What Benazir's Assassination Means

To understand why Benazir Bhutto’s death is so important – not just tragic, but of grave consequence – you must first ask yourself the question: which fissures in society are the most highly politicized? In Pakistan the answers are: religion and ethnicity. Class is not much of an issue in Pakistani politics – most serious left of center parties as well any semblance of a Marxist-Lite movement were wiped out by the establishment by the 1970s. Only the PPP is a truly viable left of center party today, and it isn’t significantly left of center either. No party is said to cater exclusively or even primarily the poor and most if not all parties are run be elites.

No, in Pakistan the true lightning rods have been ethnicity (historically) and religion (recently). These issues have driven the agenda in the political landscape since the country’s inception and continue to do so today. Ethnic politics manifests itself in center-provincial and provincial-provincial relations because most of Pakistan’s ethnicities are neatly encapsulated by separate provinces (the Bengalis lived in East Pakistan until 1971, the Pukhtoons live in NWFP, the Balochis in Balochistan, the Punjabis in Punjab, and the Sindhis and Mohajirs share Sindh), with only the megacities – Islamabad/Rawalpindi, Lahore, and Karachi – displaying any degree of metropolitan-ness. The issues which are usually used to assert positions in these battles are things like language policy, water issues, military recruitment, and taxes and spending. Religious politics, meanwhile, have become more overt in the last twenty years. It’s not just NY Times-front-page-type stuff like terrorism or militancy where religious politics plays itself out but also on issues such as rape laws and passports. Both issues have the power to inflame passions and result in significant violence – though only ethnic issues have the potential to result in widespread violence.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Already two explanations are being forwarded insofar as the culprits of the assassination are concerned. The first is that the Taliban or some other Islamic militant organization targeted Benazir for her promising to tackle extremism and militancy. They saw her as a threat and killed her just like they tried to kill Musharraf or Shaukat Aziz or Sherpao. The second explanation is more of a conspiracy theory. It says that our military agencies in consort with the senior leadership of the PML-Q took Benazir out because she was a threat to their hold on power. They point to the fact that another strong party – the PML-N – was targeted earlier in the day. They also point, somewhat more credibly, to Benazir’s letter to Musharraf before she returned to Pakistan where she pointed out some names that might wish her harm. Included in those names was Ijaz Shah, the head honcho of one of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, and, according to rumors, the Chaudhries of Gujarat: Pervez Elahi and Chaudhry Shujaat.

The second explanation holds significantly more potential for violence. The Chaudhries are from Punjab and have essentially ruled the province these last five years. The Pakistan military and intelligence agencies are also seen to be Punjabi entities. The Bhutto family, on the other hand, is about as Sindhi as Sindhi can get. The point to note is that it doesn’t even matter if the Punjabi-establishment explanation is true. What matters is if people believe it is true. And by people, I mean really pissed off PPP workers.

As I type this, reports of violence in the urban areas of Sindh are coming through on television. In Karachi, riots and tire-burning started almost immediately after news of Benazir’s death was confirmed. A hospital was set on fire and a jail (Gulistan-e-Jauhar for the Karachiites out there) was attacked. Five people have been killed so far in firing in the city. This much, I think, was expected. The danger, of course, is that, in the Sindhi PPP worker’s mind, this is about Sindh and Punjab, and that today’s almost spontaneous violence becomes tomorrow’s more calculated and narrowly aimed. In other words, if the court of public opinion privileges the second explanation – the Punjabi establishment one – over the first – the Taliban/militant one – then we could be on the cusp on the breakout of Pakistan’s first brush with mass, widespread violence since 1971.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

There is a very good reason a number of analysts on television have already shone a light on calming Sindhi sentiments. There is a very good reason Nawaz Sharif, a Punjabi leader of a large national but largely Punjabi party for non-Pakistani readers, said in his press conference a little over a half hour ago that “in their time of grief, I want Sindh to know that the PML-N is with them…that Nawaz Sharif is with them.” Center-province relations have been fraught at the best of times but this type of incident has Archduke Ferdinand-type power. Almost everyone – student organizations, political parties, religious organizations – is armed at the neighborhood or district level, and those that are not armed can become so fairly quickly (in Pakistan, only hash is as easy to procure as a weapon). It does not take a great deal of imagination to picture a Pakistan where a widespread conflict erupts between Punjabis and Sindhis, especially if the Army becomes involved in trying to maintain order (which it most likely will). In short, Newsweek’s infamous cover proclaiming Pakistan the most dangerous country in the world could conceivably become a reality. A large ethnic conflict, coupled with militant violence in the NWFP and a nationalist movement in Balochistan (already happening), in addition to rampant inflation and socioeconomic pressures (already happening) in an unstable country with an unstable leader and, oh yeah, nuclear weapons? Yup, I think that would about cover it.

Even if that worst-cast scenario does not materialize, there is bound to be certain level of street violence in the coming days. Riots and strikes should be the norm and I anticipate extremely high levels of tension. I think we can also safely say goodbye to the prospect of elections in January. The idea of elections does not just seem implausible to me at this point but also somewhat inappropriate. At the very least they should be postponed four weeks to give everyone time to grieve (and take a deep breath). What sort of elections would we see under the current circumstances anyway?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Readers, if you are not in Pakistan, there is simply no way I can convey the sense of shock pervasive here. It gets more surreal hour by hour. A significant part of me simply cannot believe that she is dead. Over the last two years or so, I grew to admire and respect Benazir, despite her many faults. As regulars will know, I loudly supported her and her party. But today cannot be about politics. Even those who hated Benazir, and hated her positions, cannot be anything but immensely grieved and deeply disturbed by today’s events. It is, without a doubt, one of the saddest days in Pakistan’s history and a true national tragedy. Our thoughts are with her family, and may her soul rest in peace.