Interview
With PERVEZ HOODBHOY
STEFANIA MAURIZI for IL
VENERDI of LA REPUBBLICA (in Italian)
Q: Let's start with the tragedy of Bhutto assassination. Today, international
media remind us she was the first woman to become the PM of an Islamic country,
she was a democratic leader, etc. Nonetheless, she was the scion of a feudal
family, which was primarily responsible for making
A: Having first known Benazir Bhutto from high school
in
Even during school days, Benazir thought she had been
born to rule. More importantly, she made not the slightest effort to change the
feudal character of Pakistani politics and society. The Bhuttos
own vast tracts of agricultural land in Sindh that is
worked upon by serfs. Although she promised to bring democracy to
Pakistan, after returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto made clear that for a few
table scraps she would be happy to team up with General Musharraf
under the hopelessly absurd US plan to give our military government a civilian
face. Her party, the Pakistan Peoples Party was her fiefdom. She appointed herself
as "chairperson for life".
Reflecting the mindset of a feudal princess, she even named her
successors to be male members from her family: her 19-year son, who is a
student at
phenomenally corrupt husband, initially known as Mr
Ten Percent and later as Mr. Thirty Percent.
Q: Was Ms. Bhutto a model for Pakistani women?
A: She was courageous and single-minded. And she showed that a woman could
be the head of a conservative Islamic state. Nevertheless, it is hard to see
what she wanted beyond personal power. Although she said that she was fighting
for grand causes, I'm still trying to figure out what they were. She
certainly did nothing for Pakistani women during her two stints in power and
left untouched the horrific Hudood laws, according to
which a rape victim needs to produce 4 witnesses to the act of penetration
(else she could be punished for fornication). Nor did she try to overturn the
Pakistani blasphemy law that prescribes death as the minimum penalty for those
convicted of insulting the prophet of Islam or his companions. As for
democracy: she had been desperate to do a deal with Musharraf
who dangled over her head the many corruption cases that she was charged
with. But he proved too clever for her
and she was forced into the opposition.
In foreign policy, she played footsie with the army.
It could do whatever it liked, including making nuclear weapons, sending
Islamic militants into Kashmir, and organizing the takeover of
Q: Al Qaeda was immediately blamed for Bhutto assassination. However, many
people hated her: Musharraf, the Army, and the
infamous ISI, which in 1990
removed Bhutto from power after she had replaced General Hameed
Gul, the
man who invented the Taliban. Do you believe that Al Qaeda was really
responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto? Who is going
to gain from Bhutto's
death?
A: There are different possibilities and much confusion. But some facts are
certain. There definitely were gunshots, and this was followed by a suicide
blast. Now, I do not think that suicide bombers can be bought with any number
of rupees. Only a religious fanatic lured by heavenly rewards would blow
himself up. Therefore Al-Qaida, the Taliban, or other
Islamic jihadist groups are strong possibilities.
They always hated Bhutto, but even more after she announced in
So did Islamists of one or the other flavour do it?
Maybe, but the waters have been muddied by the government. First, publicly
available photographs and videos show a modern-looking gunman accompanying the
suicide bomber. He fired three shots, heard by all present, at least one of
which hit Bhutto. Some say that there was a second sharpshooter in a building
too. On the other hand, the government initially insisted she died from
concussion and not a bullet wound - an obvious lie immediately refuted by those
in the same car as Bhutto. Second, in just an hour after the assassination, the
police washed away all the bloody evidence with water
hoses. So, it is quite possible that non-Islamists in the government have
somehow used brainwashed suicide bombers, trained in mosques and madrassas, to do their dirty job. But, as in the JFK
murder, the truth will never be known.
As for the gainers and losers: Islamist groups saw Bhutto as a tool of
Q: There is a lot of concern about the future of
A: It has already been taken over! Twenty five years ago the Pakistani state
began pushing Islam on to its people as a matter of policy. Prayers in government departments were deemed
compulsory, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan,
selection for academic posts required that the candidate demonstrate knowledge
of Islamic teachings, and jihad was propagated through schoolbooks. Today
government intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous
groundswell of Islamic zeal. But now the state is realizing that it shot itself
in the foot. The fanatical jihadists it created have
turned against it. It is
supreme irony that the Pakistan Army - whose men were recruited under the
banner of jihad and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam - is now
frequently targeted by suicide bombers who are fighting a jihad to bring even
stricter Islam. It has lost a thousand or more men fighting Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The pace of radicalization has quickened. There are almost daily suicide
attacks. This phenomenon was almost unknown in
Q: Ideally, what do you want to see happen in the next
few weeks?
A: I want Musharraf to go - resign or somehow be removed,
preferably without bloodshed. I want the independent judiciary restored, a new
neutral caretaker government installed for overseeing free and fair elections,
and then elections that would decide upon the new parliament and prime
minister. This will not immediately solve
Q: People in
A: The Americans have tunnel vision. They want lackeys like Musharraf
who do their bidding, although here too there is deception at work. They know,
but choose to forget, that Pakistani military leaders, Musharraf
included, are the makers of the jihadist monster. In
1999, after Musharraf launched the secret Kargil operation in
Musharraf is extremely unpopular now and the Americans
will have to dump
him at some point. It is hard to find a pro-Musharraf
person anywhere in the country except in the top business circles and the top
army leadership. Until recently he ran both the army and the government
himself, with the connivance of a rubber-stamp Parliament put in place through
rigged elections. When the courts were about to rule that he could not legally
be president, Musharraf chose to suspend the
constitution and impose emergency rule. He dismissed the Supreme Court and arrested
the judges, replacing them with judges who obey his every command. He blocked
all independent television channels, and punished the news media for
disparaging him or the army. His police arrested thousands of lawyers and
pro-democracy activists. He ordered that civilians be tried in closed military
courts. This was necessary, he said, to save
The Americans have shot themselves in the foot by supporting the army
consistently for decades. They have lost credibility and respect among
Pakistanis. Everybody laughs when they hear that
Q: In
A: Almost everyone holds the government responsible for the assassination.
Tragically, suicide bombings are not condemned with any particular vigor. There
is no strong reaction against the mullahs, madrassas,
and jihadis. Perhaps people are afraid to criticize
them because this might be seen as a criticism of Islam. Interestingly, in all
the street demonstrations I have gone to after the Bhutto assassinations, there
was no call for cracking down on extremists. Yesterday I met the lone taxidriver who thought the Islamists did it.
Q: What could be an effective way to fight Al Qaeda and the Taleban
in
A: To fight and win this war,
it will be impossible to get popular support for the war. If presented with a
choice between Musharraf and the Taliban, the overwhelming
majority of Pakistanis would want the latter - although I am sure they would
regret it later.
Q: Let's talk about
A: The government says there is absolutely no danger of loose nukes.
And now there are many other such examples, such as that of an army man killing
16 Special Services Group commandos in a suicide attack at Ghazi Barotha. A part of the establishment is clearly at war with
another part. There are also scientists, as well as military people, who are
radical Islamists. Many questions come to mind: can there be collusion between
different field-level commanders, resulting in the hijacking of a nuclear
weapon? Could outsider groups develop links with insiders? Given the
absence of accurate records of fissile material production, can one be certain
that small quantities of highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonoium have already not been diverted? I do not know
the answers. Nobody does.
[Pervez Hoodbhoy is professor of nuclear and
high-energy physics, and chairman of the department of
physics at