The Rebel Road…

These are the scanned images of the official Benazir Medical Report.

Nepal is a small mountainous region located between two giant nations, namely India and China. As one would imagine, at least one of these countries would play a major role in the sustenance of such a small country and this has left India in a powerful position to dictate policy to Nepal. This is especially true in reference to the obstruction India creates in the building of important hydroelectric dams which promise to bolster Nepalese industrial activity but leave India high and dry, figuratively speaking, since the dams would block water that eventually ends up in the Indian lowlands.

Another major consequence of this, decidedly, Indian tilt is that the Hindu monarchy – the principle political centre of power up until recently, enjoyed a long and relatively languid control over the reins of the country. This trend, however, was challenged in the early 1990s with the emergence of the anti-monarchy movement, which struggled to overthrow this retrogressive force. This movement, led mainly by democratic groups within the country, was inadvertedly helped out further when Crown Prince Dipendra, in a drunken rage, murdered many members of his family, including the then King, King Birendra – his father – and left his uncle, the present King Gyanendra, as the political head of the nation in June 2003. Upon coming to power King Gyanendra – who is famous for having said that ‘democracy and progress contradict one another’ –imposed an emergency and revoked all human rights in the country in February 2005 – firmly establishing him as an absolutist monarch. This move only served to consolidate his opposition further when a new and rising power joined the struggle – the Nepali Maoists in the form of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists), a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organisation led by chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, affectionately referred to as Comrade Prachanda by his party members. The guerrilla movement of the Maoists was launched on February 13th, 1996, and intensified manifold with the support of both citizens as well sympathizers in the democratic movement. The Maoists’ guerrilla war against the monarchy succeeded in not just bringing the monarchy to the negotiation table but also to its knees. As a result of these negotiations, earlier this year, the Nepali Maoists entered the government with a specific set of demands. These demands were, interestingly enough, not predominantly socialist, rather were bourgeois democratic in nature. Other than the main demand of the abolition of the monarchy, these demands still contained many social elements such as the stress on health, education, employment, equality of opportunity, emphasis on industrial development, etc.

Though the Nepali Maoists left the government alliance in September over differences on the abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a democratic republic, today cooler heads have prevailed and the peace process is on the right track once again. Furthermore, the most important demand of the Maoists out of their 23-point agenda, i.e. the formal abolition of the monarchy has been passed in the Nepali parliament with a two-thirds majority and Nepal is all set to make the transition to a democratic republic once the new constituent assembly to be elected in mid-April meets for the first time. The Nepali Maoists have embarked on a unique experiment of abandoning their guerrilla war in favour of a peaceful political dialogue. It remains to be seen what the future of this experiment holds for Nepal.

When the judicially controversial death of Mr. Zulfiqar Bhutto occurred under the watchful eye of the General Zia regime, it was seen that a powerful vacuum developed within the party since Zulfiqar Bhutto had left behind him a legacy of his charisma. This legacy had its roots in the fact that it was through sheer force of will that Bhutto managed to sway and unite such a great mass of people in his favour. Benazir Bhutto, even in her youth, had a deep understanding of the inner dynamics of the PPP and it was for this reason that she strived to secure for herself the position of joint chairperson of the party in spite of the presence of several older and mature politicians (the so-called ‘uncles’).

Later when Murtaza Bhutto returned to Pakistan he was viewed as a political rival by Benazir because dynastic politics in a patriarchal society gave Murtaza far more political legitimacy. Benazir responded by establishing herself as the lifetime chairperson of the PPP, against even the wishes of her mother who supported Murtaza. Adding to the divide was Murtaza’s insistence on waging an armed struggle against General Zia while Benazir opted for a less radical solution. The result was a lot of bad blood and several years of estrangement between the two Bhuttos. However all this was changing in 1996 when both Benazir and Murtaza had shown an interest in healing some of the wounds that their relationship had suffered. Murtaza’s meeting with Benazir at the Prime Minister’s House and a two-way exchange of gifts on some occasions in 1996 promised a new beginning, but the possibility of a more radical element returning to the PPP was distasteful to several interested parties. Murtaza was gunned down by the police in September 1996, ironically, during the reign of the People’s Party. Naturally Benazir was the first target of rebuke and finger-pointing, with Murtaza’s widow and daughter claiming that Benazir, and later Asif Zardari, were either the killers or, at the very least, complicit. Arguably Murtaza’s death led to the dismissal of Benazir’s government and Asif’s eight-year imprisonment.

With the death of Benazir Bhutto, a similar vacuum has emerged within the PPP. The only logical choice, given the élan of the PPP, was Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. It must be acknowledged that he is the only Bhutto who can be put into the position of leadership, considering that Sanam Bhutto declined and that dynastic politics is by now firmly entrenched as part of the PPP’s political culture. Though he is young, Bilawal will have the support of a seven-member advisory council of senior PPP leaders.

Dynastic politics, though seen to be relatively unstable, is not without precedent in the subcontinent. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty of India, Zia and Mujeeb families of Bangladesh and the Bandaranaike family of Sri Lanka have all been extremely popular. It is also worth mentioning that Asif Zardari has displayed rare maturity and wisdom by not just understanding this dynastic undercurrent of the party, but by giving up his own position as the appointed party chairman, according to Benazir’s will, for the greater good of the party. Furthermore, in the face of mass rioting and the targetting of Punjabis in Sindh, Asif’s statement that, “Benazir’s Punjabi brothers died with her in the blast” strengthens the federation, as is expected of the PPP’s democratic heritage.