Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto: Was he a narcissist, opportunist or messiah for the people of Pakistan

[The Bald Eagle]

https://imgur.com/BMsE6E1

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto started his career as a foreign minister in Ayub Khan's cabinet.He used to call Ayub as "daddy" but left him too to start a party of his own. He always had been a great vocal for Pakistan at UN forums and his fiery speeches and Charismatic personality made him the PM after the Dhaka Debacle. Though he was also guilty for the downfall of Dhaka but still people adore him for his socialist ideals.

His policy of Nationalization brought great tremors in Pakistan's economy but surely his foreign policy was a great success in which he balanced the relations between Soviet and USA. His biggest achievements were the initiation of Nuclear programme and Shimla Agreement.He would have stayed long in power if Zia ul Haq had not ousted him and hanged him on gallows.
So plz share your thoughts on ZAB's legacy.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was probably the most influential leader of Pakistan after Jinnah. He was a brave and courageous leader.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was probably the most influential leader of Pakistan after Jinnah. He was a brave and courageous leader.

He also organized the OIC conference in Lahore.He would have been the forerunner of a mighty new Muslim bloc but unfortunately could never realize it in his short eventful tenure

 

[ElRaja]

Nationalization of industries takes time.

The concept was a great one. The land reforms and the socialist policies were good but the issue was we did not have an educated class at the time to take it forward. But the foundations that were laid down were good.

When pakistan had a femine few years later, the economy got saved cause of this nationalization.

Sorry, but 20 families controlling the economy do not create any value for the country or economy. I could care less about the number of billionaires, all i would care about is whether they pay taxes or not.

Socialism did wonders for Canada, and it was the right line that was chosen by pakistan during bhuttos govt.

Bhutto himself was to be affected by the land reforms, thus saying that it was for his own political control makes no sense.

Today, pakistans issue is the economy that has been controlled by provate entities. Pmln has privatizatized everything. They are even thinking about privitizing the govt schools aswell.

Atleast when nationalism exists the govt is forced to generate revenue to run things.
As for bangladesh, the final nail in the coffin was when yahyah did not bother to send aid when they had the cyclone destroying the land.

Bhutto or some other politician would had never accepted defeat to Mujeeb and RIGHTLY SO.
Why? Because you need to look at the 7 points on which basis mujeeb contested the election.

There was no way you could give mujeeb a seperate currency or army, his demands were ridiculous and was political suicide for anyone to accept it

so you care about the nominal tax that billionaires pay, not the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands each may employ through their value creation? of course not, because you'd rather have poor people foot the bill of inefficient loss making operations owned and run by the state, cos the monied class wasn't paying taxes, well hows you tax intake now?

no modern developed economy has been built on socialism, socialism is a means of wealth redistribution but you need to build the wealth in the first place and history shows nothing builds wealth like private enterprise.

the Canadian economy is private sector dominant (more so than Pakistan), no Canadian government is going around trying to nationalise their largest companies. Canada has always been significantly more economically developed than Pakistan, and has completely different resource and demographic dynamics, so even if your point had any credence, which it doesnt, it's a pointless comparison anyway.

you cannot reprivatise nationalised entities and claim you are back to pre nationalisation after destroying the class who knew how to run these enterprises, privatisation is not nothing more than reward for political support in Pakistan, and an extension of the political parties who bestow these rewards.

"Atleast when nationalism exists the govt is forced to generate revenue to run things." if you truly believe this, then i it explains everything you've said, lol. it would be one thing to make your claims without the benefit of hindsight, but to double down that it was right despite seeing what a complete failure and mess it was shows you only care about ideological posturing, not practical outcomes.

As for Bangladesh, how did West Pakistan negotiate Mujeeb's inital six points? 4 of them were very valid and should have been enacted from the inception of the country, and as for the rest, there is always wiggle room in politics if you can make it look like both parties have got some wins from the negotiations.

but West Pakistan and West Pakistani politicians did not want to give up on centralised power, or their hegemony over bengali exploitation, and Bhutto was central to legitimsing and spreading this political hatred.

 

[Major]

The greatest leader Pakistan ever had, his influence over the awaam was crazy. It was that influence that bothered the army and opposition.

His socialism policies were exactly what we needed to run the country. The Sharifs went crazy and did not want socialism as it affected their businesses and lands.

Bhutto also laid down the ground word for our relationship with China and tha Nuclear Bomb.

 

[Major]

Bhutto's hanging is a lesson for all of us.

Before the lead up to Imran's arrest, alot of people went on about how we live in the world of social media and the army wont be able to do anything against Imran. Same army ended up putting him in jail and controlled the coverage about his party and him and no one could do anything about it.

I said this before, that if the Pakistan army can hang Bhutto on a bogus case, arresting and doing something similar with Imran is not difficult, no matter what century or how much social media exists. Bhutto's influence was crazy, people loved his speeches. And if the army can destroy that, other politicians that exist today are nothing.

Forget Imran, the army can erect Khadim Rizvi and even eliminate them aswell when required.

Sadly, the Army never used its power for good.

The Rawalpindi conspiracy was the only time when the liberal side of the army planned a coup, wonder what influence the leftist army would have had

 

[ElRaja]

political grandstander, wannabe despot, snake oil peddler. i've made my views clear on him numerous times before, his nationalisations destroyed any hope of Pakistan developing a modern economy, his sycophantic nature meant he elevated one of the worst leaders in zia to a position of power, and he was a pivotal player in the break up of the country.

represented the worst kind of political duplicity, whether it was ethnonationlism, socialism, Islam, anti-westernism, he had no core political belief, all he cared for was what he could use for his own personal gains.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

political grandstander, wannabe despot, snake oil peddler. i've made my views clear on him numerous times before, his nationalisations destroyed any hope of Pakistan developing a modern economy, his sycophantic nature meant he elevated one of the worst leaders in zia to a position of power, and he was a pivotal player in the break up of the country.

represented the worst kind of political duplicity, whether it was ethnonationlism, socialism, Islam, anti-westernism, he had no core political belief, all he cared for was what he could use for his own personal gains.

So what I get from your response is that he was a narcissist not a good leader at all. But he had his achievements too bro OIC conference, Good Foreign Policy, Nuclear programme, Evacuation of soldiers from BD. Don't you think these initiatives were good?

Bro I have seen you have painted a very bleak Pic of him.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

He started the campaign "Tum Udher... Hum Idher" when Mujeeb took the majority which ultimately led to the separation of the country just because of his ego.

So, for me he is also as bad as a dictator.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

He started the campaign "Tum Udher... Hum Idher" when Mujeeb took the majority which ultimately led to the separation of the country just because of his ego.

So, for me he is also as bad as a dictator.

Yep his lust for power and unwillingness to sit in opposition caused the break away of the Pakistan's eastern half.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I said this before, that if the Pakistan army can hang Bhutto on a bogus case, arresting and doing something similar with Imran is not difficult, no matter what century or how much social media exists. Bhutto's influence was crazy, people loved his speeches. And if the army can destroy that, other politicians that exist today are nothing.

No bro I don't think so. It's not 1970s anymore. Any such stupid adventure can plunge Pakistan into Civil War. Yes agree with your analogy of Imran Khan with ZAB. Both are charismatic leaders that demand affection.

 

[ElRaja]

So what I get from your response is that he was a narcissist not a good leader at all. But he had his achievements too bro OIC conference, Good Foreign Policy, Nuclear programme, Evacuation of soldiers from BD. Don't you think these initiatives were good?

Bro I have seen you have painted a very bleak Pic of him.

i judge on results, not on intentions, cos intentions can be faked, and the only thing i can credit him for is the nuclear program, because that had a concrete result at the end of it.

as far as the prisoners of wars go, i have family members who served in that war and were captive, they are the most anti-bhutto people i know, most Pakistani soldiers dont talk about that episode for a reason, because deep down they figured out it was wrong, but had to follow orders. to give him credit for evacuation of soldiers is like crediting someone for calling a fire engine after they've bombed your house.

its not just him, i have a very bleak view of every major pakistani leader, which is why i keep harping on abt pak not having proper institutions, because giving ppl unaccountable power never works.

 

[IMMY69]

When I read his name I can actually taste a little puke in my mouth.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

i judge on results, not on intentions, cos intentions can be faked, and the only thing i can credit him for is the nuclear program, because that had a concrete result at the end of it.

as far as the prisoners of wars go, i have family members who served in that war and were captive, they are the most anti-bhutto people i know, most Pakistani soldiers dont talk about that episode for a reason, because deep down they figured out it was wrong, but had to follow orders. to give him credit for evacuation of soldiers is like crediting someone for calling a fire engine after they've bombed your house.

its not just him, i have a very bleak view of every major pakistani leader, which is why i keep harping on abt pak not having proper institutions, because giving ppl unaccountable power never works.

You forgot to mention the constitution of 1973 that was also a tangible achievement.

 

[Major]

No bro I don't think so. It's not 1970s anymore. Any such stupid adventure can plunge Pakistan into Civil War. Yes agree with your analogy of Imran Khan with ZAB. Both are charismatic leaders that demand affection.

Nope.

Imran being put in jail resulted in nothing from the fans.

Also both are not charasmatic, Bhutto was a bigger leader with much massive influence that did not need populism to come into power

 

[Major]

He started the campaign "Tum Udher... Hum Idher" when Mujeeb took the majority which ultimately led to the separation of the country just because of his ego.

So, for me he is also as bad as a dictator.

Again no.

Alot of misinformation and propoganda have changed the narratives.

Hum idher tum ider was basically sais in his speech, what he meant was you campaign in east pakistan and we will campaign in west pakistan.

This was before election, and mujeeb took majority after the election.

Also the seperation had nothing to do with Bhutto. Its like saying Anwaar Kakar placed Imran in jail..

He was the first ever elected leader of pakistan

 

[Major]

Yep his lust for power and unwillingness to sit in opposition caused the break away of the Pakistan's eastern half.

When you campaign for a seperate army and a seperate currency, it would had been political suicide to sit with mujeeb.

Mujeeb's demands were treacherous. You cannot have a seperate army and currency. There was dialogue and Mujeeb was never ready to do a compromise because if he did he knew the bengalis would not forgive him after campaigning on those points.

The breakaway of pakistan happened due to Yahyah and Ayub. It was not Bhutto who caused it, and this is a narrative that alot of people have started to believe now adays without understanding the context.


No matter how badly we have treated Balochistan, but if tomr Balochistan demands a seperate army and currency, no leader from Punjab, KpK or Sindh will accept it.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Nope.

Imran being put in jail resulted in nothing from the fans.

Also both are not charasmatic, Bhutto was a bigger leader with much massive influence that did not need populism to come into power

OK bro then what was 9th may? Was not it a great backlash against IK arrest? Establishment still calls the shot in Pak but can't do with IK what they did with ZAB

 

[The Bald Eagle]

When you campaign for a seperate army and a seperate currency, it would had been political suicide to sit with mujeeb.

Mujeeb's demands were treacherous. You cannot have a seperate army and currency. There was dialogue and Mujeeb was never ready to do a compromise because if he did he knew the bengalis would not forgive him after campaigning on those points.

The breakaway of pakistan happened due to Yahyah and Ayub. It was not Bhutto who caused it, and this is a narrative that alot of people have started to believe now adays without understanding the context.


No matter how badly we have treated Balochistan, but if tomr Balochistan demands a seperate army and currency, no leader from Punjab, KpK or Sindh will accept it.

Yep agree on that. Yahya failed to reconcile ZAB and Mujeeb. But ZAB still was responsible in the sense that he stopped his MNAs from taking part in NA session called in Dhaka. Although you are right the establishment leadership are more to blame for this folly rather than ZAB.

 

[Major]

OK bro then what was 9th may? Was not it a great backlash against IK arrest? Establishment still calls the shot in Pak but can't do with IK what they did with ZAB

9th may was a conspiracy instigated by the establishment itself to make a case against pti.

Thing is, would pti fans be able to do 9th may without establishment backing? No chance. Imran got arrested where were the people?

Thing is, we heard similar stuff that establishment wont arrest IK as the people will stand up for him and there is social media. establishment keeps doing it. Now you are saying they cant kill Imran.

If they wanted to they can and would get away with it.

They ended imrans political career with the party being finished not allowed in election and with imran crossing into an age where he wont be able to contest next election. All this is happening infront of us but no one can dare do anything.

Establishment wont kill him because there is no point in making a 80 year a martyr. With bhutto it was all about stopping his influence and power

 

[KB]

One thing has not changed in the many years that I have visited this forum: Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto continues to evoke strong and passionate reactions from supporters and opponents alike.

I have contributed many posts over many years on Bhutto. I am not sure the whole is better than the sum of the parts, but nevertheless here I try to bring them together in some sort of synthesis. I know it makes for very long post but there is even more that could be said of Bhutto.

‘Conflicts in me’: A Man of Contradictions

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was full of contradictions. He was aware of it. In 1972 in an interview he acknowledged “There are many conflicts in me - I’m aware of that. I try to reconcile them, overcome them, but I don’t succeed and I remain this range mixture of Asia and Europe. I have a layman’s education and a Muslim upbringing. My mind is Western and my soul Eastern.”

‘I am your voice’: The People

Bhutto pronounced that he was different from the standard ‘drawing room’ politicians that were in abundance in Pakistan. Bhutto in contrast evoked the power of the people, rhetorically claiming to stand for the underprivileged. As he said in a speech in Abbottabad in April 1970: “I am your voice, the people’s voice.”

Yet, Bhutto, who it must be remembered was a key figure in the authoritarian and undemocratic regime of Ayub Khan, more often spoke of “‘The People’ in the abstract’” as Phillip Jones noted. For Jones, “there is no evidence, outside his political life, that he ever involved himself in the activities or organisations dedicated to ameliorating the sufferings of actual individuals.”

Even so, there is no denying that he and the PPP inspired a critical mass to vote with their conscience in 1970, pressing politics much deeper into Pakistani society. Political consciousness was deepened and the marginalised, such as peasants and labourers, were able to assert their rights. As Jones states: “No longer could the big landlord, the clan leader, or the urban trade union chief count on the automatic support of his vote bank. Now he had to listen to voters’ demands and produce real results.”

‘Zulfiqar-i-Haidari’: Symbolic Appeal

There was a poster during the 1970 elections, which is quite revealing in pointing to the sources of Bhutto's appeal in those elections, especially in the Punjab. On the poster, Bhutto appears in a Western suit wearing the ‘Jinnah cap’. He is on a bounding horse, PPP flag in his hand, sword and shield by his side. The sword of the fourth caliph was called Zulfiqar; it is a symbol rich in meaning for Muslims, embodying not just a military spirit but also justice. ‘Zulfiqar-i-Haidari’ appears at the top of the poster and just below it is a picture of a sword that spans the width of the poster, with a Qur’anic reference contained in it - ‘with the help of Allah, victory is near’. Elsewhere on the poster, there is a picture of the Kaaba. There is the Muslim attestation of faith upon which Bhutto pledges that he will sacrifice his life for the people. There is also a prayer to the Sufi saint, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, that may Bhutto live for a thousand years. At the bottom of the poster a popular couplet from Iqbal is reproduced - ‘China and Arabia are ours, Hindustan is ours; we are Muslims, the whole world is ours’.

There is so much here in one poster: religious symbolism, folk tradition, Pakistani nationalism, an appeal to social justice. Bhutto was projected in the poster not only as a warrior for Islam but a folk hero - manly, strong and brave; fighter against cruelty and oppression, fighter for egalitarianism and justice. Such an image had a particular resonance within Punjabi folk tradition - think for example of Maula Jatt and the films it inspired during the 1980s.

The poster provides clues as to why Bhutto and his vision of Pakistan resonated with many Punjabis leading to a deeply felt religious and cultural bond in the elections of 1970.

‘He would literally go mad’: The Break-up of Pakistan

A fierce nationalist, his role in the break-up of Pakistan is controversial. I don’t think he is blameless. Ambitious and thirsting for power, Sisson and Rose in their work on the events of 1971, report that a senior minister had observed to Yahya Khan that if Bhutto “did not assume power within a year he would literally go mad.” Others have suggested that Bhutto was motivated by a fear, shared by senior leadership of the PPP, that the party would become divided if it did not achieve a share of power at the centre. The PPP was a broad based movement, encompassing a range of interests, rather than a class based party. This gave it certain fragility and limited Bhutto’s room for manoeuvre. He also was wary of losing support in West Pakistan if he was seen to cave in too readily to Mujib’s demands.

Yet, for all this, others have pointed out that playing a game of divide and rule the army were reluctant to transfer power in any way which undermined their dominance. The leading Pakistani historian, Ayesha Jalal, wrote that “Even if they wanted to, Mujib and Bhutto could not palpably arrive at any formula to share power without the implicit approval of the praetorian guard and mandarins.” Ultimately, it was Yahya that took the fateful decision to order a military crackdown on 25th of March.

Whichever way we choose to point the finger at the main players in 1971, we should also not lose sight of the medium term and events of the 1960s. Military rule under Ayub had exacerbated tensions between the two wings.

‘Citadel of Islam in Asia’: Foreign Affairs

During his rule he was more adept with foreign affairs than the handling of domestic issues. The 1972 Simla Summit was his high point, where from position of weakness he managed to negotiate what was described in Pakistan as a triumph. It was a great contrast with the Tashkent summit that stained Ayub Khan’s reputation. He also chose shrewdly the right time to recognise Bangladesh, without facing calls of a “sell-out”, which was reciprocated by Mujib in the dropping of criminal cases against 195 prisoners of war. There were also closer ties with West Asia which were crucial for the Pakistani economy. Prior to Bangladesh achieving independence, 50 per cent of West Pakistan's exports were to East Pakistan. Now Pakistan had to seek new markets and restructure its trade and one market that Pakistan sought to develop was West Asia. By 1981, 30 per cent of Pakistan's exports and imports were with the Organisation of Islamic Conference states. There was also a security dimension. Closer diplomatic ties with the Arab world facilitated inflow of Libyan and Saudi money which was necessary for the nuclear programme.

The loss of the eastern wing damaged national pride. Turning to the Arab world represented, at least in part, an effort to restore national self-esteem. The world spotlight turned to Pakistan when the Islamic summit in 1974 was held in Lahore. A euphoric crowd in Lahore turned up to hear Colonel Qaddafi claim that Pakistan was the “citadel of Islam in Asia.”

‘Iron fist’: An Authoritarian

Unfortunately, he was not so adroit on the domestic front. He was a half-hearted democrat at best. Perhaps, most damagingly, he perpetuated the tradition in Pakistani political culture of authoritarianism and the viewing of opposition as illegitimate. As Salman Taseer put it: ‘He ruled his own party with an iron fist and proved pathologically incapable of sharing power in any form.”

He could be ruthless with opposition. Measures such as the High Treason Act, Prevention of Anti-National Activities Ordinance and Press and Publications Ordinance, were used to tame civil society and strangle dissent. In the party, he attempted to surround himself with sycophants and dispensed with those that questioned him. (One example being the arrest and jailing of Mukhtar Rana and Mairaj Mohammad Khan without formal charges being brought against them.) He further politicized the Civil Service, by introducing lateral entry administered by the politicised Establishment Division. He set up a Federal Security Force (FSF) as almost his personal army. The FSF was widely viewed as becoming involved in a murky world of murder, intimidation and false imprisonments. His treatment of opposition dissent was arguably the most damaging aspect of his regime.

Bhutto also enhanced the role of Intelligence agencies. Those agencies were used to undermine opposition politicians. “If there is a ‘deep state’ in Pakistan,” writes Jones, “we may fairly mark its origins to the country’s first democratically elected leader.”

‘This is all Politics’: Domestic Affairs

The main achievement on the domestic front was to get agreement on the constitution in 1973 with no one in the National Assembly voting against it. A more damaging legacy was caving in to the Islamists and declaring the Ahmadis as non-Muslim.

He is reported to have said to Abdus Salam, “This is all politics…give me time and I will change it.”

‘I am the PPP’: Decline of the PPP

The PPP could also not transform itself from a popular movement to a political party. The PPP’s patronage politics and factional rivalries ensured that it remained institutionally weak. The fact that the PPP came to rely more on opportunistic landlords (who in the Punjab were welcomed into the party after the PPP succeeded in the elections in 1970 in West Pakistan), summed up the extent to which the party was weak as an organisation.

Bhutto was a major part of the problem. After all, it was Bhutto himself who once said: “I am the PPP.”

“Once in power,” says Phillip Jones, “the chairman largely ignored the question of party organisation.” He writes damagingly of Bhutto’s legacy here, that “Indeed, the assumption of power marked the decline of the PPP as an organisation. Bhutto took an authoritarian and at times angry approach to both party and governmental matters. One by one, most of the old guard departed: driven out, humiliated, and some, like co-chairman Rahim, beaten up.”

When it came to the departure of the old guard, “In each case,” Rafi Raza wrote, ‘ZAB was largely responsible. The camaraderie, a main feature of the early PPP years, ceased. Mir Afzal Khan and I both warned of the danger of this state of affairs, pointing out that he was isolating himself, replacing the affection his colleagues had felt for him with awe, if not fear.”

‘Roti, kapra aur makan’: The Economy

The 1970s was an unkind decade in economic terms. There were massive floods in 1973 and 1976-77. In 1973, there was a four fold increase in petroleum prices leading to rising import costs. Following the OPEC price rise, there was also a world recession depressing demand for Pakistani exports. And in 1974-75, there was a failure of cotton crops following pest attacks.

Though hit by bad luck, many have also judged the economic policies in the decade as being a disaster for Pakistan. Nationalisation resulted not in a takeover of shareholdings but of management. This included private colleges and schools but the consensus was that state managers did a worse job of running these and thereby there was actually a worsening educational standards. Nationalisation not only increased the power of the Civil Servant but also became a new source for dishing out political patronage. Nationalisation also led to flight of capital to overseas and a fall in private investment not matched by an increase in public investment. Land reforms went further than Ayub Khan’s attempts on paper, but in practice less land was resumed than 1959 and amounted to only 0.001 per cent of the total farm area.

‘I, Me and Myself’: Hubris and Nemesis

In Owen Bennett-Jones work on the Bhuttos, he notes that upon taking power, officials loyal to ZAB asked him: “which ‘holy cows’ he wanted protected from journalistic criticism. Zulfiqar replied, “I am the only holy cow.”

His sense of his own intelligence and superiority led to a lot of self-confidence and indeed hubris. Owen Bennet-Jones writes, that “Most Pakistani leaders have succumbed to the flattery of sycophants. Zulfikar was perhaps particularly vulnerable because, especially towards the end, he really was surrounded by people with less talent than him. But his ego knew few bounds. In his speeches he spoke a lot about himself, repeatedly claiming he was willing to sacrifice himself for the nation and often describing himself in the third person.”

“Bhutto was like the unholy trinity” so said Wali Khan, “he stood for I, Me and Myself.”

Or to take the quote from Bennett-Jones’s book from a British Foreign Office official who summed up Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as: “A man of great gifts of the head and great defects of the heart.”

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Conflicts in me’: A Man of Contradictions

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was full of contradictions. He was aware of it. In 1972 in an interview he acknowledged “There are many conflicts in me - I’m aware of that. I try to reconcile them, overcome them, but I don’t succeed and I remain this range mixture of Asia and Europe. I have a layman’s education and a Muslim upbringing. My mind is Western and my soul Eastern.”

This liberal side of him were a concern for right wing people and parties

‘I am your voice’: The People

Bhutto pronounced that he was different from the standard ‘drawing room’ politicians that were in abundance in Pakistan. Bhutto in contrast evoked the power of the people, rhetorically claiming to stand for the underprivileged. As he said in a speech in Abbottabad in April 1970: “I am your voice, the people’s voice.”

He was too quick in observing pulse of people.He himself throw invectives and
abused Bengalis and then himself acknowledged Bangladesh without much resistance from people.This shows his foxy cleverness as a politician.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Establishment wont kill him because there is no point in making a 80 year a martyr. With bhutto it was all about stopping his influence and power

Yep that's one point too. But if you remember they did this stupidity, they did lodge an assassination plot against him last year.

The thing is after observing anarchy post late Benazir Bhutto's assasination, establishment now knows one thing that any such adventure can plunge the whole country into chaos let alone their own institution. Also the people in such eventuality God Forbid, will make the life of establishment a living hell.

 

[Major]

@KB

The FSF was needed. Pakistani pm and president are given protection by the 111 brigade of the army that is more loyal to the army than the civilian govt and during a coup are the first one to attack.

FSF was loyal to the civilian govt. Interestingly, till date its the only institution to be abolished by the army....

FSF was a threat for the army as they would lose control on the govt. Now adays FsF is mentioned with a false propoganda

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@KB

The FSF was needed. Pakistani pm and president are given protection by the 111 brigade of the army that is more loyal to the army than the civilian govt and during a coup are the first one to attack.

FSF was loyal to the civilian govt. Interestingly, till date its the only institution to be abolished by the army....

FSF was a threat for the army as they would lose control on the govt. Now adays FsF is mentioned with a false propoganda

Establishment always had a hand on elected PM necks just because 111 brigade is under their influence. Bhutto successfully extinguish the role of establishment initially but unexpectedly the blow came from his own hand picked general. What a pity for him!

 

[GLORY OF '92]

He started the campaign "Tum Udher... Hum Idher" when Mujeeb took the majority which ultimately led to the separation of the country just because of his ego.

So, for me he is also as bad as a dictator.

Bangladesh was never gonna last as a part of Pakistan. It was inevitable. We just don't get along as people.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Bangladesh was never gonna last as a part of Pakistan. It was inevitable. We just don't get along as people.

No bro people of both nations have great respect for each other. The characters like Mujeeb, Yahya, Pak establishment and to some extent Bhutto just caused this Mishap. Otherwise I don't thing we would not get along well. Because in the end we were brethren in the same religion

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Again no.

Alot of misinformation and propoganda have changed the narratives.

Hum idher tum ider was basically sais in his speech, what he meant was you campaign in east pakistan and we will campaign in west pakistan.

This was before election, and mujeeb took majority after the election.

Also the seperation had nothing to do with Bhutto. Its like saying Anwaar Kakar placed Imran in jail..

He was the first ever elected leader of pakistan

Some additional facts on that.

Bhutto had a number of meetings with Mujeeb in Dhaka in January 1971 regarding a “coalition government” .What he meant from ‘Idher hum udher tum’ was that let Awami league rule east Pakistan and PPP west Pakistan. Because Awami league did not even won a single seat in West Pakistan so how come they could be allowed to rule a region where they won nothing!

Would Bengalis had let PPP rule over them in such scenario? Never so same goes for ppl in west Pakistan. The infamous Bhutto abusing of Bengalis were just to pacify ppl in West Pakistan otherwise he never would have accepted Bangladesh’s independence

 

[Major]

Some additional facts on that.

Bhutto had a number of meetings with Mujeeb in Dhaka in January 1971 regarding a “coalition government” .What he meant from ‘Idher hum udher tum’ was that let Awami league rule east Pakistan and PPP west Pakistan. Because Awami league did not even won a single seat in West Pakistan so how come they could be allowed to rule a region where they won nothing!

Would Bengalis had let PPP rule over them in such scenario? Never so same goes for ppl in west Pakistan. The infamous Bhutto abusing of Bengalis were just to pacify ppl in West Pakistan otherwise he never would have accepted Bangladesh’s independence

Whether Bhutto came in power or Mujeeb, a new constitution was going to be made either way, and under uder tum ider hum, you would had a constitution with todays 18th amendment.

Again, these were minor issues.

Issue was asking for seperate army and currency, and mujeeb wouldnt do compromise on that.

Plus the mukti bahani indicated that india and east pakistan were on the works even before the election

 

[Major]

Bangladesh was never gonna last as a part of Pakistan. It was inevitable. We just don't get along as people.

We treated them badly, plus there were USA policies that we had to follow against them.
East pakistana and west pakistan were a threat for india as a war would had opened two fronts with india having to divide their resources.

Thing is, Abraham Lincoln faced a similar situation when USA was to break up with confederate states, but he saved it

 

[The Bald Eagle]

One thing has not changed in the many years that I have visited this forum: Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto continues to evoke strong and passionate reactions from supporters and opponents alike.

I have contributed many posts over many years on Bhutto. I am not sure the whole is better than the sum of the parts, but nevertheless here I try to bring them together in some sort of synthesis. I know it makes for very long post but there is even more that could be said of Bhutto.

‘Conflicts in me’: A Man of Contradictions

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was full of contradictions. He was aware of it. In 1972 in an interview he acknowledged “There are many conflicts in me - I’m aware of that. I try to reconcile them, overcome them, but I don’t succeed and I remain this range mixture of Asia and Europe. I have a layman’s education and a Muslim upbringing. My mind is Western and my soul Eastern.”

‘I am your voice’: The People

Bhutto pronounced that he was different from the standard ‘drawing room’ politicians that were in abundance in Pakistan. Bhutto in contrast evoked the power of the people, rhetorically claiming to stand for the underprivileged. As he said in a speech in Abbottabad in April 1970: “I am your voice, the people’s voice.”

Yet, Bhutto, who it must be remembered was a key figure in the authoritarian and undemocratic regime of Ayub Khan, more often spoke of “‘The People’ in the abstract’” as Phillip Jones noted. For Jones, “there is no evidence, outside his political life, that he ever involved himself in the activities or organisations dedicated to ameliorating the sufferings of actual individuals.”

Even so, there is no denying that he and the PPP inspired a critical mass to vote with their conscience in 1970, pressing politics much deeper into Pakistani society. Political consciousness was deepened and the marginalised, such as peasants and labourers, were able to assert their rights. As Jones states: “No longer could the big landlord, the clan leader, or the urban trade union chief count on the automatic support of his vote bank. Now he had to listen to voters’ demands and produce real results.”

‘Zulfiqar-i-Haidari’: Symbolic Appeal

There was a poster during the 1970 elections, which is quite revealing in pointing to the sources of Bhutto's appeal in those elections, especially in the Punjab. On the poster, Bhutto appears in a Western suit wearing the ‘Jinnah cap’. He is on a bounding horse, PPP flag in his hand, sword and shield by his side. The sword of the fourth caliph was called Zulfiqar; it is a symbol rich in meaning for Muslims, embodying not just a military spirit but also justice. ‘Zulfiqar-i-Haidari’ appears at the top of the poster and just below it is a picture of a sword that spans the width of the poster, with a Qur’anic reference contained in it - ‘with the help of Allah, victory is near’. Elsewhere on the poster, there is a picture of the Kaaba. There is the Muslim attestation of faith upon which Bhutto pledges that he will sacrifice his life for the people. There is also a prayer to the Sufi saint, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, that may Bhutto live for a thousand years. At the bottom of the poster a popular couplet from Iqbal is reproduced - ‘China and Arabia are ours, Hindustan is ours; we are Muslims, the whole world is ours’.

There is so much here in one poster: religious symbolism, folk tradition, Pakistani nationalism, an appeal to social justice. Bhutto was projected in the poster not only as a warrior for Islam but a folk hero - manly, strong and brave; fighter against cruelty and oppression, fighter for egalitarianism and justice. Such an image had a particular resonance within Punjabi folk tradition - think for example of Maula Jatt and the films it inspired during the 1980s.

The poster provides clues as to why Bhutto and his vision of Pakistan resonated with many Punjabis leading to a deeply felt religious and cultural bond in the elections of 1970.

‘He would literally go mad’: The Break-up of Pakistan

A fierce nationalist, his role in the break-up of Pakistan is controversial. I don’t think he is blameless. Ambitious and thirsting for power, Sisson and Rose in their work on the events of 1971, report that a senior minister had observed to Yahya Khan that if Bhutto “did not assume power within a year he would literally go mad.” Others have suggested that Bhutto was motivated by a fear, shared by senior leadership of the PPP, that the party would become divided if it did not achieve a share of power at the centre. The PPP was a broad based movement, encompassing a range of interests, rather than a class based party. This gave it certain fragility and limited Bhutto’s room for manoeuvre. He also was wary of losing support in West Pakistan if he was seen to cave in too readily to Mujib’s demands.

Yet, for all this, others have pointed out that playing a game of divide and rule the army were reluctant to transfer power in any way which undermined their dominance. The leading Pakistani historian, Ayesha Jalal, wrote that “Even if they wanted to, Mujib and Bhutto could not palpably arrive at any formula to share power without the implicit approval of the praetorian guard and mandarins.” Ultimately, it was Yahya that took the fateful decision to order a military crackdown on 25th of March.

Whichever way we choose to point the finger at the main players in 1971, we should also not lose sight of the medium term and events of the 1960s. Military rule under Ayub had exacerbated tensions between the two wings.

‘Citadel of Islam in Asia’: Foreign Affairs

During his rule he was more adept with foreign affairs than the handling of domestic issues. The 1972 Simla Summit was his high point, where from position of weakness he managed to negotiate what was described in Pakistan as a triumph. It was a great contrast with the Tashkent summit that stained Ayub Khan’s reputation. He also chose shrewdly the right time to recognise Bangladesh, without facing calls of a “sell-out”, which was reciprocated by Mujib in the dropping of criminal cases against 195 prisoners of war. There were also closer ties with West Asia which were crucial for the Pakistani economy. Prior to Bangladesh achieving independence, 50 per cent of West Pakistan's exports were to East Pakistan. Now Pakistan had to seek new markets and restructure its trade and one market that Pakistan sought to develop was West Asia. By 1981, 30 per cent of Pakistan's exports and imports were with the Organisation of Islamic Conference states. There was also a security dimension. Closer diplomatic ties with the Arab world facilitated inflow of Libyan and Saudi money which was necessary for the nuclear programme.

The loss of the eastern wing damaged national pride. Turning to the Arab world represented, at least in part, an effort to restore national self-esteem. The world spotlight turned to Pakistan when the Islamic summit in 1974 was held in Lahore. A euphoric crowd in Lahore turned up to hear Colonel Qaddafi claim that Pakistan was the “citadel of Islam in Asia.”

‘Iron fist’: An Authoritarian

Unfortunately, he was not so adroit on the domestic front. He was a half-hearted democrat at best. Perhaps, most damagingly, he perpetuated the tradition in Pakistani political culture of authoritarianism and the viewing of opposition as illegitimate. As Salman Taseer put it: ‘He ruled his own party with an iron fist and proved pathologically incapable of sharing power in any form.”

He could be ruthless with opposition. Measures such as the High Treason Act, Prevention of Anti-National Activities Ordinance and Press and Publications Ordinance, were used to tame civil society and strangle dissent. In the party, he attempted to surround himself with sycophants and dispensed with those that questioned him. (One example being the arrest and jailing of Mukhtar Rana and Mairaj Mohammad Khan without formal charges being brought against them.) He further politicized the Civil Service, by introducing lateral entry administered by the politicised Establishment Division. He set up a Federal Security Force (FSF) as almost his personal army. The FSF was widely viewed as becoming involved in a murky world of murder, intimidation and false imprisonments. His treatment of opposition dissent was arguably the most damaging aspect of his regime.

Bhutto also enhanced the role of Intelligence agencies. Those agencies were used to undermine opposition politicians. “If there is a ‘deep state’ in Pakistan,” writes Jones, “we may fairly mark its origins to the country’s first democratically elected leader.”

‘This is all Politics’: Domestic Affairs

The main achievement on the domestic front was to get agreement on the constitution in 1973 with no one in the National Assembly voting against it. A more damaging legacy was caving in to the Islamists and declaring the Ahmadis as non-Muslim.

He is reported to have said to Abdus Salam, “This is all politics…give me time and I will change it.”

‘I am the PPP’: Decline of the PPP

The PPP could also not transform itself from a popular movement to a political party. The PPP’s patronage politics and factional rivalries ensured that it remained institutionally weak. The fact that the PPP came to rely more on opportunistic landlords (who in the Punjab were welcomed into the party after the PPP succeeded in the elections in 1970 in West Pakistan), summed up the extent to which the party was weak as an organisation.

Bhutto was a major part of the problem. After all, it was Bhutto himself who once said: “I am the PPP.”

“Once in power,” says Phillip Jones, “the chairman largely ignored the question of party organisation.” He writes damagingly of Bhutto’s legacy here, that “Indeed, the assumption of power marked the decline of the PPP as an organisation. Bhutto took an authoritarian and at times angry approach to both party and governmental matters. One by one, most of the old guard departed: driven out, humiliated, and some, like co-chairman Rahim, beaten up.”

When it came to the departure of the old guard, “In each case,” Rafi Raza wrote, ‘ZAB was largely responsible. The camaraderie, a main feature of the early PPP years, ceased. Mir Afzal Khan and I both warned of the danger of this state of affairs, pointing out that he was isolating himself, replacing the affection his colleagues had felt for him with awe, if not fear.”

‘Roti, kapra aur makan’: The Economy

The 1970s was an unkind decade in economic terms. There were massive floods in 1973 and 1976-77. In 1973, there was a four fold increase in petroleum prices leading to rising import costs. Following the OPEC price rise, there was also a world recession depressing demand for Pakistani exports. And in 1974-75, there was a failure of cotton crops following pest attacks.

Though hit by bad luck, many have also judged the economic policies in the decade as being a disaster for Pakistan. Nationalisation resulted not in a takeover of shareholdings but of management. This included private colleges and schools but the consensus was that state managers did a worse job of running these and thereby there was actually a worsening educational standards. Nationalisation not only increased the power of the Civil Servant but also became a new source for dishing out political patronage. Nationalisation also led to flight of capital to overseas and a fall in private investment not matched by an increase in public investment. Land reforms went further than Ayub Khan’s attempts on paper, but in practice less land was resumed than 1959 and amounted to only 0.001 per cent of the total farm area.

‘I, Me and Myself’: Hubris and Nemesis

In Owen Bennett-Jones work on the Bhuttos, he notes that upon taking power, officials loyal to ZAB asked him: “which ‘holy cows’ he wanted protected from journalistic criticism. Zulfiqar replied, “I am the only holy cow.”

His sense of his own intelligence and superiority led to a lot of self-confidence and indeed hubris. Owen Bennet-Jones writes, that “Most Pakistani leaders have succumbed to the flattery of sycophants. Zulfikar was perhaps particularly vulnerable because, especially towards the end, he really was surrounded by people with less talent than him. But his ego knew few bounds. In his speeches he spoke a lot about himself, repeatedly claiming he was willing to sacrifice himself for the nation and often describing himself in the third person.”

“Bhutto was like the unholy trinity” so said Wali Khan, “he stood for I, Me and Myself.”

Or to take the quote from Bennett-Jones’s book from a British Foreign Office official who summed up Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as: “A man of great gifts of the head and great defects of the heart.”

You have shown the positive side of Bhutto although it's also true that he had dictatorial tendencies and even in his party he did not like democracy. His own awful choice in the end to make a apparently submissive and sycophants general his army chief just eventually cost him his life.

 

[CerebralPatriot]

He was a more politically astute version of Imran Khan. A populist who was never really committed to any political ideology and would flip flop from far left to far right in order to appease as much of the Pakistani population

 

[Major]

You have shown the positive side of Bhutto although it's also true that he had dictatorial tendencies and even in his party he did not like democracy. His own awful choice in the end to make a apparently submissive and sycophants general his army chief just eventually cost him his life.

you need to stop making up stuff.

Your heavily biased OP also showed that the only purpose for making this thread is to bash Bhutto and nothing else. Atleast pretend to be neutral if you want to start a discussion

 

[The Bald Eagle]

you need to stop making up stuff.

Your heavily biased OP also showed that the only purpose for making this thread is to bash Bhutto and nothing else. Atleast pretend to be neutral if you want to start a discussion

Lol... No bro, I showed the both sides of him in OP and personally overall I also hold a positive view regarding Bhutto despite his political follies.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Fatima Bhutto, the granddaughter of former prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, took to Instagram to announce the joyous news of the birth of her baby boy with her husband Graham and named him after her father as a ode.

“Graham and I are so happy to share the news of the birth of our baby boy,” wrote the delighted new mother on her Instagram handle as she shared her joy with her fans, asking them to keep her and her family in their prayers.

“We wanted to give our son a name that would bestow him with courage and kindness as he makes his way through the world," she said in the post. "I wanted a name that would act as an inspiration to him in his life but also one that would cloak him in love and strength, a name that he could wear with the knowledge that it was given to him from deep within his mother’s heart and soul to protect him throughout his life, to give him in equal measure both grace and fearlessness, a sense of his homeland and of joy. Every time I thought of what name might do that, I always came back to my beloved father’s name. Please keep us in your prayers.”

The birth of the couple’s new baby comes after Fatima and Graham tied the knot in an intimate nikkah ceremony in Karachi in April 2023.

Fatima Bhutto welcomes son, names him after father Murtaza | The Express Tribune

Author and her husband Graham announce the birth of a new baby boy

tribune.com.pk