OpEdNews Op Eds

Benazir Bhutto: In Life and Death, a Blessing to the Jihadists

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

I was shocked and saddened as the story of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination suddenly popped up while browsing news at the dead of night on 27th December 2007. She was probably the only one able to put the house in order in Pakistan. Now that she is gone, it can well be the end of salvaging Pakistan from the hands of the Islamists. However, I held hope that this was probably the wake-up call, which Pakistanis may heed and rise up against the death-cult of the Jihadists.

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 KashmirIndia 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.”

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Muhammad Hussain is a researcher and freelance writer.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Murder of Frenchmen in Holy City: Continued Legacy of 14 Centuries of Holy Terror

Would Women Prevent Bangladesh's Descent to Islamism?

Death for Refusing Burka and the Deceptive Muslim Denials

The Future of Secularism in Turkey

Osama's Tax Incentives to Americans --- Not Telling the Whole Truth

Why Muslims have more rights in Australia?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

For Mr. Alamgir Hussain's sake and to his expe... by syed mahdi on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2008 at 3:12:23 AM
The CIA and/or Pakistani intelligence agency are p... by Ty on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 6:32:45 PM