Tariq Ali, a member of editorial board of New Left Review and author of dozens of books, wrote an article named as “A Tragedy Born of Military Despotism and Anarchy” on December, 28 2007, a day after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. In this article he writes about Military Rule, its involvement in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination and the difference in Benazir’s views before and after becoming the first woman Prime Minister of Pakistan.
He writes that an odd coexistence of Military despotism and anarchy created the conditions leading to her assassination in Rawalpindi. In past, Military rule was designed to preserve Law and order but today it is a cause of disorder and lawlessness in Pakistan. If we unveil those authorities who replaced major administration of Rawalpindi before PPP’s election rally in Liaquat Bagh on December, 27 2007, then we will easily disclose the truth behind the carefully organized killing of a major political leader and the identity of her assassins as well. According to the writer, some people assumed that the killers were Jihadi fanatics but the truth is yet to be revealed.
Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was also killed in 1953 in the same place and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, father of Benazir Bhutto, became the victim of judicial murder under the oppression of Military in same city in April 1979. This death became a reason of bad relations between Pakistan People’s Party and the army in the coming years.
Moreover, the writer talks about himself and Benazir Bhutto being students of the same university. Also, they both were the only Pakistanis who were elected as the president of Oxford Student Union. This personal relation of writer with her makes this article more authentic and interesting. But sometime he fails to elaborate and clear his points to the readers may be because he assumes the readers knowledge about the topic. He met her for the first time in Karachi when she was a teenager and later in Oxford. They both used to sit together and talk on issues related to Pakistan. In addition, the writer writes that her return after more than a decade in exile took place because of a deal with Musharraf (former president of Pakistan). Furthermore, he says that Pakistan desperately needs a political party that can speak for the social needs of a bulk of the people.
The purpose of this article is to highlight tyrant of Military rule and to make realize the importance of a major political figure, like BB for Pakistan and structural weaknesses of political organizations. Writer’s targeted audience is people who are interested in Pakistan’s politics and those who have concerns with Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Title of this article is very precise and speaks only about the role of military in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
This article was written very next day of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, in very short span of time, comprising of thought provoking facts. He speaks about the involvement of Military in killing Benazir Bhutto and benefits that Military could gain from it. As he mentions in the sixth paragraph that the election of 2008 could be postponed, and the Military high command is no doubt contemplating another dose of army rule if the situation gets worse after death of Benazir Bhutto, which could easily happen. But at the same time he does not leave space for any other parties’ interest in Benazir Bhutto’s murder like PML (N), PML (Q) etc keeping in mind that PML (N) is also major beneficiary of this murder. The writer does not address this perspective. Also he does not discuss suspected role of Taliban and international forces.
Selection of words, by Tariq Ali, in this article is excellent. Article is not wordy at all due to good selection of words. This factor made this article attractive to me. Paragraphs are well composed by thesis statement, supporting points/material and conclusion. A very few points in article lack in supporting points, I will write on this issue later, beside this whole article is very well composed.
Moreover, in some of his paragraphs, some lines are not coherent with each other. In one line he is talking about one issue and in very next line he talks about another issue without concluding last issue. Like the third paragraph’s second and third line. In second line, he is writing about her physical courage to refuse threats from local opponents. In the very next line he starts discussing rally in Liaquat Bagh. This leads to confusion while reading the article.
In some issues he asks a question and leaves it unanswered for his reader to conclude. Like when he talks about involvement of Jihadi fanatics. He says this may well be true, but were they acting on their own? In this matter he does not clear his own view. Just by putting a question he leaves everything on readers.
Sometime he makes a claim on an issue but does not support that claim with evidences. Like in the third and ninth paragraph, he primarily says that she (Benazir Bhutto) lacked the political courage to defy Washington and later he claims that she made her peace with Washington, but in both cases writer does not support his argument with solid testimony. Plus sometimes information is not complete. Like he highlights that after the death of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto relations among Pakistan people’s party (PPP) and army became worse and during this time many of people were disappeared and killed. By giving exact facts and figures of how many people were disappeared, how many people were killed and who were these people, the writer can make his point clearer and more convincing to readers.
Article says that in the past, Military rule was designed to preserve law and did so for a few years. This point of view is not popular in Pakistan. General public opinion has been against Military rule from the very beginning. People of Pakistan believe that the Military always breaks the rules and disobeys the laws. In addition, Military rule is unconstitutional. On the same time he takes the words of people on the issue of foreign policy.
This article was a very timely one as the incident had just taken place a day before and people wanted to read about it. Given the limited time in which it was written, it’s definitely a commendable effort. Although, the writer is not very assertive, yet he leaves no space for other opinion. The author has given judgmental views without concrete evidences which weaken his point of view. The tone has not been monotonous anywhere in the article and tempts the reader to read on. Thus, this article has a far reaching affect on the reader.
Posts
