The accusations Mr B Raman levels at Ms Benazir Bhutto, in his article, The ThirdMess are innumerable, and require an answer.
Mr B. Raman is a well-respected writer who has held high level posts with the government of India . He currently heads the prestigious Institute for Topical Studies in Chennai, and one expects a person of his stature to present a responsible, accurate, insightful, objective and balanced view of affairs rather than ruthlessly pass on-the-fence opinions seeking to mislead the reader into a labyrinth of half-truths.
There are a number of factual errors and flawed conclusions Mr Raman has made while sitting miles away from the country and its people he has chosen to write on. Raman calls Ms Bhutto an opportunist as he feels she let Nawaz Sharif down. Not only is this untrue but malicious. Ms Bhutto had ideological as well as political differences with Mr Sharif over his growing association with the right-wing political party during the All Parties Conference in July this year. This rightwing alliance is in power in two out of four provinces of the country. Ms Bhutto, for her part, took a principled stance to not sit with the government parties and this was made public right from the start. If the respected author had taken the trouble to read press reports, he would have gathered that Ms Bhutto has made several public statements favouring Mr Sharif's return to the country and still considers him an ally in the struggle for the restoration of democracy.
Mr Raman would have also done well to understand the dynamics of Ms Bhutto's ongoing negotiations with the regime. Pakistan is a country that has suffered war-like violence for eight years now. People are entrapped in the vicious circle of poverty, unemployment, lack of justice leading to lawlessness - a state strengthened by the absence of a representative government. In this backdrop, the PPP, being the largest political party in the country with a massive following at the grassroots level has two options: confront the regime and put the nation through more trauma and bloodbaths, or hold negotiations for a peaceful transition to democracy.
Unlike other political parties, the PPP would not want to take the path of confrontation when the path of negotiations can be effectively taken to ensure the country's return to democracy without any bloodshed and violence.
Ms Bhutto's consistent demand before and during the negotiations has been the country's return to democracy through free and fair elections, balance of powers between the vital organs of the state, and especially between the Parliament and the Presidency and the removal of a president in uniform. None of these demands are undemocratic in nature, nor has Ms Bhutto ever asked the government to assure her a PM's seat post the elections. Furthermore, Ms Bhutto seeks indemnity for all the governments that were in power from 1988-99 (that includes six years of Mr Sharif's rule). The PPP is least worried about the votes as we are sure that the people of Pakistan will vote for the Party, for its liberal and democratic agenda, if they are allowed to vote without the fear of the gun.
Mr Raman maliciously accuses Ms Bhutto for being involved in terrorism in India and for being the creator of Taliban. He further accuses her of being a part of the nuclear racket. Interestingly, the writer, despite his academic credentials fails to cite a single reference/proof to support his claims. Just to set the record straight, Ms Bhutto ruffled quite a few feathers in the Pakistani establishment for her fearless stand against nuclear proliferation and she has paid the price for it too. As far as the writer's allegations regarding Ms Bhutto being the creator of Taliban is concerned, this again reflects poorly on the writer's knowledge and the understanding of dynamics that drive the foreign policy of any country. The Taliban government was not created by Ms Bhutto's government. It was instead contained to Kandahar, as a localised entity, and never accorded recognition by her government even after they had dislodged the government in Kabul and claimed to be the rulers of Afghanistan.
The writer also accuses Ms Bhutto of aiming to return to power to make money. This is again defamatory and personal. Mr Raman would do well to know that this is not the first time Ms Bhutto has been approached by the regime. If power was all the PPP had aimed for, we had a better opportunity to grab it in the 2002 elections when we received the highest number of votes in the elections despite the massive rigging that oversaw the rise of right wing political parties to power.
Just to set the record straight, the US is not 'engineering' the dialogue, as the writer implies. The US and the British government have been encouraging towards such a dialogue as they see transition and not confrontation as the best answer to the political turmoil that Pakistan has been going through.
When a writer of the calibre of Mr Raman makes such a case, and a publication of the stature of Outlook carries it, one expects an element of responsibility from the two due to their great influence in shaping public opinion. I hope your publication will review the arguments espoused in this article in the very near future.
Advertisement
B. Raman responds:
I read Ms Sherry Rehman's observations on my article with great interest.She has eloquently explained the points of view of Mrs Benazir Bhutto and herparty. I would be only too happy if her rejoinder is published by theEditor prominently to provide the readers with both points of view.-- B.Raman"
