carried out almost at will.

What is most unfortunate is the fact that with Benazir’s life, the assassins also took away whatever little chance the Pakistanis ever had with democracy, the only form of governance that could have possibly stabilised Pakistan. Now, with Benazir removed from the scene, and no able successor to take her role in leading Pakistan People’s Party, and with Nawaz Sharif going undercover and boycotting the elections, it is almost certain that it is Musharraf’s Pakistan Muslim League (Q) that would come back to power. And when that happens, things will remain as bad, if not deteriorate altogether. The situation would worsen not only for Pakistan, but for India too, as the increasing dominance of the radical groups would continue pushing the Sharia rule in the region; and going by precedence, to make that happen, they would go to any extent. In the given scenario, and coupled with American pressures, the Musharraf Administration would not have much option but to go behind the radical groups, taking Pakistan more towards a possible disintegration. And if that happens, there’s just one ant of a reason why things will take a serious turn for India – Pakistan, ahem, has nuclear weapons now (that is, if you hadn’t noticed by now)!

Not just that Benazir’s assassination is a huge loss when it comes to Indo-Pak future relations, but also that this gruesome incident drives home some important lessons for the leaders on either side of the boundary. Around 48 hours after Benazir was assassinated,

Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for terminating her life as they saw her as ‘the most precious American asset’ who tried to defeat the Mujahideens! Not long back, it was Benazir who had asked the then Director General of Military Operations to rehabilitate Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Jalalabad, a city in eastern Afghanistan. On account of the American pressures, Osama was ousted from Khartoum, following which he made his base in Sudan. Though Benazir had taken this step to control Pakistan’s western border and to intervene in Afghanistan’s affairs, she could hardly have known then that the same Al Qaeda would get after her and take away her life. It’s almost history repeating itself again and again. Indira, Rajiv, Benazir, all killed by terrorists who were either created and supported (at one point of time at least) by them or by terrorists whom they spoke against. It is a big lesson for the US too, something that they already learnt after 9/11 – the terror you create today would hit you back someday.

Benazir’s assassination drives home a two-fold lesson, particularly for young dynastic political leaders like Rahul. First, never to support any form of terrorism or anti-social corrupt elements, even if they serve some kind of strategic purpose in the short run, as they would invariably hit back in the future, as the past has shown. And second, if one has to go all out behind such terror groups, then they should not go around chanting that their life is at threat and that they could be killed any day or that they don’t bother much about their lives for they can easily give their lives away for the nation. Practically, these are absolutely silly, immature statements that serve no purpose other than rousing political rhetoric to engage an illiterate audience that may get swayed by such overwhelming emotions.

And that is the reason why top statesmen like Clinton, George Bush, Putin, Blair or even a Chavez or a Castro never make such statements. For they understand that for their respective nations, it is their lives that are more important than their dead bodies! And that is why they get themselves a world class security cover and go about their jobs fanatically. It is time our leaders realised that!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

HATS OFF TO SHAH RUKH KHAN FOR STANDING HIS GROUND! IT’S NOW TIME TO END THIS HOOLIGANISM ONCE AND FOR ALL AND MAKE MUMBAI A UNION TERRITORY!

SRK is great! Not just because he is such a star, but because he genuinely is the most amazing person and has such a logical and sound brain. And now the entire nation idolizes this man all the more because he has become a symbol of sheer courage as well! And I think all it required was someone like him to stand up coolly and say, “This is not right, I’ve done nothing wrong and I won’t apologise.” When he was saying this, one could almost see the schoolboy rebel in him – not ready to cow down to an illogical man trying to act as the school headmaster. I am writing this editorial immediately after coming back from a show on NDTV 24x7, which was on the topic, “Is Sena the real power in Mumbai?” I was one of the speakers. It was sad to see Uddhav Thackeray, who was another speaker in that show, sticking to a stance that cannot be defended by any sense of logic. When questioned on the show by the NDTV anchor on his tendentious comments against SRK, Uddhav’s reply was that one should ask th

It’s important for Anna to become more flexible and respectful towards the democratic process, to give a bigger thrust to his movement

I was too young then to really remember it all; but I have heard from many people that the mass protests generated by the arrest of Anna Hazare are similar to the uprising called Total Revolution led by the late Jaiprakash Narayan in the early 1970s. In fact, it was the Total Revolution and the chaos that followed – and a historic blunder by Indira Gandhi – that led to the imposition of the Emergency in India in 1975. Many people are comparing today’s situation to the Emergency days. The people of India are so fed up and so disgusted with corruption and our rotten and corrupt system that the wave of protests we see is hardly surprising. I have often publicly called India not a democracy but a demonocracy where crooked politicians and their criminal cohorts are openly plundering the nation; well aware that a dysfunctional judicial system will allow them to get away. In almost all cases, they have actually got away and have hence acquired the arrogance and swagger of pirates who know

Don’t see “Slumdog Millionaire”. It sucks!

A phony poseur that has been made only to mock India for the viewing pleasure of the First World!! The emperor’s new clothes! That’s “Slumdog Millionaire” for you… Five minutes into this celebrated patchwork of illogical clichĂ©s and you are struck by the jarring dialogues. The cumbersome delivery in a language which doesn’t come naturally to most of the actors sounds like someone scratching on walls with one’s finger nails; it ruins the possibility of a connection… Had this film been made by an Indian director, it would’ve been trashed as a rotting old hat, which literally stands out only because of its stench, but since the man making it happens to be from the West, we’re all left celebrating the emperor’s new clothes. The film borrows an undoubtedly interesting narrative style – from films like “City of God” – but then uses it to weave in a collection of clichĂ©s from the Third World’s underbelly for the viewing pleasure of a First World audience. The real slumdog in the movie is not