The Arti-What?

On the April 4 2011, the Express Tribune published these lines which are a part of an op-ed:

A concise look at the history of Pakistan suggests that if Quaid-i-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the maker of Pakistan, then Quaid-i-Awam, Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was its architect.

Yes. Wash your eyes, folks. The sentence is a masterpiece; it contains both Jinnah and Bhutto in the same sentence. This sentence arrives from the mind of Sharmila Farooqi, one of  the mouthpieces of Pakistan People's Party. Her usage of words made me run for my dictionary because my sense of vocabulary failed when I saw the word 'architect'. As I consulted the internet (you thought I would check it on a paperback) for the meaning of this word, I found out the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language has an alternate meaning. The meaning was:

One that plans or devises.

Indeed, Mr. Bhutto was an architect. Everyone remembers what a terrible mess that he along with his PPP leadership created for Pakistan. His plan was to be in power at any cost, and he got in power by costing us Bangladesh and many precious lives.If I ever end writing the alphabets describing the Pakistan's People Party, I think B would the worst letter to deal with. Yes, I can use the word "Bhutto" but that does not sum up everything that this party is currently and has always been. The "B" that I would use would be Baloney.

In her next paragraph, Ms. Farooqui says

Post-independent Pakistan’s history was held hostage by feudal autocrats and military-bureaucratic despots and this led to the tragic disintegration of the country in 1971. And it was the Quaid-i-Awam, who lifted the forlorn Pakistan and made it stand on its feet. Soon after the fall of Dhaka, the first elected prime minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, appeared on national TV and promised to build a new Pakistan.

WOW! Ms. Farooqui has really outdone herself. She has shown that she is not the beauty with Botox but she also knows how to use Big words. I am not sure what does she mean, when she talks about "feudal autocrats and military-bureaucratic despots", but I think Ms. Farooqui should check the kind of coffee Brew she is drinking these days. It seems that she has tried to artfully make a point but like everything with PPP, it has failed. Pray tell whats Naudero? Last I check, it's a colony ruled by a landlord, something us urban people call a "feudal". Even though it seems, everyone has the penchant to sing praise for this deceased leader but Bhutto was himself, a feudal lord. Furthermore, he was a product of military-bureaucracy too. In 1962, Mr. Bhutto accepted the position of the Energy Minister of Pakistan even though, he was not of age or experience. Furthermore, after the fall of Dhaka, whatever Mr. Bhutto did was a requirement for this country. What he did was required to control the masses of the failed state. Rather than being the architect, Mr. Bhutto, with his unrealistically staunch behavior, became the demolition man.

But this was not the first time of the Bhutto clan to be architects. His father, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, was also an architect. Being the last Diwan (Chief Minister) of Junagarh, Sir Shah Nawaz, fled Junagarh on November 8, 1947 when he handed over the power of the princely state to the Government of India. There have been conflicting reports about this particular piece of the history but his part as the Diwan is quite controversial. It seems that he tried to play a two-way game and fled before the chips fell. Hence, it does not surprise me when I see Bhutto's part in Bangladesh. It is said that a son will follow his father's act rather than his advices.

A lot of people claim that Bhutto had the ultimate panacea for the problems that Pakistan had. However, it seems that he had nothing but trouble on his mind. Every single major problem, that this country sees today, has its direct links with the era of Bhutto. Balochistan is a province which getting rebellious as the day passes. In 1971 after the fall of East Pakistan, the Baloch leaders asked for greater autonomy. However, Mr. Bhutto refused to negotiate. Rather than solving the problem with consensus, he ordered a military operation. Thanks to his aggressive nature, the grudges of the Balochi leadership still lingers on. Furthermore, his movement for nationalizing the important parts of economy, not only costed us foreign investment at that time but it had severe repercussions on our future.

Indeed, Mr. Bhutto gave us the constitution but has anyone noticed that without a constitution, he could have the power he wanted to have. Furthermore, if his given constitution was truly democratic, it would have not required 19 amendments in only 30 years of its function. Indeed, the chants or nara's given by Mr. Bhutto were quite unique but did he or his offspring were ever able to serve it correctly. It does not seem that they never tried enough. I will give the credit to Mr. Bhutto where it is due. He was able to get Pakistan started with its nuclear program. Furthermore, he gave the country a Steel Mill with the assistance of the Russian government.

However, time now calls from something different. PPP has to learn how to move on; their display of democracy is turned out to be nuisance for the people of this country. It would be best that they should let the matter of Bhutto's death stay at the status quo. If they are quite interested in rewriting history, I would advise them that they should start with Junagarh and then made suitable amends.