Column

Indians view Pakistan in different ways, depending on their own personal or ideological sensibilities. In the north, especially in Kashmir and Punjab, Pakistan is a living, breathing organism that impinges on their lives and not always in the most benign manner.

Kashmir has borne the brunt of terrorism for nearly two decades and before that it was Punjab that had got hit by militancy and Pakistan has long been held responsible for fostering both.

Even those who were directly affected by Partition do not all look at it the same way. Many have moved on with their lives and do not want to recall those horrific times.

Others are still bitter. Staunch believers in Hindutva hate the country, but at the same time there is a strong brigade of professional nostalgists who are constantly going on about ‘two nations one people’.

The irony is that this kind of sentimentality does not always find favour in Pakistan. Already burdened by India’s cultural imperialism, they feel this kind of attitude is patronising.

Finally, there are the hard-headed realists. These are the policy-wonks, the analysts, the pundits, the former diplomats and the securitywallahs. These hawks have no room for any sentimentality.

All of the above have reacted to Benazir Bhutto’s death in their own, almost scripted way. The nostalgists have gone into deep depression, talking of the time they had met or interviewed Bhutto and had found her to be utterly charming and sociable. Stories of Pinkie’s sweet ways in University, her style and élan, of how she served up wit or ice-cream have been recalled.

The realists are already weighing the options in the post-Bhutto era. India had begun investing in her, once it was clear that she was being backed by the Americans. Now that she is gone, and the Bush administration’s plans have backfired, there is a scramble to look for options and future scenarios.

Yet, Bhutto’s untimely and violent death has, in a strange way, united these disparate camps. Both have sung paeans to her and described her as the only hope of Pakistan, as a great friend of India and above all, a true democrat.

They have discovered many virtues in her that were not visible when she was alive. One must not talk ill of the dead of course, but swinging the other way is plainly hypocritical.

Setting aside her utility to Pakistan — which obviously many of her fellow Pakistanis did not agree with — we must seriously question both the other claims.

Bhutto was India’s friend only to the extent a Pakistani politician can be. Out of power, she made all the right noises (I tried to stop jihadis but couldn’t) but it would have been political suicide for her to show even the slightest amenability towards this country. That much is understandable, even if her hysterical ‘Azadi, azadi, azadi’ speeches were a bit over the top.

It is her democratic credentials that must be questioned. Such has been Pakistan’s poor experience of democracy that merely getting elected makes a politician a democrat.

Bhutto’s credentials were such that endeared her to a West that was desperately looking for someone to provide legitimacy to Musharraf’s administration — she was western-educated and talked about women’s rights and extremism and that too in the right accent.

But go back to her personal and political history and there is very little evidence of the genuine democratic spirit: a feudal background, an upper class and elitist mien very common in those who are to the manner born and a reputation for corruption that shocked even those hardened by such things.

A kleptocrat in a Hermes scarf, she was called by Jemima Khan and even discounting their personal enmity, it rings true.

Another commentator wrote after her death, “The problem was that she never seemed to have any goal in politics, apart from vindicating her father by leading his party back to power. …

She wasted her opportunity to make real changes in Pakistan because she had no notion (beyond the usual rhetoric) of what a better Pakistan would look like.

Pakistan is already pretty good for her sort of people, so it should not surprise us that there was almost nothing to show for her years in office.”

Would things have been different this time round? Had time and her exile turned her into a more mature politician, totally committed to democracy? Did she have a vision for her country? We cannot say for sure, but consider the fact that she came back to India after a pact with Musharraf under which all corruption cases against her were lifted, for ever.

She would have been the democratic fig leaf, while the President (Musharraf) and the Army continued to exercise real power, as they have for the most part in the country’s history.

Any violent death is tragic and this one was particularly so for many reasons. This is an occasion to remember her many qualities, including her bravery and the fact that she was a role model for Muslim women. But let us not lose all sense of proportion and hail her for being a democrat.

Email: sidharth01@dnaindia.net