After her death, Ms Bhutto has emerged as an icon of secularism and modernity in the Islamic world, a courageous political leader and a champion democrat, a champion of women’s rights, and a fighter against the Jihadists. Her death has been compared to Gandhi’s and her political struggle to Aung San Suu Kyi’s. She was going to replace the rogue dictatorship of President Musharraf to institute democracy and secularism in Pakistan.

In a thoughtful analysis, however, it turns out that the majority of these epithets bestowed on her career and legacy are not accurate. Her most devastating action, not only for Pakistan but also for the whole world, was her patronization of the Taliban militia in Afghanistan and fueling of separatist Jihad in Kashmir.

It is not right to put all the blame on her for the support that the Taliban and Kashmiri militants received during her tenure as Prime Minister (PM), because Pakistan intelligence services (ISI) and the military are too powerful for the PM to call the shot alone. Yet, she must accept her share of eager complicity.

Let us explore the Jihadi world of Benazir Bhutto. As the Islamist separatist movement was heating up in Kashmir, she walked into the field to fuel the Jihad in Kashmir. In addressing a huge congregation, she said:

“The people of Kashmir do not fear death, because they are Muslim. The Kashmiris have the blood of the Mujahids [Jihadists] and Ghazis [infidel slayers]. The Kashmiris have the blood of Mujahideens, because Kashmiris are the heir of Prophet Muhammad, Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Umar.”

In inciting even the women of Kashmir to Jihad, she said:

“And the brave women of Kashmir ― they know how to fight and also to live. And when they live, they do so with dignity.”

She added: “From every village [of Kashmir] only one voice will emerge, “Freedom.” From every school, only one voice will merge, “Freedom.” Every child will shout: Freedom, freedom, freedom.”

After becoming PM for the second time, she told William Dalrymple in 1994 about her support of the Jihadists of Kashmir: "India tries to gloss over its policy of repression in Kashmir… India does have might, but has been unable to crush the people of Kashmir. We are not prepared to keep silent, and collude with repression."

These rabble-rousing statements speak volume of Benazir Bhutto’s eager support for the Kashmiri separatists, clearly inspired by her Jihadi zeal. The Islamic separatist movement in Kashmir started getting backing from Pakistan since 1990, when well-trained Jihadists started crossing border to join the Kashmiri guerrillas. During her second term (1993-1996), both foreign and local Jihadists started pouring into Kashmir in ever greater number. The result was a large-scale pogrom of native Kashmiri Hindus. No less than 60,000 people have died, many more have been handicapped or mutilated, while nearly half a million Kashmiri Hindus have been evicted from their ancestral homes, who languish in refugee-shelters elsewhere in India.

Benazir Bhutto was, therefore, not a brave warrior against extremism and terrorism as commentators have propagandized over the last few days. Undeniably, she had an unstinted support for the Kashmiri Jihad movement. She had a similar support, on the other side of border, for the Taliban militia, who captured power in Afghanistan during her second term as unimpeded assistance flowed to them from Pakistan. It is impossible to discount the role of ISI and the military in Pakistan’s support for the Kashmir and Afghan Islamist militias during her tenure. But, inspired by her religious zeal, she obviously had whole-hearted support for them.

During Bhutto’s stewardship, the Islamist militia power peaked in both Afghanistan and Kashmir, thanks to the unstinted support from Pakistan. The havoc, wrecked by Islamist terrorists today in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, is the harvest of what was seeded or nurtured and inspired by her. Her death is basically a fruit of the seed she herself had planted. Unfortunately, thousands of otherwise innocent men, women and children have also been victim of it and many more to follow in coming years and decades. I see more reason to mourn for those thousands of the victims, the innocent Hindus of India in particular, of the Jihad, she nurtured and helped flourish.

A Harvard- and Oxford-educated liberated woman, she became first Prime Minister of a powerful Muslim state in 1988 at the young age of 35. But she did absolutely nothing to alleviate the despicable treatment of women in Pakistani society. She helped the Taliban sweep into power, who became the worst oppressor of women in living memory. Nearly an entire generation of Afghan women lost their rights, freedom, and dignity. She never lodged a strong protest against the mistreatment of Afghan women by her Taliban protégés. So much for a champion of women’s right!

Furthermore, her support for the Kashmiri Jihadist was meant for creating another Afghanistan under the Taliban rule. India, since her birth, has established as a sustainable secular democracy with credible records in the rule of law, freedom and liberty, human rights, and the rights of women and minorities, which definitely rate much better than those of Pakistan. Her support for breaking Kashmir away from India to transform it into something like Pakistan or Afghanistan, does not make a her champion of democracy, secularism or women’s rights either. Instead, her encouragement of the Kashmiris to be peaceful part of India probably could.

William Dalrymple is obviously correct in asserting that she “did little for human rights, a calculating politician who was complicit in Pakistan's becoming the region's principal jihadi paymaster while she also ramped up an insurgency in Kashmir that has brought two nuclear powers to the brink of war.”

 1  |  2