Bilawal Bhutto’s threats only reminded of the long, troubling tradition of populist grandstanding that has defined the Bhutto dynasty — rhetoric rich in symbolism, yet often dangerously devoid of responsibility and realism
The chip-of-the-old-block was visible when Bilawal Bhutto thundered theatrically in Urdu (a language that he speaks with a heavy foreign accent and multiple gaffes), “Ya is dariya say hamara paani Sindh mein bahega, Ya Unka Khoon bahega†(Either our water will flow in Indus River, or the blood of Indians).
Chancing on the recent Indo–Pak tensions to flex his so-far-invisible muscles with wind-swept hair and dramatic flailing of arms on the pulpit à la maternal granddad, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Bilawal elicited the usual remarks of overacting, unconvincing, and amateurishness, that have been slapped on the Chairman of Pakistan People’s Party for long.
The graduate of History and Politics from Christ Church College, Oxford, decided to pepper his speech with some flourish contextualising symbolism (insisting that his presence near Sukkur, next to the subcontinent’s civilisational land of Mohenjo Daro to claim Indus water) to charm the moment with his showboating, only to look and sound even more comical. To be fair, the Bhuttos have not had it easy in the so-called ‘land of the pure’ i.e., Pakistan. In a country predominantly dominated by Military men of official or unofficial hues — the Bhuttos have a decidedly non-militaristic background.
In a country where the governance narrative is dominated by the Punjabi–Pathan pedigree, Bhuttos are Sindhis to boot. In a country that is increasingly given to puritanical and exclusivist strains of sectarian considerations, the Bhuttos are from the minority Shia stock as opposed to the bitterly opposed Sunni majority.
In a country that has insisted on nativism (remember, Jinnah had to shed his pin-striped suits and cigars for sherwani and Karakul hat), the Bhuttos have always looked entitled, Westernised and ‘imported’. This backdrop has left the generation of Bhuttos to pretend what they are not i.e., dyed-in-the-wool, nativist Pakistanis!
It has always required the Bhuttos to manipulate, navigate and pretend to overcome the obvious ‘shortcomings’ that beset their personal/familial identity. Therefore, they attempt to look even more martial than the folks from their Pakistani Military, they try to out-swagger the Punjabi–Pathans, they downplay their Shiite underpinning to remain ingratiated with the masses and because of so much unnaturalness that accrues to a dynast rather than a full-time politician, the enactment of playing sons/daughters-of-the-soil often falls flat.
While Pakistan’s shame of 1971 defeat is shouldered by the likes of General Yahya Khan, General A.K. ‘Tiger’ Niazi, General Tikka Khan etc., the principal villain of the piece i.e., Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his Machiavellian role in the lead-up to Pakistan’s defeat remains little known. Even in 1965 Bhutto’s nudging hand was unmistakable in supporting the ill-fated Operation Gibraltar. His patent bravado saw him burnish his ‘muscular’ credentials with outlandish statements like, “Pakistan will fight, fight for a thousand years.
If India builds the (atom) bomb, Pakistan will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own....†Bombastic statements and grandstanding were elevated to a fine art.
To make matters worse, immediately after 1971, Zulfiqar successfully ousted the defamed Pakistani Military top brass and merrily ensconced himself — defying all logic of proportional blame.
Almost immediately and counterintuitively, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto started his shenanigans by meddling with democratic imperatives in Balochistan, interfering in Afghanistan, and ushering in religious extremism by introducing retrograde Anti-Ahmediya legislations, prioritising the ‘bomb’ etc, everything that drains and ails the socio-economic condition of Pakistan today, through sheer dint of populist rhetoric and unnecessary drama.
He was finally consumed by a true bigot — a product of his school of pandering to fundamentalism i.e., Zia-ul-Haq. Vain and megalomaniac Zulfiqar was no democrat as popularly postured and goes down in history as a manipulative, posing and amoral politician who toyed with moral profligacy and religiosity till he was eaten by the very beasts that he had unleashed.
Zulfiqar’s daughter and the titled ‘Daughter of the East’, the Oxford-educated Benazir initially promised much with her liberal, Westernised and progressive optics that sought to correct the dark days of Shariazation during the Zia era — but she too, proved to be her father’s daughter in image management whilst pandering to the worst instincts of Pakistani duplicitousness. It was under her direct leadership that the puritanical phenomenon of the Taliban was born.
Her Minister of Interior, Naseerullah Babar, has an infamous claim as the ‘Father of the Taliban’ through deliberate investments in the religio-political project. She also knowingly nurtured the ‘terror nurseries’ that wreaked havoc in the early 90s in the Kashmir Valley.
Like her father, she too was the darling of the ‘West’ with quotable quotes and homilies towards democracy but she too was killed by the genie of religious extremism that she had fanned, protected, and encouraged towards her ostensible advantage. Benazir had refused to be different (or progressive as claimed) and was assassinated by the same forces of regression and revisionism.
Young Bilawal’s recent rhetoric and braggadocio are from the same school of Bhutto traditions i.e., high on hype and low on course correction!
Feudal upbringing and exposure to the West is no guarantee of maturity, statesmanship or measure on sensitive subjects like India. Bilawal would do well to learn from familial history and exercise less melodrama, histrionics and theatre.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views are personal)
