Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s contribution to Pakistan runs the entire gamut from formulating the 1973 constitution to formulating the 1973 constitution. Throw in the ‘Islamic bomb’ into the mix and that’s basically game, set and match on anything ‘positive’ that the man might have achieved – the emphasis being on ‘achieved’. And of course to conjure the Islamic bomb, Pakistanis were supposed to eat grass; Bhutto’s nationalisation of industries was probably to facilitate the inclusion of grass in the diet plan of his countrymen.

Even so, Bhutto’s fan club doesn’t really venerate the man as ‘lawmaker’ extraordinaire – or ‘bombmaker’ extraordinaire, for that matter – the man’s supposed to be the father of democracy, secularism, liberty, fraternity, equality and all other terms borrowed from the French Revolution. He’s supposed to be Muhammad Ali Jinnah 2.0, with socialism – popular ingredient of the time – added in for a more contemporary flavour. At a time when Islamic fundamentalists were ubiquitous, Bhutto’s was supposed to be the sole voice clamouring for freedom, or so our liberal brigade – the diehard Bhutto jiyalas – would have us believe.
[quote]He’s supposed to be Muhammad Ali Jinnah 2.0, with socialism[/quote]
Bhutto can indeed be dubbed the quasi-political reincarnation of Jinnah, but that would be for all the wrong reasons. The most glaring of those would of course be: barefaced contradictions.
As hard as it is let’s set aside the fact that a feudal lord was leading the chants of socialism and that the father of democracy never accepted the Awami League’s mandate and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman’s right to lead Pakistan. Let’s also ignore the fact that the proponent of freedom gave the green signal to the 1973 operation in Balochistan and the fact that Pakistan’s first democratically elected leader only managed to bag that distinction because one half of the country was chopped off owing to an assortment of events in which Bhutto played his due part.
Let’s instead solely focus on the Bhutto being touted as the flag-bearer of secularism and the thesis of which Zia-ul-Haq became the anti-thesis, ostensibly leading to every single problem that Pakistan is currently facing, or so – again – our liberals would have us believe.

Bhutto apologists peddle every one of his striking list of hypocritical ‘follies’ as being the need of the hour; the only possible solution or the product of political ‘pressure’ that the man succumbed to with escalating frequency. This leeway is reserved for only two leaders in Pakistan’s history, Jinnah and Bhutto. Everyone else is answerable to our liberals, sometimes simply owing to the fact that they propagated an ideology that our liberals do not conform to.
[quote]Just because Bhutto signed the declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims reluctantly it should not purge him from allegations of bigotry[/quote]
The Bhutto and Jinnah apologists are no different to the Taliban or Islamism apologists – they pick their favourite cherries. That Bhutto – or Jinnah – took leaves out of the aforementioned ideology to propagate themselves is paid no heed, since all one needs to do to become the proponent of secularism in Pakistan is not be a practicing Muslim, and everything else becomes justifiable thenceforth.
It was ‘secular’ Bhutto whose constitution made Pakistan an Islamic Republic – an A-grade oxymoron. It was ‘secular’ Bhutto who shut down bars and banned alcohol – which apparently is compatible with our liberals’ brand of Islam. It was ‘secular’ Bhutto who vied to personify Iqbal’s pan-Islamic ‘Mard-e-Momin’, by uniting the Islamic world and formulating the Islamic bomb to counter the threat of the imaginary Jewish, Christian and Hindu bombs. And of course it was ‘secular’ Bhutto under whose leadership Ahmadis were excommunicated in 1974, politicising the process of takfir and in turn creating a beast of bigotry that has its claws around the Shia community as things stand.
The justification provided for all of the above manifestations of ‘secularism’ is solely: reluctance. Just because Bhutto reluctantly signed the paper declaring Ahmadis to be non-Muslims it should suffice in purging the man from allegations of bigotry, but Zia’s Ordinance XX that debarred Ahmadis from using any Islamic titles is a brazen depiction of bigotry, since it was in synchrony with his own ideology.

So basically Pakistani liberals criticise a religious fanatic for acting like a religious fanatic but defend a liberal for acting like a religious fanatic. In most other countries, those that delve into history vying to adjudicate the performances of historical figures judge their actions in accordance with the ideals they stood for, or claimed to stand for. If Bhutto is judged as a secular, liberal, democrat he won’t get half the score that he would get if he’s judged as a pan-Islamic authoritarian. And that ladies and gentlemen just burst the ironicometre.
There’s no point criticising Zia, for all of his Islamist actions fall in line with his ideology. His literalist interpretation of Islam falls in line with the interpretation of every single leader venerated in Islamic history and the interpretation of the scholars that formulated the ideological foundation on which the Islamic superstructure stands. Bhutto’s “Islamic socialism” – another A-grade oxymoron – was neither here nor there, just like the man himself.
If we’re extolling Bhutto solely because his extraordinary eloquence and oratory skills struck a chord with liberal hearts, let’s also excuse Taliban sympathisers for being moved by the articulacy of the new TTP chief Fazalullah. It’s just a different ideology that he propagates. But unlike Bhutto, Fazalullah – like Zia – will stick to his ideals. Whether they are bigoted to the core, is another debate altogether.
Bravo! When will we learn to call a spade a spade?
I hold no brief for Bhutto but this article is fundamentally flawed and exhibits a lopsided reading of history.
1. No one has argued that Bhutto was a paragon of secularism. Everyone criticizes Bhutto for starting the Islamization, albeit as an eye wash.
2. Bhutto was wrong in making Islam the state religion and introducing the 2nd Amendment. He was also wrong in nationalizing the economy and banning personal liberties. This is a fact. Not even the most die hard jiyala denies it.
3. Bhutto’s virtues are that he was able to mobilize the masses and create a party out of scratch which became the Pakistan People’s Party. That this party holds its own is a testament to Bhutto’s achievement.
4. What Bhutto endured from 1977-1979 was extremely courageous and pro-people. Denying that is as wrong as denying that he made these horrible mistakes.
Since the writer decided to spice up the issue with “Jinnah apologists”… that must be addressed as well.
1. Jinnah had attempted – as Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai have convincingly shown – to use “Plan-B Nationalism” as a bargaining counter. You may disagree with this idea but given that there is no plausible explanation for Jinnah’s sudden volte face on his life long commitment to Hindu Muslim Unity – other than one day Jinnah woke up and decided no Muslims must be a separate nation- one may say that this is as good an explanation as any.
2. There was no inconsistency in what Jinnah had argued for and what his vision for Pakistan was. His argument in United India was that a permanent cultural majority ought not to dominate a permanent cultural minority and that a country as diverse as India needed safeguards. It therefore followed that the new country that had come into existence – for which Jinnah was credited or blamed depending on which view you take- would be mindful of its minorities. This is what Jinnah said repeatedly. Pakistan had been formed, but Pakistan was not home to Muslim majority alone. Hence the need for an inclusive democratic set up.
3. Did Jinnah refer to Islam in a few speeches, few and far between? Yes. Every single one of those speeches, however, exhorts that Islam believes in equality and brotherhood of man and that minorities are to be equal citizens in the new state. No matter how you look at it, Jinnah for all his life stood for a responsible democratic state which did not distinguish between citizens on the basis of their caste, gender or creed. How then is this inconsistent.
4. Ruttie Jinnah did convert to Ithna Ashari Khoja Shia Islam on paper. This was a requirement for inter-communal marriage (the other choice being both parties giving up faith altogether). Jinnah did object to his daughter being married to parsi/Christian for the same reason – the law required that his daughter convert to either to her husband’s faith or become a non-believer. However simulatenously Jinnah continued way in the 1940s to argue for a law to allow civil marriages between two Indians of different faiths … and this law was passed way too late.
Those who argue that Jinnah wanted a secular state are merely saying that Jinnah was arguing for a state that was impartial to the faith of an individual citizen. Nothing more.
Whatever the inherent contradictions – Jinnah’s Pakistan and Bhutto’s PPP were in the balance positive progressive things… that both these ideas failed to deliver is another story… but stating this does not mean one is an apologist for either.
excellent analysis of article
Perfect refutations! The article is disappointing; it reeks of spite! There are some who consider Bhutto acquitted from all wrongs, I dare not deny the truth of their existence, but (without aiming to demean their humble origin) they are from that ignorant faction of people who tend to deify any benevolent political figure. To say the same of enlightened left-ists is arrant nonsense.
PS: It would be interesting to know
1. If the writer has a Pakistani passport.
2. If he does, does he have “Islam” as his religion on his passport.
3. If the answer is in the affirmative to 1 and 2, was the writer succumbing to the “need of the hour” when only traveling abroad to Mecca was at stake …
And that ladies and gentlemen just burst the ironicometre.
Well, the “hindu bomb” as you call it wasnt imaginary at all. India’s 1974 nuclear test (hilariously called ‘Smiling Buddha’) forced Pakistan to make their own.
An excellent piece. Kudos to the writer.
The writer has not actually witnessed when Mr Bhutto took over. It is incorrect that he refused to accept the majority of Sheikh Mujib. The only thing that he stressed was due share in constitution making. Sheikh with kamaluddin, khwandkar Mushtaq and Tajuddin was he’ll bent to give AL constitution based on six points.
The Islamic provisions in the 1973 constitution were due to. Mr Bhutto’s obsession to have consensus and nothing else.
His nationalization policy was wrong but he was the product of the time when socialism was extremely popular in the third world politics.
He was totally helpless when the Islamist started cutting the throats of other Pakistanis in the name of religion.
The Bhutto bashing that started even before Zia is because he was a nationalist through and through; the same goes for Mr Jinnah.
Writer is suggested to read a book authored by Oriana Fallacie ‘ An Interview with History’. Read specially the comments of Henery Kissinger about Mr Bhutto.
It’s high time that Mr Bhutto be given his due status which he rightly deserves though some Pakistanis hate him, he lives in History and in the hearts and minds of millions of his fellow country men.
>>but given that there is no plausible explanation for Jinnah’s sudden volte face on his life long commitment to Hindu Muslim Unity<<
That's a bad joke.
Jinnah had no commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity.
What specific thing did he do in his whole career to promote Hindu-Muslim unity?
Excellent piece once again.
YLH:
1. I have a Pakistani passport
2. It mentions my religion as Islam
3. I can’t change my religion from Islam officially, apostasy is punishable by death. I have no desire to go to the Saudi Kingdom, with Islam for the masses and absolute power for the rulers, traits we also find in Bhutto and Jinnah.
It’s a good idea to stick to the arguments of the article. It seems like you have a personal exe to grind.
From the core of my heart. I reject everything that Bhutto did. Never was there a greater hypocrite. He destroyed Pakistan for his own benefit and his constitution ratifies the destruction of Pakistan. Brilliant he was! Selfish he was! Brutal he was! and yet he is supposed to be liberal. “ZINDA HAI BHUTTO” or “MAR GAYA JINNAH KA PAKSITAN.”
The pedestrian may be wrong but he does not deserve a death sentence.
excellent article. A person’s actions should be judged by the ideals they stood for. Going by that premise – Ayesha Jalal’s pet hate – Nehru – comes through with flying colors.
Dear Ram Sury sb
You are free to hold your view sir. However Mr Jinnah was the earliest architect of Hindu Muslim Unity through the Jinnah Tilak Pact and is the only politician to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity. He was called this by sarojini naidu, Gandhi, Nehrus, Ambedkar, and Azad … If it was a bad joke then all these great Indians were bad jokers.
The whole lot were a bunch of bad jokers. Tragically what they played, on the poor masses of India, along with its erstwhile rulers, was a tragedy for the millions slaughtered during partition in 1947.
ZAB was a great leader, great leadership does not mean the person has to be perfect in all areas or that the realm of politics is immune from the demands of power and the pre-existing structure of power. The single greatest achievement of ZAB was to exorcise the masses of the ideological baggage of Jinnah’s opportunistic use of Islam by social issues of roti kapra and makan. His second biggest achievement was to force incorporate the hitherto missing masses into the equation of politics from which they had been excluded thanks to Jinnahesque religion mongering that supported the class based feudal aristocracy.
Regarding Mujib, who ran on a cessionist platform and had representation only in the Eastern end, no nationalist would have been keen to hand him power, it would be like handing power over to those organized and funded by a foreign power to play the voting game based on ethnicity and demography and not democracy. ZAB was correct in nationalizing industry even though the capitalist class didn’t like it, that is the only way for developing cointries to industralize period and for production and employment to escape the anarchy that reigns in capitalism. As for his “hypocrisy”, the guy wasn’t a dictator operating in a power vacuum, he had to contend with those who could make or break him, and in the end he chose to get broken rather than compromise. Not a thousand Imran Khans can match one ZAB.
History will not absolve him of his role in the dismemberment of Pakistan. History will not absolve him of his role in making Ahmadis constitutionally non-muslim. History will not absolve him of atrocities perpetrated in Balochistan. History will not absolve him of obfuscation he invariably created to achieve his political goals. History will be on his side to have judicially been killed.
The term “Secularism” has been wrongly defined and implied here.Bhutto was not Secularist but only progressive.Before him there was a gulf between State,Society and Politics,he abridged this gulf.It is an historical achievement.Article-48 of Veimar Constitution was the child of Max Weber,that later on was used by Hitler for his own purpose,lets hang Weber for this sin!Please do not drag Aristotle in the streets in the perspective of your own age.Owl of Minerva spreads its wings only after the falling of dusk.Who divided and broke India,Jinnah,Nehru,Gandhi?..there is some one criminal..drag him to guillotine if it is the business of any law.
Yasir Latif Hamdani has problem with almost every article published on TFT or anywhere else… He is the one who distorts history when writing about Kalat state, Sir. Zafaraullah Jinnah etc…
The article reeks of personal bias against Z.A.B. The author has drawn conclusions from very insufficient, rather non-exixtent premises. The great ideological leaders dont have to forsake their religions to suppliment their political greatness. They are knowledgable, charismatic and sometimes uncanny in their reaction to the call of their respective times. Karl Marx, Maotse Dong, Abraham Lincoln, Nehru, and Jinah never went off their respective faiths. Bhutto was a great leader. He was erudite, politically mature and rose up to the occasions in a style of his own. He was a giant; his virtues were great and his sins also got magnified proportionately. He stood fast and suffered long, like those mentioned by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his famous poem:
A Nation’s Strength
Not gold but only men can make
A people great and strong;
Men who for truth and honor’s sake
Stand fast and suffer long.
Brave men who work while others sleep,
Who dare while others fly…
They build a nation’s pillars deep
And lift them to the sky.
From the Last few year ,in fact since “General Mushi Monster” , every one is so concern about ahmadiya issue but no one is discussing 1974 proceedings .. how Yahya Bakhtiyar out class his opponent ?