Who Killed Cock Robin?

On the long list of people who may or may not have had a hand in Benazir Bhutto‘s assassination — Pervez Musharraf (everyone in Pakistan already believes Musharraf had a hand in her death), al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the militant outfit Lashkar-e-Jhangvi which doesn’t have close links to al Qaeda, “Hamza bin Laden the son of Osama bin Laden“, “internally-focused Pakistani Islamist militants” who have little to do with al-Qaeda, “all those political and religious factions inside the country that had the motives and resources to kill the former prime minister“, Mike Huckabee — surely one name that also belongs is Bhutto’s herself. (A one-stop shop for most of these theories is here.)

Ever since her return to Pakistan ten weeks ago from exile in Britain, Bhutto had been extracting huge amounts of political capital from the threat of assassination (maybe that’s why so many people figured it was fine to make political capital of the assassination itself?).

And for someone who made so much noise about the threat to her life, and about Musharraf’s refusal to provide her adequate security against these threats, she certainly displayed a cavalier attitude towards actually employing the security protection she had.

When she returned to Pakistan on October 18, and was being taken in a triumphal procession in an open truck that was equipped with a bulletproof enclosure for her protection, she insisted on standing outside the enclosure to be closer to her supporters:

Bhutto herself took risks. She declined to wear a bulletproof vest, and during her 10-hour, slow moving procession through the streets of Karachi on Oct. 18, she refused to use a bulletproof glass cubicle that had been built atop her truck, standing instead along a railing to greet the massive crowds.

The December 27 attempt succeeded only because, leaving a political rally in Liaqat Bagh safe in a “bullet-proof, bomb-proof” car, Bhutto chose to stand in the sunroof opening and wave to the crowd:

Despite Bhutto’s tiredness, she could not resist the chants of the crowd. As the car drove towards the main road, she popped out of the sunroof and started waving amid great cheers. At that instant three shots were heard and she fell inside. A few seconds later a powerful explosion hit the back left of her vehicle.

Hardly the actions of a woman who had reason to fear political assassination, are these?

Benazir Bhutto has rarely been accused over the years of showing signs of personal bravery. (It is only in the last ten weeks that we have heard repeatedly how brave she was to be campaigning this way despite the threats on her life.) Most dispassionate observers have regarded her as a cold and calculating conniver whose main purpose in returning to Pakistan was to exploit (for all that she could) the situation that Musharraf found himself in vis-a-vis the U.S. (This includes exploiting it to negotiate her return to Pakistan in the first place. With the able assistance of Condi Rice, Ph.D.) So it’s not at all clear what game she was playing by constantly and quite unnecessarily exposing herself as a target.

Unless, of course, she herself did not take those threats very seriously. Unless she only hawked them for political purposes without really believing in them at all. In which case, coldblooded though it may seem of me to say so, she was really hoist on her own petard, wasn’t she?

Comments

  1. Programmer says:

    I think you’re too hard on her in this instance. I was not a fan of hers, but it’s not uncommon in the Indian subcontinent for leaders to refuse security.
    (for example, both Indira Gandhi and her son died because they shunned what would be regarded as common-sense measures of safety )

    I think it’s because they feel that living behind a wall of bodyguards and bulletproof glass and travelling in armored cars would make them seem isloated and aloof. In a region where TV penetration is much lower than the west and where thousands of people will travel many miles to see their political leaders at election rallies, I think they are probably right.

    After the October 18 attack in Karachi, I don’t see how Benazir could’ve been unaware of the risk she was taking. Christopher Hitchens has a column about here that I think captures her character quite well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/29/wbhutto929.xml

  2. sarabeth says:

    both Indira Gandhi and her son died because they shunned what would be regarded as common-sense measures of safety

    Let’s keep it real, please. They died, both of them, despite the security they embraced. Neither of them routinely disregarded security protocol. In fact the only way the Sikh militants could find to assassinate Indira Gandhi was by suborning a member of her personal security detail. That’s like a U.S. president being assassinated by a member of his Secret Service detail. Almost unthinkable, and you certainly can’t attribute such a death to security negligence on the part of the assassinated leader.

  3. Progammer says:

    Actually, not true. Indira was advised to remove Sikhs from her security detail and she refused. She probably felt it would be unfair to tar a whole group of people with a single brush of untrustworthiness. But it *was* a conscious decision on her part.

    There is no evidence of any organized sikh miltant group suborning anybody for her assasination. There were a total of 3 people ever charged, of whom 1 was acquitted and another was arguably innocent but still hanged.

    She simply underestimated the level of resentment she’d caused.

    And no, it was not as unthinkable as the US president being assasinated by the Secret Service. Back in those days, there was no organized security service for Indian leaders. It was mostly cops on rotation from various state police organizations.
    There was no rigourous screening process for these guys either (hence the advice to remove all sikhs rather than screen ).

    Similary, Rajiv died because he did not campaign from behind his security detail. Can you imagine George Bush, in a potentially hostile area, stopping to shake hands with unknown and unscreened members of the public ?
    The government had recently withdrawn the specialized bodyguard from Rajiv (By this time, there was a trained cadre of military commandos for VIP security), and in those circumstances, he could’ve been a lot more careful.
    If you google for Rajiv’s assasination, you will find the official enquiry commmision report, where it was indicated that Gandhi repeatedly ignored instructions of security advisers.
    I grew up in India around that time, and recall quite clearly how news articles reported his disdain for security as a badge of courage.

  4. sarabeth says:

    If you regard refusing to remove an entire ethnic group from her security detail as constituting a cavalier attitude to security on her part, you’re welcome to that opinion.

    But I’m just thinking what the reaction would be in this country if a President decided that Hispanic secret service agents (to pick an ethnic group at random) would be excluded from all presidential security detail duties. And I see that as something that could never happen. You cannot blame a political leader for not doing things that are politically infeasible (or even just very problematic).

    For Bhutto to stand behind her bullet-proof shields, or not poke her head out from the sunroof, wasn’t politically infeasible. So there is an apples and oranges issue here, I think.

    I grew up in India around that time, and recall quite clearly how news articles reported his disdain for security as a badge of courage.

    There’s no arguing with that, of course. Except to say that I spoke to two friends of mine who also “grew up in India around that time”. And they both have a different opinion, from each other and from you. So apparently growing up in India around that time does not guarantee that one’s perceptions are indeed correct.

    Finally, I really don’t see how it’s really relevant to my post whether or not Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi also had a cavalier attitude to security.

    All I’m arguing in my post is that Bhutto had a cavalier attitude. That remains true even if I. & R. Gandhi did too.