Shortly after the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, former foreign minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote a sweeping treatise on Pakistani foreign policy and the country's precarious position in the region. Advocating a tougher stance against India, stronger relations with the People's Republic of China, and a reassessment of Pakistan's interests aligning themselves with the United States' during the Cold War, Bhutto writes with a coherent grasp of both world affairs and regional power plays. Written before assuming the office of premier himself, it is a primer on Pakistan's place in the world by one of its most controversial statesmen.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was the Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1973 to 1977, after serving as President from 1971 to 1973, and the founder of Pakistan People's Party.
A Sindhi landowner, Bhutto was educated at Oxford and Berkeley, and called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn. Entering politics, he became a cabinet minister at 30, and was appointed Foreign Minister in 1963, as a protégé of military ruler Ayub Khan. Falling out over the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, Bhutto parted ways with Ayub in 1966. He hastily wrote The Myth of Independence a year later, his seminal work on Pakistan's foreign policy.
Following another war with India and the secession of Bangladesh in 1971 (for which Bhutto's detractors hold him partially responsible), Bhutto became President of Pakistan the same year. He passed the country's current constitution in 1973, and founded Pakistan's nuclear programme, but was also blamed for persecuting his political opponents, as well as economic mismanagement.
Bhutto was deposed in a military coup in 1977, and sentenced to death by the Supreme Court in 1979, for authorising the murder of a party dissident. He wrote If I Am Assassinated during his incarceration, smuggling the manuscript out of his jail cell. He was executed on 4 April, 1979. Witness to Splendour, a compilation of Bhutto's testimony before the courts, was published posthumously.
If a nation is incapable of adjusting itself to its next-door neighbour, it will find it much more difficult to arrive at an understanding with nations situated far away. Prophetic words of probably the most intelligent populist leader in Pakistan. Bhutto seemed to have a great grasp of reality before he took power. Judging by some of his ideas in this book, there is no doubt that he was a much read person. It's a separate matter that once in power he failed to put his progressive thought into results, which led to his downfall.
Consider as an example, his unique take on Indian nationalism, 'were it not for the hatred for Pakistan prevalent in India, India would have found it extremely difficult to restrain her polyglot provinces from breaking away.' Therefore follows Bhutto 'it is India's interest to sustain Pakistan' instead of breaking it. This is absolute genius redefining of the kernel of ideology of Pakistan when you consider that 'the two nation theory' had virtually died in the wake of East Pakistan breakdown. This is what statesmanship is all about. And what did Pakistanis do to him? They hanged him like a common criminal on some trumped up charges contorted together by a military dictator.
The struggles we face today have their roots so deep in the history. Nothing happens out of the blue, there is a reason for everything that we have been through. The Saudi-Yemen clashes, Sino-Indian conflicts, and the rising Islamophobia are all linked to the history that we so conveniently brush off as a thing of the past. And when we do not learn from the history it comes back to haunt us.
It was interesting to read up on the early days of Pakistan and how it struggled from being poor struggling country to a strong, stable and self-sufficient country (almost!) that it is today.
The name of the book states the theme of the book very clearly. Small countries who have gained independence are never truly free to exercise their will but are bound by the lethal dance of great and global powers to implement their influence and prowess.
Bhutto tried his best to state his views without undue bias and prejudice. The strength of character that was visible from his words showed that he had excellent grasp of the social and political wisdom. But what went wrong when he came to power, that is the question that needs some thorough explanation.