Jan 05 , 2016
News
Roots of Bhutto’s charisma
By Wajid Shamsul HasanHistorian Professor Ian Talbot observed in his Zulfikar Ali Memorial lecture last year, that Bhutto “is occupying a public space as a charismatic leader arising from coalescing social, political, cultural and economic factors. To put it simply, Bhutto’s charisma was rooted in his embodiment of popular aspirations for social justice”.
Indeed, martyred Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was one of the greatest leaders of our times. His was an enigmatic personality. Born in feudal setting like Chinese premiere Chou En-lai, he moulded himself to be leader of the downtrodden and crestfallen. He cared for them and rushed against time for the alleviation of their sufferings. He unshackled them, gave them voice to speak and stand up for their rights.
Recently, I was asked what I thought was Bhutto’s most outstanding achievement. I could have said his dare, his commitment and his defiance at the cost of his life to make Pakistan a nuclear power. Or it could be Simla Agreement in 1972 that has given sub-continent 43 years of peace to date. It was his masterly stroke of statesmanship and diplomatic skills that despite being the leader of a vanquished nation he negotiated with victorious Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi – an honourable peace agreement without compromising Pakistan’s position of respect – or the Islamic Summit of Lahore in 1974 like of which Islamic world has not seen again.
Surely each one of these was his great achievement. However, as a student of history I believe his greatest contribution to Pakistan was the settlement of the divisive issue of the quantum of provincial autonomy. This is relevant in the context of on going tug-of-war between centres of power in Pakistan. Smaller provinces are not at ease over what they call disrespect of the provincial autonomy by the federal government as explicitly laid down in the 18th amendment.
In Sindh, it is considered as subservience of the civil authority to the Praetorian diktat. One has even heard it being described as invasion of Sindh by the federal government, especially following Rangers arrest of former federal PPP minister Dr Asim Hussain on alleged charge of corruption. His continuously extending detention since last August definitely smells rat. Independent constitutional experts, however, have a different view of the so-called encroachment on autonomy by the federal government. For them, it is perhaps a calculated attempt by the establishment to undo the 18th amendment, as it stands contrary to central authority being the sole arbiter of power.
This apprehension is amply manifested in the recent comments of profound concern by veteran parliamentarian and the Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani. He has referred to moves that are being made to undermine the settled issue of the quantum of provincial autonomy enshrined in 18th amendment.
This brings me to the most outstanding achievement of ZAB and his role as the saviour of Pakistan after 1971 break up. Notwithstanding the ignominious role of General Yahya and his junta in not handing over power to the elected representatives of the people as the immediate cause, fear of the possibility of history being repeated makes it imperative to discuss here those irreversible factors that would have led to the break up of Pakistan in any case. And after East Pakistan, other provinces too could have followed suit.
Being a keen student of history, ZAB had realised much too early the main cause that would force East Pakistan go independent. He had studied the break up of India in two independent states not as a consequence of religious divide, but entirely due to economic disparities and conflict of interests between Muslims and Hindus pertaining to employment in services, equal opportunities in business and equitable share in power and resources. And why would East Pakistan that had spearheaded Pakistan movement seek independence?
Reasons were imbedded in its economic exploitation by the centre, its step-motherly treatment in power and resource sharing despite it being the majority province. A similar situation existed in the three smaller provinces of West Pakistan that had been merged into One Unit to reduce them to the status of colonial fiefs of Lahore. One Unit was a well-thought out contraption by the West Pakistani power troika to bring it at par with the Eastern Wing, as the later had been generous to accept the principle of parity for keeping the country together by sacrificing its numerical majority.
From day one, creation of One Unit ignited wide discontent among the people of the smaller provinces. They felt it was a conspiracy to make them colonial fiefs of Punjab. As a result fissiparous forces became stronger and their resentment more vocal and volatile.
Growing discontent against Lahore’s domination/exploitation was openly expressed in demands of Sindhudesh, Pakhtoonistan and independent Baluchistan—much of the same as manifested in East Pakistan’s Independence movement. As such, on great public demand General Yahya dissolved One Unit.
After the fall of Dhaka and military’s total incapacitation by its defeat made the prospects of creation of three more independent states imminent, especially when the Soviet leadership had made it clear that it stood for the right of self-determination of the smaller nationalities. India would have got what it wanted without going to war.
ZAB read clearly the writing on the wall and got down to save Pakistan from yet another break up. He intensely lobbied with the elected representative of the remaining provinces to remain inseparable component of a federal Pakistan in which they were to have more powers and greater autonomy than enjoyed by the states in the United States of America as promised by the Quaid.
Being patriots, leaders of the smaller provinces were only seeking justice for their people, not independence. They readily agreed to be framers of the 1973 Constitution incorporating the inalienable concept of autonomy. 1973 Constitution being the product of the collective wisdom of the representative leadership of the four provinces has proved to be a stronger bond to sustain residual Pakistan then religion that failed to keep the two wings together.
General Zia’s martial law, his distortion of the constitution, arbitrary amendments to make him all powerful—did disgorge the constitution beyond its original shape, yet neither he nor General Musharraf—had the dare to abrogate it. Martyred Benazir Bhutto much before she decided to return to Pakistan had made it clear to her party leaders and others who were with her in the long struggle for the restoration of democracy—that Pakistan could only be saved by maximum autonomy to the provinces and collective wisdom of national leadership as the country had been inflicted upon tonnes of unmanageable problems by successive dictators.
No doubt, like her martyred father, she is no more with us, her successor—the PPPP and Asif Ali Zardari as President—fulfilled her promise through 18th amendment. Since it has made the provinces really autonomous, it has become a bone of contention for the other two centres of power—the military and the federal government.
Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani’s warning that it would be disastrous if 18th amendment is fouled with by powers that be—is both timely and in order. As such the best and lasting tribute to ZAB would be to sustain autonomy as enshrined in 18th amendment. This is all the more necessary for securing Pakistan against the scourge of Balkanisation threatening the region.
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk