KARACHI: As part of the Aga Khan University’s (AKU) Special Lecture Series, British journalist and author Owen Bennett-Jones, formerly of the BBC, spoke about the Bhuttos live via Zoom from the AKU auditorium here on Thursday.

The journalist’s books on Pakistan include The Bhutto Dynasty: The Struggle for Power in Pakistan and it was power politics that he highlighted in his talk as this is what binds all the Bhuttos — from Shahnawaz to Zulfikar, and Benazir to Bilawal.

Mr Bennett-Jones pointed out that several political parties in Pakistan are dynastic. He also said this phenomenon is not limited to Pakistan but is also seen in other South Asian countries as well as the United States.

Coming to the Bhuttos, he wondered aloud whether they are liberals. “I thought of looking into that and the family’s attitude to power,” he said.

Beginning with Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s father, the British journalist said he had a colonial and political attitude, and he was not very progressive.

“He did feel that Muslim landlords had to be saved from the Hindu money lenders. He resented Hindu encroachment upon Muslim land but he had a very pro-establishment stance as well. “Being knighted by the British, he backed the status quo,” he said.

“But he also spearheaded the campaign for separating Sindh from Bombay. Even though he got folded into the Bombay administration, as many in Sindh objected, still, he is often credited for separating Sindh from Bombay. It was said to be the greatest, crowning political achievement of his life,” he said.

He then asked if Zulfikar inherited this attitude? “He was the son of a Hindu convert. That was a problem for him. Many in his family were not willing to accept that union. This sense of rejection was one of the driving forces in his life. He bitterly resented the way his mother was treated. He said that poverty was her only crime. And this is what led to his socialist ideas,” the journalist explained.

“So we have him taking quite a different stance to his father. Did he inherit his pro-establishment position? Well, no. He was an anti-establishment figure in Pakistan, at first at least. He wanted to introduce a socialist system here. And he always defended minorities,” the author said.

“The Pakistan Peoples Party have benefited from the minorities’ vote. Benazir and Bilawal, too, have defended the minorities. In fact, Bilawal had announced that he will defend the minorities in Pakistan after his mother’s assassination. This was a break from Shahnawaz’s thinking,” he pointed out, reminding that the latter was not a socialist but a conservative figure.

“Actually, Zulfikar, too, was seen as a conservative figure. He captured the minds and souls of voters. His rhetoric and ideology inspired so many Pakistanis to vote for him. His library in 70 Clifton had social texts but also books on Mussolini and Hitler. He spoke about Hitler’s capacity to face power. Even when he was in prison he asked for that literature of his to be brought to him there.”

About Benazir, Mr Bennett-Jones said she wanted to empower the poor. “As she got more power over her party and got closer to becoming the prime minister, she changed. She tried to move her party from the left to the right,” he said.

“She would say that she admired Margaret Thatcher, and she pretty much rejected socialist ideas. And when asked about her moving away from her father’s ideals, she said that times had changed and that she had changed with the times.”

“I think that now Bilawal is not too far away from what his mother’s thinking was,” he said.

“So have the Bhuttos inherited their political views? Not really. But they have inherited that attitude for power. Shahnawaz was ambitious. He enjoyed power as he climbed the British system. He had a British attitude from his youth. His son Zulfikar was anti-system, anti-establishment. But when it came to it, he was also willing to compromise with the military for power.

“When climbing the ladder, Zulfikar was quite happy to work with the powers that be, when the need was there,” he said.

“But what about his daughter Benazir? Well she began with an anti-military stance but then in her second government, she pretty much gave all powers to military and she was willing to do it again in exchange for a third term in power. So all the Bhuttos are willing to cut deals to carry them to power,” he concluded.

In response to a question about dynastic trends in Pakistan, the British author said there were political dynasties in other countries too. “For example, the Americans don’t have (a) subject’s mindset. But they did vote for Bush, for both the father and the sons because of the name and the expectations from that family name. Here as well, people have expectations from Bilawal since he was 18. He also wants power. So there are lots of reasons that lead to dynastic successions,” he explained.

Answering a question about the steps taken by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto against the Ahmadiyya despite his pro-minority stance, the journalist agreed that ZAB was very much for protecting all minorities from his university days, when he also made a speech about it. “But his declaration that the Ahmadis were non-Muslim was for trying to win over the Islamic vote. He had been heard saying that he didn’t mean to keep the declaration in place and when the time and opportunity came he will reverse it,” he said.

When asked about ZAB’s role in the dismemberment of Pakistan, Mr Bennett-Jones said there were three men responsible for that break-up. “It was a struggle between Mujib-ur-Rehman, Yahya Khan and Bhutto and the main drive for the break-up was from East Pakistan. But, yes, Bhutto also did not help keep the country together. It is said that he didn’t really believe that the West and East will go separate ways, which is strange given that he was famous for being far-seeing. He saw the rise of China. How could he miss this?”

Published in Dawn, October 22nd, 2021