“Historiographically, if there had been no exploding mangoes, there would have been no more Bhuttos. Those Bhuttos too (sprung), only ‘epigonously’ in the tradition of Bhuttoism. And just as Cross could not kill Zulfiqar, mangoes could not kill Zia”
It’s been four mountance of decades since Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) moved from here to the Netherworld. Like so many quotable heroes in history, ZAB also possessed the earmarks of a hero. However, the country craves for another, even after all these eons. And, that is where Bhutto becomes relevant today. Why has there been not another, even so, there have been so many great poets and philosophers and clergymen and perhaps generals? Why not a democrat? Not even one? Let us explore together.
When we think of a soldier (strangely, rarely a general), one word that perforce strikes our mind is ‘glory’. However, when we think of a politician (strangely never a democrat), something repulsive resurfaces in our current of thoughts. Let us not name that something. The question is, whether such a perceptual set is framed in our collective mindset through a deliberate propaganda or utter political foibles. Well, the answer lies somewhere in between. Power depends on opinion and opinion on propaganda.
Undoubtedly, Bhutto was no infallible god. But, he was also not that politically fallible. His intellectual profundity, charisma, eloquence and astuteness raised him high as a star in the political firmament. Maybe, that is why he remained a problematic character. Despite the likes of the Royal Faisal, the Victorious Nasser, and the Decked Kaddafi, Bhutto carved for himself a preeminent spot. A leader of the Third World; he intimidated individuals and institutions within and without.
Historiographically, if there had been no exploding mangoes, there would have been no more Bhuttos. Bhuttos (sprung) too, only ‘epigonously’ in the tradition of Bhuttoism. However, just as the Cross could not kill Bhutto, mangoes could not kill Zia. The former survived as Bhuttoism and the later as even he could never have thought of. The dualism of Zia and Zulfiqar lingers. The mummified credos remain ubiquitous. Just to add to a populist slogan: not only that “Kal bhi Bhutto zinda tha , aaj bhi Bhutto zinda hai”(Bhutto was alive in the past, Bhutto is alive in the present), but also, “Kal bhi Zia zinda tha, aaj bhi Zia zinda hai” (Zia was alive in the past, Zia is alive in the present).
“Only by moving away from a security to a welfare state, can we move from a Cromwell to a Churchill”
To understand how countrymen managed to trudge through the Calvary of Zia, we need to dig deeper. One of the chief tactics tyrants can observe to retain power is to ‘prevent rise of any person of exceptional merit’ – by execution or assassination, if necessary. Another one is really interesting – to appear moderate and religious. Well, surely, the dictators we had were devoted students of political science. Still not convinced? Here is yet another one – ‘to make war, that subjects have something to do and be always in want of a leader’. Yes! a leader that can “steer the country out of crisis”.
“Another Bhutto will not surface until warmongering, theocratic bigotry, unmeritocracy and dogmatism exist . We, in fact, need a Bhutto-less-Hubris”
Thus, another one will not come as long as there is warmongering, theocratic bigotry, un-meritocracy and of course a propaganda that preserves dogmas. Even if there is one that tries to rise amongst the diminutives: ‘an example will be set out of him’. In fact, we need a Bhutto-less-hubris. Only by moving away from a security to a welfare state, can we move from a Cromwell to a Churchill. Unless there is such a pro-‘glory’ environment, tyrants will keep coming back. And mangoes will keep exploding. And quite typical of the swayed heads, “not a dog will ever bark”.
(The article tends to put history and political science into the events and happenings. It is the first article in that series of endeavors).
