Bhutto's Assassins and Destructive Conspiracy Theories

New footage has appeared of Benazir Bhutto's shooter, alongside a man alleged to have been the suicide bomber. This seems to disprove the Government's account and the coroners report that she was killed after colliding with the sunroof lever due to the outward force of the blast. You can see the video from Dawn Television below:

That said, the specifics are immaterial. Whether she died by gunshot, or by the blast, the fact remains that she was standing outside the sunroof and that she was killed by her assassins. Whether her death was caused by gunshot, shrapnel, or the force of the explosion has no logical bearing upon the actual blameworthiness of the government. It neither assists Musharraf nor does it reflect worse upon him. The shrapnel/bullet/sunroof debate (started by the somewhat pointless Sherry Rehman) is therefore pointless, and is not an appropriate topic for public discussion, not least because it has zero bearing on any one parties culpability. It should be determined upon by the investigating authorities, regardless of their inevitable shortcomings.

Exhortations to dig up Benazir's body just a day after her burial to resolve such a ridiculous dispute are indicative of the madness that is now pervasive. The governments immediate declaration of willingness to accede to such demands is further indicative of their sheer desperation to acquit themselves of a charge that should never have been made against them in the first place.

Just to put this particular sub-debate in context, it has somehow become wound up with the broader conspiracy theory proposed by many that Musharraf actually orchestrated Benazir's death (rather than the softer version wherein he was simply negligent in permitting it). I have reproduced Robert Fisk's astoundingly daft version below:

"So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan?
Answer:General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month?

Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month?

Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month?

Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite."

Just to clarify, Fisk thinks that the above Q & A speaks for itself in terms of Musharraf's apparently obvious culpability. Fisk's regrettably simplistic efforts notwithstanding, it is close to impossible to actually reason out a comprehensive scenario where it was in Musharraf's interest to kill Benazir. A simple glance at the state the Country is in today should establish that. Secondly and more importantly, even if one outcome did benefit a party it may legitmatley raises a suspicion, but it should not result in an irrefutable charge being made against that party, which is essentially what a conspiracy theory does. A paucity of information should result in a simple "I don't know" rather than a convoluted conspiracy theory.

That said, it should be noted that there is some information in the current instance. This conspiracy theory exists notwithstanding an apparent initial admission by Al-Qaeda, an alleged confession tape by Baitullah Mehsud, and a belatedly thin denial by the latter which incredibly states that "it is against tribal tradition and custom to attack a woman". Baitullah Mehsud apparently lives in an alternate dimension where his brain has been replaced by a walnut, where honor killings don't take place and where suicide bombs have somehow always been intelligent enough to focus their explosive force exclusively upon men and not women. That is not to suggest that Baitullah Mehsud is actually guilty or that the government was correct in identifying him, but rather that his explanation is just about as implausible as they come.

I would submit that the creation and proliferation of conspiracy theories following Benazir's assassination is extremely damaging and detrimental to Pakistan for two reasons:

1) Armchair conspiracy theories and baseless punditry place the burden of proof upon the government to somehow prove their innocence in the matter. Rather than rupturing further, Pakistan's society and state should be galvanizing in outrage against religiously bigoted militancy or at the very least against the use of such horrific violence against our own people. Conspiracy theories however misdirect public anger, with the kind of catastrophic effects were now witnessing across Sindh. The Jihadis (who are a real problem regardless of their culpability for this crime) are effectively rewarded through the instigation of a conflict between their biggest opponents, namely the PPP and the Army, or Musharraf and the PPP (or Punjab and Sindh, depending on which fault line you want to use as perspective). If they are responsible, it's two birds with one blast, and plenty of innocent Pakistanis to follow.

2) Conspiracy theories are not premised upon evidence but rather the lack thereof. The absence of evidence to prove the 'official' hypothesis somehow 'proves' the idiotic conspiratorial hypothesis, i.e "there's no evidence, therefore there must be a cover up". Contending that conjecture stands proven because of the absence of evidence is circular and stupid. We should only be drawing conclusions when real proof, i.e. a motive plus incriminating evidence, is established.

By reversing the burden of proof, conspiracy theories create new issues and new sub-disputes which cannot essentially be resolved (e.g. the pointless sunroof v bullet dispute although that can be resolved, albeit only by exhuming the body). In the future, this debate will stalemate and become knotted, locking innocent parties in a poisonous blame game and preventing the country from moving on and forward. Moreover, the entrenchment of such conspiracy theories prevents people from obtaining closure in the future and prolongs their grief.

Why then do Pakistanis love to subscribe to such investigative jiggery pokery? Well, there has traditionally been a vacuum of credible information in Pakistan. Moreover, the government has historically been positively in-credible and understandably, conspiracy theories tend to flourish in such an environment. Less understandably, that proclivity is further assisted by our individual penchants for gossip, our desire for self-importance and our unflagging ability to draw macro conclusions from bizzare & unreliable anecdotal information received from an uncle.

Additionally, we are extremely willing to believe whatever we like about people we don't like. Consequently, many Pakistanis simply don't like to make well reasoned and slightly obvious conclusions where it's entirely more gratifying to blame people we already hate. Which is why Musharraf somehow orchestrated the Lal Masjid uprising and Benazir's assassination, and which is why the Jews are somehow responsible for 9/11 (and Benazir's assassination, because those we hate love each other obviously).

So by that logic, I hate Atif Aslam, he is therefore responsible for pretty much everything bad because when people are sad they buy his crappy power ballads, and unless he can prove that he didn't secretly orchestrate everything by instructing someone who instructed someone else to instruct someone else to carry out something which caused everything to get messed up, he's clearly guilty.

Chalo. Now lets go burn some banks.