ok...lets be optimistic. Pakistan is NOT going to remain a messed up basket case for the next century...

A cynic might also point out that Benazir is just as incompetent, weak, and therefore as *corrupt* as she ever was - and that a big part of her deal with Musharraf was the sweeping under the rug of the several criminal charges of monye laundering and corruption that she and her husband currently face. But that cynic would have to admit they've never really forgiven her for the unmitigated geopolitical disaster that was her time in office in 1988 and the 90's.

So, for the foreseeable future, we have to continue dealing with two-face-Mushy on the anti-terror front. Fun!

Bull. As one of my friends put it "Oh great, the botoxed bitch is coming back, time to get fucked over again". Benazir and Nawaz Sharif are both incredibly corrupt and shouldn't be allowed within five hundred miles of the country. Actually, none of the politicians should. Pakistan isn't ready for/doesn't need a democracy, it needs a benevolent dictatorship that can educate people, get rid of the fucking feudal system, and stop racking up howlingly large amounts of foreign debt. Democracy is a lovely theory for us, but the practicability of the idea is far from realisation.

Adrian Levy is also about three-odd decades behind in his "news". The situation with the military snapping up wealth and increasing its asset base has been old hat since the 1960s; the only difference is that the generals etc., have tended to be marginally more discreet about their pillaging. It should say something when the ritziest housing neighbourhoods tend to be named "Defence Housing Authority", "Cantonement", "Cavalry" and the like (except for Islamabad, which one could argue is even more regimented with its F-1, E-8, G-11/3 sectors). Personally, I don't see Benazir doing anything particularly differently, unless she's somehow checked by the somewhat-revitalised Supreme Court and/or the Army, but I doubt that substantially. For both her and Nawaz Sharif, this is less about coming back to serve their country, and far more about looting it as rapidly as possible while still basking in the "adulation" of millions.

I really hate our politicians.

I really hate our politicians.

No kidding!

From the pictures I was wondering whether it was botox, or just heavily caked on make-up.

How about Begum Nawazish Ali for Prime Minister? ;-)

I think more than Benazir it was her husband Asif Ali Zardari who was to blame, wiki says he lives in Manhattan with multiple health issues.

it's fine to be optimistic, but i am not sure why anyone would suspect benazir bhutto will do differently now than she ever did in the past. she's failed twice as a leader, and it's debatable if her third time will be a charm. given her track record, how much optimism is really warranted? let's not forget it was during her rule that the taliban were first nurtured and cultivated, so it's a bit rich for her to try and present herself as a leader who'll fight terrorism. and it's not just the pakistani government that lodged corruption charges against her--the swiss government has also convicted her and zardari of money-laundering. by the time she was deposed in 1996, most pakistanis felt she didn't care at all about their best interests-- only her own and her family's. it's unfortunate that all the alternatives now look so dismal that she's seen as the answer.

I'm on the same wavelength as Sin, but a little less bitter and cynical. But then, I don't live in Karachi.

The real story with Benazir is how she cultivated the American government and the American right-wing, and outfoxed Nawaz Sharif (admittedly, a small turtle could outfox Nawaz Sharif -- but bear with me).

Check out this Cal Thomas column on Benazir in the News tab: (Thomas is a far right US pro-Christian U.S. columnist with little time for Muhammadans).

Former Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, a moderate Muslim, was in Washington last week. I asked her how concerned the United States should be, especially when we see and hear radical talk .. Bhutto says the West is losing the war against the radicals. On Oct .18, she plans to return to Pakistan from exile in order to fight them and she wants to see a debate within Islam and more support for building mosques and publishing books based on moderate interpretations of Islam to counter the radicals.

This edition of Benazir is made in Washington DC; she's using the self-delusions of the US right wing to get herself into power. It's the "Ahmed Chalabi manoeuvre" -- but unlike Chalabi, Bhutto will probably succeed.

This edition of Benazir is made in Washington DC; she's using the self-delusions of the US right wing to get herself into power. It's the "Ahmed Chalabi manoeuvre" -- but unlike Chalabi, Bhutto will probably succeed.

I feel the same way.. I don't know the English name. In Tamil it's called "bommalattam" where dolls are made to play different roles for the audience while the person who is pulling the strings is on the back and no one notices him.

Amardeep, the amount of work she has had done is absurd. The Washington Post had a hilarious (intentional or not, I'm unsure) picture of her from a few years ago, in which she looks like she's been run over by the Ugly Truck, juxtaposed with a current picture in which she's clear-and-taut-skinned, has lost two chins, and had a good haircut. Several of my (ex-Army) cousins who are doctors and cosmetic surgeons, started a pool to take wagers on identifying rhinoplasties, chemical peels, botox and the like. :)

admittedly, a small turtle could outfox Nawaz Sharif

From the original article,

Instead, she penned 36 demands, including the freeing of all political workers and a transparent election, but also indemnity from all personal criminal actions, as well as a change to the law preventing anyone from serving as prime minister for three terms.

Given that the opaque military also fixed its budget, that left Bhutto’s prospective new government with a paltry number of low-octane domestic portfolios that revolved around the gritty municipal functions of government (including education and health).

--> So, what will she do with no budgeting authority, foreign affairs and home ministries ?
I think she gets cases against her removed, comes to power, corruption shoots up, tries to extend her budgeting power, Musharraf packs her off to Saudi Arabia, US releases a statement supporting stability of pakistan. Benazir and Sharif commiserate. Musharraf points to reduced corruption and US politicians heave a sigh of relief.

Although he officially lives for free in Army House, in Rawalpindi, on a salary of $1,400 a month, he has somehow acquired a real-estate portfolio worth $10m.

--> Musharraf, meet Jayalalitha. Jayalalitha, meet Musharraf.

Benazir is going to do jackscot for Pakistan. She's a darling of the West being a "progressive" woman leader in the Islamic world, leading on a exalted but flawed legacy and the West is really hedging its bets. Her past terms as Pak PM have been miserable failures but she has managed to keep her powerbase, both at home and abroad, by successfully projecting and managing the image of being the wronged one. The Pak army, read Mush and his cronies and men, still wields the stick in the country and will continue to do so. She might have landed in Karachi and Sindh, but the power lies in Punjab and with the Army.

Check out her comments during the flight from Dubai to Karachi (via the BBC)--these would make a cynic of anyone!

"I am feeling very excited and overwhelmed," she said.

"There are so many messages; so many press interviews, and now that I am homeward bound," she added, "I believe I can truly say that miracles do happen."

I know its completely off topic, but is it me or does her face seem to have a clear plastic cover over it? I've noticed a strange shine lately.... hmmm....

The flight from Dubai is less than 2 hours!! C'mon....Amardeep.....this is hardly news!

What's different between the 1980s and early 1990s and now - is the geopolitical environment. The Soviet Union is history, the US is in South Asia - and in all countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. In each, its presence has a mix of financial and military character - India is mostly investments (though the strategic deal-alliance is on the anvil and military joint exercises go on), while in both Pakistan and Afghanistan there is more military presence than financial and business; though they're there too. Finally, Pakistan and India are 'declared' nuclear powers, and India has decisively moved toward liberalizing its economy.

So if you listen to Benazir speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations from back in August - she's now a lot more conciliatory towards India - after all, you can hardly have billions of dollars of investment go into India only to have the military of another client state threaten it with nuclear weapons! :) So from both India and Pakistan's point of view, this semi-overt semi-friendliness is better than an overt hostility, and that's a plus. Also, the very fact that Musharraf was forced to do a deal with her - weakens him. And although it also weakens her, I regard the weakening of the military's role in governance as a positive.

So all in all, same but different, and marginally better.

Also, the very fact that Musharraf was forced to do a deal with her - weakens him.

I think the sentiment there is accurate, but would argue that what you're talking about is weakening Mush as an individual (be that as the President, a general or a person, etc.), not the institution that is the Pakistani army/military conglomerate. The generals come and go, but the military remains (influential).

Sin, not to contradict your on-the-ground assessment - but I feel the Pakistani military will also slowly weaken in its overall hold on the country. The dynamic has been let loose. Getting Benazir into troika with Musharraf and Kiyani is the first step. Letting the military get too strong ("a state within a country") was what led to A.Q. Khan and his antics, and that has not been forgotten by the powers that be.

How about this quote from the BBC?

"... Ms Bhutto said before leaving that she was undeterred [by threats of attacks]: "I do not believe that any true Muslim will make an attack on me because Islam forbids attacks on women and Muslims know that if they attack a woman they will burn in hell."

Maybe Hillary could increase her chances of winning the election is she pulled the woman-card, and then trumped herself with the burn-in-hell-card?

I've heard talk that Musharraf let Benazir land and stay, while kicking Nawaz Sharif out as soon as he landed once again simply because he knows corruptible and easily manipulated Benazir is. Nawaz may be a destructive moron (ha, Ikram!) but he was significantly slimier, knows how to bluster a bit better, and is unpredictable - and is less easy to control. Makes sense to me.

Kabob Sahib - what a quote!
... Ms Bhutto said before leaving that she was undeterred [by threats of attacks]: "I do not believe that any true Muslim will make an attack on me because Islam forbids attacks on women and Muslims know that if they attack a woman they will burn in hell."

Ohhhh, that makes me want to punch a wall. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - between her ears. *sigh*

Talking about Benazir Bhutto, someone just sent me a picture (I am sure its doctored) of Bhutto in a miniskirt!

Chachaji, certainly. And I think you're right re: A.Q. Khan, but the deciding factor in that particular round of idiocy was Nawaz, who basically used the "Muslim bomb to save us from the Hindus in India" routine because of his fast-fading popularity, and to get back in with the mullah contingent. The army really was very incidental to that.

The reason I remain so cynical about any slackening of the army's control is because until there's an active effort to integrate the ridiculously large standing force into the civilian population, and to start channelling the absurd amounts of army-centric GDP into municipal infrastructure, the institution remains a slumbering bear. It wasn't terribly active back in the late 80s and early 90s, smarting from Zia's ham-handedness and content to let the civilian govts. pound each other into the ground, but that changed as soon as there was any sort of action taken "against" it. There are too many things that need to be done first; cessation of recruitment, phasing out of funding, that sort of thing, and my gut instinct is that it'd take the Supreme Court in conjunction with some sort of revolutionary (i.e. NOT BB, Nawaz, Altaf Hussain or others of their ilk) to really make such things happen. The entrenchment is just too solid at this point; one of the reasons I held out some hope for Imran Khan, for example, is because in the face of a cricketing legend with huge amounts of popularity, even blindly indoctrinated political/army people find themselves wavering. We need someone with his sort of appeal--and much more credible instincts--who can actually push some sort of revolution through.

Hopefully I'll be on a beach in the Maldives when said revolution occurs, but still... ;)

I think Musharraf simply didn't want Sharif in the country when his own re-election, along with the court case(s) and the Benazir deal, was still up in the air. I've heard that Sharif will be 'allowed' to come back before the general elections, which are to be in January. I'm guessing he returns as soon as the present court case returns a verdict, Musharraf is sworn in, resigns from the Army, and the general election is announced. Tentative date for Sharif to come back: Nov. 20, 2007. :)

I'm old enough to remember her first homecoming in the late 1980s. Her book 'Daughter of the East' accompanied her homecoming and was hugely popular in the subcon. I don't have any high hopes for her.

I have many Bloody military should take over this bloody country uncles. I take great joy in saying, “In your scotch-addled dreams”. Why can’t Pakistan keep its military in check? Any of the defense wonks out there want to comment? Hopefully this does not inspire sweetness like “X race/country/system is inherently superior to Y race/country/system”. Corrupt politicians, shady military deals — almost every major country has them. Just google MIG crashes and see what you get.

I came to this Website doing a search on Gunjan Saxena and I continued to read until my company's nightwatchman threw me out - congratulations, there is hope for the subcontinent! Hilarious, well informed and right on the spot.

But on the topic posted above: what moved the Pakistani people to chose the (probably) very special option which is going to make things worse. If Musharraf is nothing but a Military Dictator (to some in the west (specially defence/intelligence community), including me (for a time), he looked like the saviour of P. - ok, we know now he isn't) AND the military of P. is enriching itself so shameless, that's still not a match to the Bhuttos and Sharifs style of treating a country like a personal posession.

That is one feudal, spoiled, egocentric and DANGEROUS bitch with really nothing useful between those semi-plastic ears! I don't want to foster racism, but if anyone in Britain was ever looking for an argument why not to allow foreigners for higher education, they could find it right here.

P.S.: you really shouldn't calll him 'Mushy'! Hmmmphhh!

P.S.2: She will probably develop a very special female relationship to C. Rice and then WOE, WOE TU US ALL!

In local domestic news, the House Republicans, ignoring a majority of the US public, voted against the SCHIP program, and the Democrats didn't receive enough votes to override a presidential veto. And good ole Bobby Jindal, who was threatening to override, didn't even show up for the vote. And, why do folks on this board support this republican desi again?

Sin, I wanted to acknowledge your good points in #23, but would add that every long journey begins with a single step!

My comment #24 was in response to Haldiram @20

Whats up with all the haterade on Benazir?

#29, way off topic. There are enough current threads where that comment would have been on topic.

As far as Musharaff and Benazir, I never understood why Musharaff didn't hold elections right away when he dissolved the Sharif government. I remember him being popular at the time and he did not piss off the Islamic fundamentalists to the extent he did later(hell, he encouraged some of them with the Kashmir angle). Plus he did not have the corrupt reputation of Sharif of Benazir's family. He could have avoided the whole dictator thing by doing that way back then.

uh-oh

Twin blasts strike near Pakistan’s Bhutto

i would imagine that the combination of

1. term limits
2. a ban on multiple office holdings
3. a ban on military officers holding civilian posts
4. audited elections

would fundamentally transform that place. not sure if thats in any powerfull peoples best interest though.

she is not getting a warm welcome.

THIS JUST IN:

At least 35 people were killed Thursday night in two explosions that went off near a motorcade carrying former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who returned to the country earlier in the day after eight years of self-imposed exile, police sources told CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/18/pakistan.explosions/index.html

I think this says it all.

I wonder why the blasts don't surprise me. Pakistan has got too many generals, too many zamindars and too any mullahs for it's own good. And the Pakistanis on this forum are either too educated or too middle class for their own good. Ignorance is bliss y'all. Forget you ever heard of that crazy little thing called democracy.

I have always felt a good economy is the solution to Pakistan's woes (and I don't mean a growth deriving off US aid). That will make the people get busy in the rat race, Thus the army wont be able to make Pak obsess over India, the mullahs would not get enough morons for their mumbo jumbo and the zamindars wont find as many people to exploit due to the job options for the poorest. India and Pakistan would have enough riding in terms of business that a war would not make sense. But all of this will be detrimental to the people who matter in Pakistan and thus we are not going to see a healthy democracy in Pakistan for a while. Bombs away!

And seriously, what's with the new darling of the masses Benazir looking like she just made a deal with Pinochet Pinocchio.

and this masterpiece by Z.A Kidwai. heh.

Quizman, I love the "Mad" cover (in your second link in #39).

So will she publicly take on any sort of responsibility for the violence and deaths surrounding her pomp-filled return or will she pass it of on a coincidental jihadi plastique-burp?

108 dead.

AP Article

Amardeep,

It is interesting to see the reaction of Pakistani bloggers (English), especially those ones that are based in Karachi. People seem to be unanimous in their disapproval. Incidentally, Karachi Metblogs has updated reports on the tragedy.

Btw, great posts, the past two.

108 dead.

AP Article

-lion

Now upped to 126.

With this bombing and the deaths that are now mounting her statement yesterday about terrorists burning in hell starts to seem questionable -- almost a kind of needless taunt: "see, you can't kill me, I dare you."

The first thing she has to do tomorrow is make a statement about the lives lost. This is no longer about her; it's about the 100+ people who are dead.

Amardeep,

probably the highest-traffic conservative blog already characterized her now-hollow rhetoric as 'courage.' I wonder if they'll update the post with at least some comment about the dead. (probably not, but it is useful to see how her rhetoric v. what actually happened after she arrived plays in western media)

#45 Amardeep

The first thing she has to do tomorrow is make a statement about the lives lost. This is no longer about her; it's about the 100+ people who are dead

--> Brace yourself for an announcement that Benazir considers the loss of lives as a testament to her political base. Her behaviour in this whole 'return of the daughter' story has been about her and her alone. It will (probably) continue to be so.

It is sad that this many lives were senselessly taken away for a silly spectacle such as this but for Benazir, it is killing 2 birds with one stone.

A display of her(and consequently PPP's) political power and ineffectiveness of Musharraf in handling terrorists inside pakistan. As a politician, I would expect her to take advantage of the tragedy. Sharif would be ruing his future, sitting in Saudi Arabia.

almost a kind of needless taunt: "see, you can't kill me, I dare you."

Amardeep, it might have worked as a taunt - but I saw the clip in which she says it (and she may have said it in more than one interview) - it sounded more like a plea than a taunt when she said it.

But it certainly was irresponsible, given that the threats had been made - to try to go in a huge (10 km + long) processional cavalcade - attempting to replicate the CJ's trip from Islamabad to Lahore back in the summer - and show herself as being just as popular. Many of those killed were plainclothes and uniformed, policemen and security men, (and one assumes) intelligence men - as well as her own 'private' bodyguard types - and some journalists covering the event. There's no way such a long cavalcade could have been totally secured, though I'm sure they tried.

@46: C'mon, you know Malkin hates brown people (got to be hard to look in the mirror every day, for her).

It is interesting to see the response to the bombings. I don't think Benazir is responsible for what the "bombers" did. It is like blaming the victim..

It is interesting to see the response to the bombings. I don't think Benazir is responsible for what the "bombers" did. It is like blaming the victim..

Emotions are likely running high at the moment so I'll refrain from the emotive response. She is most definitely not the victim here. No matter how hard the bombers could have conceivably tried, they would have to know that (just like every other attempt to purportedly assassinate a high-profile figure in South Asia)there will incredible amounts of casualties among the innocent bystanders. Remember that it was Benazir who wanted to return NOW--not later, but now. She, like most image-centric south-asian politicians, will always have their sections of support in the home country but it was her decision to return and greedily suckle the perpetually lactating teat of power in Pakistan. We must recognize that had she not come back, over a 100 people would have been alive today.

Nip and tuck it seems like.

Does she use fair and lovely too ?

We must recognize that had she not come back, over a 100 people would have been alive today.

And that is the bombers' fault.

And that is the bombers' fault.

Okay genius, why did they set off the bombs at that particular moment? I certainly didn't see a gay pride parade in any of the new reports.

Pakistan only got one national leader Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. After his judicial murder Pakistanis are divided among PPP and Anti PPP groups, there is nothing in between. Majority Karachiites are Anti PPP and they've voted for religious or ethnical (MQM) parties but Rural Sindhis and Punjabis still support Benazir (the daughter of Bhutto). Until political process continues we’ll keep seeing these conflicts.

With this bombing and the deaths that are now mounting her statement yesterday about terrorists burning in hell starts to seem questionable -- almost a kind of needless taunt: "see, you can't kill me, I dare you."

Not at all.

That wasn't a taunt to the terrorists. It was meant for would-be supporters. I'm sure she knew well enough her life was in danger, and this was her way to build grass-roots support.

Whole Northern Pakistan Area and Afghanistan is under control of Millitants and they are spreading thier venom in other cities too including Islamabad. Bnazir vowed to root out Bin Laden that's why they targetted her procession. Now whoever tries to hurt them is their enemy. This time it happened to be PPP.

As a Karachiite I'll echo Sin here. More dictatorship, less Benazir/Nawaz. Worst possible thing to happen at the moment.

Builder and Sin,

What do we have right now? I think it's does call Dictatorship and it ain't solving any problem. We need a National party who can work with all provinces including Karachi. If MQM still want to play ethnic (victim) card then they need to align with National Party to get things done in Karachi.

Terrible tragedy.

Okay genius, why did they set off the bombs at that particular moment?

Whatever their reasons are (or whoever is behind them), they chose to do the bombing, so it's their fault...was Benazir breaking any laws? Some fringe group may choose to bomb anything they don't like...should we blame the targets of their ire? Try to respond politely if you choose to respond at all. The victims' families should blame the bombing culture that has developed rather than Benazir...or the religious fanaticism or support for people like Bin Laden, if Neena is correct. Or the people behind the scenes (if maybe Musharaff or the army is behind this).

Pakistan is heading towards a cathartic civil war between liberal desi sufi types (sindhis, punjabis, muhajirs) vs fundamentalist wahhabi types (mostly west asian pushtuns). About time.

Sindh was the first region of the Indian subcontinent conquered by muslims and this was where arab islam directly encountered indian pantheism which it had previously encountered indirectly via greek neo-platonism. The result was sufism.

With this bombing and the deaths that are now mounting her statement yesterday about terrorists burning in hell starts to seem questionable -- almost a kind of needless taunt: "see, you can't kill me, I dare you."

The first thing she has to do tomorrow is make a statement about the lives lost. This is no longer about her; it's about the 100+ people who are dead.

It some weird way is this like George Bush standing on the flight deck saying "mission accomplished"?

Didn't hear how she said it, so don't know if it was a taunt or plea, but it strikes me as someone who doesn't know the conditions on the ground.

#61 Amitabh

Whatever their reasons are (or whoever is behind them), they chose to do the bombing, so it's their fault...was Benazir breaking any laws? Some fringe group may choose to bomb anything they don't like...should we blame the targets of their ire?

--> Even when Benazir chooses to ignore warnings that conditions are bad for her arrival currently and goes ahead with her trip anyway ? I dont think anyone is saying Benazir is the sole person to blame but she has a big share of the blame(in addition to the people who carried out the attack) for her self serving trip.

So will she publicly take on any sort of responsibility for the violence and deaths surrounding her pomp-filled return or will she pass it of on a coincidental jihadi plastique-burp?

We must recognize that had she not come back, over a 100 people would have been alive today

Yeah, appeasing and hiding from violent criminals has really moved Pakistan ahead.

Try to respond politely if you choose to respond at all. The victims' families should blame the bombing culture that has developed rather than Benazir...or the religious fanaticism or support for people like Bin Laden, if Neena is correct. Or the people behind the scenes (if maybe Musharaff or the army is behind this).

You should also, in return, try to be a bit less glib in your reply. I feel, as Krishnan does, that she is partly culpable for the violence surround her return. Image-centric politicians of her ilk cannot resist a publicity-ops filled, grand, flag-waving return because like Bhutto, they feel as if they are genuinely heroes to 'the people' and that their return means an automatic improvement in the prospects of the every citizen (Pakistani in this case). They also know that without such publicity stunts, the true substance of their 'platform' will not be sufficient to carry them back to electoral success. Bhutto could have easily not publicized her return, found an indirect route and not flown with a large plane full of her posse and let everyone know exactly where and when she would arrive and what route she would take to her final destination. Bombings take planning, especially car bombs, and without such information, so generously afforded to whomever would care to read a newspaper, watch TV or peruse that most exclusive of news sources, CNN.COM, the bombing would have simply not been possible.

so, if I follow your reasoning Amitabh-bhai (see, i am trying to be nice here), you would excuse the Bush administration for all the 'collateral damage' of the Iraq misadventure for the simple reason that they themselves did not perform the many car and suicide bombings that have killed so many? There is a place for identifying direct and proximate causes of the recent Pakistani bombing and Bhutto should not escape assignment to the proximate category.

you would excuse the Bush administration for all the 'collateral damage' of the Iraq

You're comparing an invasion and occupation to a national figure returning to her home country? Even if they were comparable, and they are not, the occupation is still not an excuse for terrorists to bomb civilian markets in Iraq, so while I agree that the invasion and occupation led to the violence in Iraq, it does not excuse it, nor remove blame from the bombers themselves.

I'm glad she returned, and I'm glad she has more bravery than the cowards who quiver about arousing the ire of some backwards, disgusting idiots.

Yeah, appeasing and hiding from violent criminals has really moved Pakistan ahead.

No Golfastrian, what she did was intentionally expose many hundreds of people (yes, including herself but not to the same degree) to potential injury or death. If she had chosen to enter the country incognito, and avoided the 'violent criminals' altogether, you would label her a an 'appeaser' of terrorists rather than the rare Pakistani politican who actually gives a flying f*** about their constituents? A quick question, when has political violence in Pakistan ever taken the form of a sniper's bullet to the political figure in question? When has the violence ever not involved innocent bystanders? But no, go ahead, be a 'bold' non-appeaser of terrorists and announce your return--who cares if over a hundred people die for your folly?

They also know that without such publicity stunts, the true substance of their 'platform' will not be sufficient to carry them back to electoral success.

She is people's leader and it is her right to gather a crowd and it's her supporters right to welcome her. BTW how else political figure will work for the benefit of one's country men if they don't tell them their agenda? So where does crimnal fits.

If just for a moment I use your logic then we shouldn't be traveling by car or flying as you know more people are killed in road and air accidents than anything else.

Benazir has every right to return of Karachi in an 18 hour motorcade trip surrounded by thousands of people. But a prudent leader, considerate of the possibility of violence, and the awful cost a bombing would have on her own supporters, would have chosen a different homecoming.

I don't blame Benazir for wanting a big "Hurray-for-Benazir" day, or for the deaths that tresutled. But it's just another indication of her poor judgement and egomania, and why she shouldn't be Prime Minister.

Ikram,

She was secured and there was nothing to fret over. No one knew can imagine that Sick Minds target the innocents as we all know it usually back fired but I guess we give them more credit than they deserves.

Actually Neena - "she" may have been secured but a true leader, someone who truly cared about the people of Karachi and Pakistan would be less concerned about having a 10 hour slow march through the city to celebrate her return than actually getting down to business. And she just demonstrated the typical priviledged politican's lack of respect and understanding for the everyman - her return clogged up the city roads and just complicated things for people who live in those areas (my family included). Workers couldn't get to work on time or get home on time, traffic was jammed. This is before the bombs went off. Instead of going straight to Bilawal House and getting down to work she'd rather have a 10 hour photo op. Typical is all I can say. Fits right into the pattern. And yes she could have had a photo-op at the airport and make a to-do about her return - but a huge slow rally? Ridiculous AND irresponsible. You can demonstrate courage in the face of threats without being stupid.

And seriously - what purpose did this type of celebration serve? she and her supporters have every right to celebrate her return - but she hasn't done anything YET other than step foot on Pakistani soil after a self-imposed exile. You may think that's a crowning achievement of some kind but I don't think it is - it took some clever manipulation and the support of some in the international community but forgive me for not being proud of her for that.

Instead she'd rather party. Project herself as a savior to magically pull Pakistan out of the doldrums and the dangerous situation its in. I'm sorry but she's going to have to do a heck of alot more than make asinine statements and have extended photo-ops, to convince me that she CAN do something productive for Pakistan (even though she's already had two chances). And now she and her husband have demonstrated their irresponsible tendancies once again - instead of solely expressing sympathy for those who lost their lives and limbs, for the families of the victims, she's rather start pointing the finger as to who may have committed these horrific attacks. There's no way she knows for certain unless she was involved in the bombing herself (and I'm not saying she was). It just shows once again that little has changed as far as she is concerned. And our city and country can probably not rely on her to make any productive changes.

Apparently she had a premonition about the attack and named suspects before arriving in Pakistan.

SadKarachiite,

Moving at slow pace called political rally and all leaders do it. It's in style in Pakistani politics remember MQM rallies. But we can't blame political party when government gave a go for such rallies on weekdays. Still I don't get it why political leaders choose working day. They can achieve their goal on some weekend too. Remember how Karachi was hostage to those London Hartals by Altaf Hussain when everyone was forced to stay home. Thanks goodness we passed that phase.

So what if its the style of politics in Pakistan? She SHOULD know better, esp if she is there to bring about change. We all should know better. If she is the people's leader as she claims to be, she could easily say that she's glad to be back but wants to get to work. And weekdays or workdays vs weekends don't make a difference. People still need to be able to move around the city during weekends. That is a non-argument as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, I do remember the "hartals". And it wasn't just MQM that called those strikes. MQM, PPP, JI, Muslim League, all of them have done it. I lived in Karachi during both her tenures and Nawaz's. I have no faith in either of them, was apprehensive about her return. And her statements and actions thus far have done nothing to make me feel confident that she can change anything for the better. She's there for herself and no one else. I can't imagine what will come next.

If she had chosen to enter the country incognito, and avoided the 'violent criminals' altogether, you would label her a an 'appeaser' of terrorists rather than the rare Pakistani politican who actually gives a flying f*** about their constituents?

So caring about your constituents means sneaking around and hiding to avoid trouble? I think that's exactly the problem the country has had all these years - too many people willing to back down to psychopathic religious nuts and their followers.

Mushie is obviously too much of a pussy to do the job, beyond cutting deals with the dirty bastards. At least Benazir has enough sense of self respect, and respect for the country, not to be cowed by filthy nutballs who have no respect for civility.

Nobody wants to see hundreds of people die, but blaming Benazir and her supporters is blaming the victim, and worse, it sets extremely low expectations for Pakistan, its government and its people.

Golfastrian - I disagree. If there had been a clear, constructive purpose for such a rally I'd agree that we shouldn't cow-tow to terrorist tactics. But she wasn't doing anything at all constructive. How is having a 10-hour slow moving rally "caring about your constituents"? It actually seems incredibly suspicious in light of her recent revelation that she had specific information about people who had been tasked with trying to kill her, that she knew she'd be facing an assasination attempt. Instead she was ok that she was in a bullet proof, blast proof vehicle - as long as she's safe all is well. Screw the poor people in the procession. Screw the people in the surronding areas who can't get much done b/c of the ridiculous procession.

I think that's exactly the problem the country has had all these years - too many people willing to back down to psychopathic religious nuts and their followers

The problem with the country isn't that at all - or at least not just that. Thats an oversimplification and it glorifies Benazir in a way that isn't justified. She isn't a hero, not in my book. Not until she does something constructive and positive. Making statements just doesn't count. "Caring about your constituents" doesn't mean these ego-feeding, let-me-take-credit-for-something-I-haven't-done-yet acts and words.

you would excuse the Bush administration for all the 'collateral damage' of the Iraq misadventure for the simple reason that they themselves did not perform the many car and suicide bombings that have killed so many?

Actually, yes I would...not that I support the Iraq misadventure. The bombings in Iraq too are the fault of the perpetrators alone.

Amardeep,

Btw, this brings to attention how insulated America is from the rest of the world. Last year we had riots and acts of terrorism in Europe and Asia. We've had political instability across the globe, based either on economic, ethnic or political lines.

There are folks in Karachi right now who cannot get to work, celebrte birthdays, attend funerals. There are probably patients of heart disease who want to buy medication from the neighborhood store, who will not dare to venture out. There may be pregnant mothers who are about to deliver. It is the same in some cities in India during riots as well (remember Rajkumar-Bangalore?). And all we folks in the US can do is surf the net and watch tv, and talk about all this at a macro level.

Makes me feel terribly guilty. *sigh*

#78 Amitabh

Actually, yes I would...not that I support the Iraq misadventure. The bombings in Iraq too are the fault of the perpetrators alone.

--> That Bush administration ignored well publicized warnings before going into Iraq and has continued its bungling in a stellar display of incompetence(If you havent read 'Imperial life in Emerald City' by Rajeev Chandrasekaran, please read it when you have time. The incompetence, arising out of 'noble' intentions, he chronicles is astounding) doesnt make them enablers of those bombings ?
You are comfortable pinning the blame on the perpetrators alone without assigning blame to the enablers ?
I dont think perpetrators of iraq or bhutto bombings are in the camp of 'One man/woman's terrorist is another man/woman's freedom fighter'. But to blame them entirely without spreading it around is narrow, in my opinion.

I'm not defending Bush or our presence in Iraq. We should not be there, full stop. And bombings aimed at our troops or other Americans are 'our fault' or 'Bush's fault'. BUT...Iraqis bombing other Iraqis based on political/religious/secterian/miscellaneous concerns, is not our fault. That's due to the messed-up mentality of the perps.

#81 Amitabh

I'm not defending Bush or our presence in Iraq. We should not be there, full stop. And bombings aimed at our troops or other Americans are 'our fault' or 'Bush's fault'. BUT...Iraqis bombing other Iraqis based on political/religious/secterian/miscellaneous concerns, is not our fault. That's due to the messed-up mentality of the perps.

--> I was trying to point out that the actions of Bush administration with respect to Iraq led to iraqis bombing other iraqis on political/religious/sectarian/miscellaneous concerns. And for that, Bush administration shares the blame with the perpetrators. The perpetrators didnt spring from vaccuum, did they ?

She was secured and there was nothing to fret over. No one knew can imagine that Sick Minds target the innocents as we all know it usually back fired but I guess we give them more credit than they deserves.

Neena, this is not to get personal, but what city/reality have you been living in? I'm not even sure what you mean about "we all know it usually back fired", unless you're talking about the explosions themselves, but of course the woman was in a situation over which to fret. You're riding around in a truck, knowing full well that there's a solid chance of someone taking a pot-shot at you...oh, and not just you, but the hundreds of people surrounding you, by default. It'd have been one thing to stay in a location or limit the time spent doing this grand strut of hers, but it's wholly different when, given the reactions in the city to the CJ's arrival less than six months ago, you put your ears back and blindly wander for over a dozen hours "rejoicing" to be home from, as SadKarachiite rightly points out, a self-imposed exile. And for the sake of what? What exactly did any of that meandering entourage accomplish, other than blasting tragically bad songs from the 1980s into the air and bringing the city to a standstill?

Golfastrian:

So caring about your constituents means sneaking around and hiding to avoid trouble? I think that's exactly the problem the country has had all these years - too many people willing to back down to psychopathic religious nuts and their followers.

Two separate issues here. Caring about your constituents means being smart about realising the implications of your glory-hound moves, especially in light of past/recent events, and the very real likelihood of them coming to harm. Benazir hasn't done a damn' thing to demonstrate said concern, not in my world. Being smart/careful/cautious...hell, SENSIBLE, and kow-towing to mullahs are very separate things. Nawaz, for example, has always gone running to the zealots for his support; BB obviously doesn't give a shit about them, if her statements pre-boarding the flight from Dubai are to be believed. So well done, we get that you're coming home no matter what, how about you make a brief speech and head home where you can orate to your heart's content? At best, she was careless, and at worst, callous.

Sin, I agree with you.

If the threat perception was so great that an armor-plated truck was arranged for her to travel in - and she was really particular about that, and that truck was gone over with a fine tooth comb at the airport - several times - then it is clear that people traveling with her in that cavalcade (but not inside it) would have been at very great risk.

So to have persisted in going through the city in that cavalcade was extremely irresponsible, and perhaps, as Sin says, even callous. Even if nothing 'untoward' had happened, she would have ended up severely inconveniencing millions of people in the city. So that was irresponsible again.

Also - are there any precedents for holding political rallies at the Mazar-e-Quaid?

I have many Bloody military should take over this bloody country uncles. I take great joy in saying, “In your scotch-addled dreams”. Why can’t Pakistan keep its military in check? Any of the defense wonks out there want to comment?

Shodan-san, I am not a defense wonk, but I have wondered a lot about this myself. What I found strange is the speed with which the military moved in to take over the country: it was determined to from the beginning. I was surprised to find out that a plan for a military coup was exposed as early as 1951. In 1953 Gen. Ayub Khan was making visits to the US and dealing directly with the Washington establishment. A year later he was Defense Minister: who in their right mind makes the army chief the defense minister? Its almost begging for army rule. It might have to do with the long time Pakistan took to figure out its Constitution (not till 1956), which made the entire system more malleable.

Incidentally Gen. Cariappa casually remarked positively on Ayub Khan's takeover, and this freaked Nehru out. After retirement Cariappa was promptly shipped out as High Commissioner to Australia.

#85 sakshi

What I found strange is the speed with which the military moved in to take over the country: it was determined to from the beginning. I was surprised to find out that a plan for a military coup was exposed as early as 1951. In 1953 Gen. Ayub Khan was making visits to the US and dealing directly with the Washington establishment. A year later he was Defense Minister: who in their right mind makes the army chief the defense minister? Its almost begging for army rule. It might have to do with the long time Pakistan took to figure out its Constitution (not till 1956), which made the entire system more malleable.

--> My speculation(which I said somewhere else on this thread):
Pakistan after independence seemed to suffer from lack of bench strength in national leadership that post-independence India had. As much as Nehru/Patel/Ambedkar/Rajaji et al fights went on, they also provided a counterweight to one man's egotism which, in pakistan's case, never happened (as brilliant as Jinnah was). People fault Nehru for a lot of things but his vision of encouraging debate and discussion in the early days and the able leadership core made a huge difference.
Plus, there was the whole cold war where Pakistan seemed to take the easy way out by falling rapidly to one side(CENTO with US) and having a military leadership proved easier for US to handle than a messy democracy. In India's case, we vacillated, called ourselves NAM, shot ourselves in the foot, soared in idealistic misadventures, crashed and went through the growing pains of a democracy.

sakshi, funny that you mention this since i was asking a pakistani friend of mine this exact question yesterday. his best explanation was that ayub khan took over and his rule was actually great for the country economically, and that continued to be the case for a while. and then when bhutto came back, he ran the country into the ground, and hence the pakistani people don't necessarily have a positive view of democracy because of these early experiences. this certainly helps the military to retain control over the country.

sakshi, funny that you mention this since i was asking a pakistani friend of mine this exact question yesterday. his best explanation was that ayub khan took over and his rule was actually great for the country economically, and that continued to be the case for a while. and then when bhutto came back, he ran the country into the ground, and hence the pakistani people don't necessarily have a positive view of democracy because of these early experiences. this certainly helps the military to retain control over the country.

Fair enough, but what allowed Ayub Khan to take over in the first place? Was it just the force of his personality. A common explanation I have heard is that Pakistan was so scared that India will absorb it that it focused disproportionately on its military. I don't buy that completely: it is one thing to strengthen the military, and another to allow it a place in politics.

Pakistan after independence seemed to suffer from lack of bench strength in national leadership that post-independence India had.

Plus, there was the whole cold war where Pakistan seemed to take the easy way out by falling rapidly to one side(CENTO with US) and having a military leadership proved easier for US to handle than a messy democracy.

From Bourke's Halfway to Freedom (I found this excerpt in Haqqani's 'Pakistan: Between Mullah and Military):

"America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America," was Jinnah's reply. "Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed" -- he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles -- "the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves." He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. "Russia," confided Mr. Jinnah, "is not so very far away."

This had a familiar ring. In Jinnah's mind this brave new nation had no other claim on American friendship than this - that across a wild tumble of roadless mountain ranges lay the land of the BoIsheviks. I wondered whether the Quaid-i-Azam considered his new state only as an armored buffer between opposing major powers. He was stressing America's military interest in other parts of the world. "America is now awakened," he said with a satisfied smile. Since the United States was now bolstering up Greece and Turkey, she should be much more interested in pouring money and arms into Pakistan. "If Russia walks in here," he concluded, "the whole world is menaced."

In the weeks to come I was to hear the Quaid-i-Azam's thesis echoed by government officials throughout Pakistan. "Surely America will build up our army," they would say to me. "Surely America will give us loans to keep Russia from walking in." But when I asked whether there were any signs of Russian infiltration, they would reply almost sadly, as though sorry not to be able to make more of the argument. "No, Russia has shown no signs of being interested in Pakistan."

This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan's own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state -- a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze. (link)

Haqqani's book is good but not great. It'd be great if someone here who knows more about Pakistan, could recommend a book.

Sin and Chachaji,

We all know corruption is a relative term in Pakistani Politics. Benazir was sentenced to 3 years in jail that's why she was in exile.

I still don't get it why are we NOT BLAMING the CRIMNAL here. As by doing it we are siding with those intolerants who are famed to kill people if someone disagrees on their agenda. I've even seen them killed a sick man because he was drinking water in Ramazan.

According to your logic we shouldn't be traveling by car or plane as more people die in accidents than anything else.

Isn't the return of the same players in Pakistan all the time (Sharif, Bhutto) as sad as the fact that Rahul Gandhi will be running for India's PM one day soon? It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.

and then when bhutto came back, he ran the country into the ground, and hence the pakistani people don't necessarily have a positive view of democracy because of these early experiences.

Most of us forgot that we had lost a war with India and there isn't any cash in the treasury and still he started a Nuclear program which cost money. Anyway it is only true for urban elite Pakistanis, most Rural and some secualr middle class Pakistanis still vote for Bhutto's PPP. There are few regional parties but PPP still enjoys support across the nation.

Neena, there was a very specific threat she had received - she took it seriously for herself, custom-ordering a bullet-and-bomb proof truck with a fortified interior compartment. To then organize such a long, slow-moving cavalcade, whose route through the city was announced well ahead of time, and which, in spite of all efforts could not have been secured, was very irresponsible. It put her supporters and ordinary people at much greater risk than she herself was taking. The threat was so serious that she left all her family behind in Dubai.

VVIPs normally move through cities quickly, their exact route and schedule is not announced till the last minute, and they move in convoys only to confuse any potential attacker, not as a way of showing off. Even when there is no specific threat perception.

Amitabh I agree with you - with Benazir, and Rahul waiting in the wings - it feels like deja vu all over again.

Sakshi, Huqqani's book is called Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military'. I actually liked it a lot.

I would also recommend Cohen, The Idea of Pakistan, as well as Cohen, Pakistan Army, though the latter is a little dated, but if it is history that you want, it is certainly readable.

Brian Cloughley, A History of the Pakistan Army

And a very recent book by Ayesha Siddiqa, Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy

A great read on Benazir's Homecoming.

I still don't get it why are we NOT BLAMING the CRIMNAL here.

According to your logic we shouldn't be traveling by car or plane as more people die in accidents than anything else.

Lets remember that a few hundred thousand people showed up to welcome Benazir. The woman seems to be genuinely popular notwithstanding the self appointed Karachi intelligencia who seem to be unanimous in their disdain for Benazir. The center left PPP is probably the only political party in Pakistan with an actual support base in the masses and a loyal cadre of party workers.

The center left PPP is probably the only political party in Pakistan with an actual support base in the masses and a loyal cadre of party workers.

True, and the support base probably exists across all classes, and a lot of hopes are riding specifically on her, and she is aware of it. However, a motorcade that goes through the city in say, an hour, during daylight, to acknowledge popular support is one thing. It would also have demonstrated resolve and defiance, and a refusal to be intimidated.

But a planned 14-hour drive through a crowded city - that went over into night-time hours - pushes it beyond anything that could be considered reasonable under the circs. It was a callous political calculation - she wanted to show that she could draw huge crowds just like the CJ did. Nawaz Sharif had also planned to drive 'victoriously' from Islamabad to Lahore - instead of landing straight in Lahore, and again to show that his support was comparable to the CJ's. That didn't exactly work out, but the point is - spontaneous crowds like the CJ drew are one thing - to plan things to show that you are just as popular - can be a cynical and callous political calculation - that in this case got a lot of people killed.

probably get some flack for saying this, but her speech in reaction to the bombing came across as a bit self-centered and a bit distanced from the reality of it. maybe it was shock.

Let's face it...life is cheap in India and Pakistan...I doubt too many people care about what happened, in the bigger political scheme.

In Karachi people are robbed routinely out of their mobile phones, cash and jewelry. Few months ago when one’s motor cycle got stolen you just need to go to MQM sector in charge pay him few thousand and violla your motor cycle is back. Half of the educational Institutes are under control of JI student wing. They play a moral police role there doing routine jobs, like avoiding situations where girls and boys don't sit together, talk, while they congregate in mosque and count their weapons. Police men being mostly out of city or province are still outsiders and we don't tell our short comings to strangers. BTW even if we do their weapons are from previous century.

So how's life in Mumbai and Delhi?

In Karachi people are robbed routinely out of their mobile phones, cash and jewelry. Few months ago when one’s motor cycle got stolen you just need to go to MQM sector in charge pay him few thousand and violla your motor cycle is back. Half of the educational Institutes are under control of JI student wing. They play a moral police role there doing routine jobs, like avoiding situations where girls and boys don't sit together, talk, while they congregate in mosque and count their weapons. Police men being mostly out of city or province are still outsiders and we don't tell our short comings to strangers. BTW even if we do their weapons are from previous century.

Yes, man eating tigers are roaming the streets of Gulshan-E-Iqbal and hobos have taken over Clifton.

The center left PPP is probably the only political party in Pakistan with an actual support base in the masses and a loyal cadre of party workers.

Well, yeah...because we Pakistanis support political parties like people support sports teams. It's all very tribalisitic and has no basis in any kind of political track record. So the PPP's popular support says nothing about the quality of the party, instead only underlining how the uneducated masses are manipulated by all the thieving megalomaniacs who "govern" Pakistan.

Yes, man eating tigers are roaming the streets of Gulshan-E-Iqbal and hobos have taken over Clifton.

I would laugh if it wasn't so true - my parents live in PECHS and one of our neighbor's definitely had a pet LION. Not in a cage but it just sat on the little lawn outside their boundary wall, attached to a flimsy leash. It also got loose 2-3 times. No one could make them get rid of it until it went after its keeper.