Join us to Seek Justice for Mir Murtaza Bhutto

Sunday, August 30, 2009

From 2005 Earthquake book by Fatima Bhutto

STORY # 2: I Remember



Naheed Akhtar is Afira Naz's mother & I remember her as being a great support to her daughter. She is a senior teacher at the Girl's High School in District Poonch, Muzaffarabad, & was by her daughter's side at the SACHET Earthquake Relief Hospital. She listened, with obvious love & pride, to every word Afira spoke 7 never attempted to intervene & speak for her. Naheed seemed so focused on her child that it was not until I read her own account of the earthquake that I realized she had been through a trauma of her own.



This is her story.



On the morning of 8 October 2005, when the earthquake struck, I was at school, setting the Urdu paper for Grade Ten. As the ground shook, I started reciting the Kalma straight away. I thought that the earthquake was going to be a mild one that would soon pass but I soon realized that it would not. teachers started running out of the building & I told them to sit down & pray. That's when the earthquake became more intense. There were no more options-we all ran out of our classrooms. As I was running, it felt as if the earth was slipping from underneath me. I managed to get out of the building & joined the middle & high school girls who were also outside. All the katcha houses in the vicinity had fallen & there was so much smoke & dust in the air that the whole town appeared enveloped in darkness.



At that moment I felt that Qiamat(the Day of Judgement) was upon us & I started praying. The school walls had totally collapsed. I saw little girls under the big stones of the building & although it was very difficult to pull them out from under the bricks, the school staff & other kind people worked very hard to save them. One of our teachers, Khalida Parveen, was also trapped there. Her legs were badly injured; she was put on a cot & taken away. Unfortunately, the shopkeeper Pervez, who had helped us rescue the girls & Khalida, had his own tragedy to bear. His daughter, who was in the eighth grade in another school, had been killed by the earthquake. Pervez & his brother found her body & then dug the grave themselves to bury her. There were six to seven dead bodies in each house. I can give you a few names. In Jamil Shaheed's house there were six people dead including his parents. Then there was Numberdar Khan who lost seven family members; Sardar Shafi Khan's home saw the death of six of his family; Sardar Ashraf's family also lost six of its members &, I believe that further from us, the entire town of Jhunda has been totally destroyed. With so many deaths all around, it became impossible to keep count of the dead. After sending the children home we, the teachers, set off towards our own homes. Each of us was worried about our own children. No one knew in what condition we'd eventually find them.



I told the teachers, "You take care of other people's children; Allah will take care of yours." Everybody was crying & praying to God. When we reached the main road we were told that there was no transport avalible. A little further on, we found that the bridge at Abbaspur, the biggest in Azad Kashmir, had been obliterated. We started walking on the road but a few men stopped us & told us not to continue because further on the road had been blocked by a landslide. We then walked along the riverbank. On the way home we saw student from the Boys High School, who were seriously injured, but because the hospital had also collapsed it was not known if they got any medical treatment.



After walking for two hours I reached Abbaspur town. When I had left it at 7:45am that morning it had been full of hustle & bustle. Now it had been reduced to dust. On the way we were told that Abbaspur High School 7 the Degree College for girls had been totally destroyed & there were bodies of dead students everywhere. Then someone told us that Kashmir Public School, in which my own children were studying, had been completely destroyed. I was devastated. Out of fear I did not ask about my children, not knowing what I might be told about them. On my way home I saw the ruins of several schools &, a little distance away from home, I was told by Afira's grandfather that her little finger had been totally crushed.



When I reached home I saw my children looking absolutely petrified. Afira's hand was hurt, but we didn't know the actual state of her finger because initial first aid 7 bandaging had been done by her aunt. When we reached the hospital we found the building in ruins. Outside the hospital grounds there were countless patients waiting to see a doctor. There was no place for people to be given drips properly; the drips were either held up by the patient's relatives or some Good Samaritan. Our worst trial was yet to unfold: it started when it began to rain. After seeking permission from Maulana Ilyas Sahib, it was announced that the injured could be brought to the mosque because its roof had remained intact though the walls had fallen.



We got Afira vaccinated &, after a few stitches, we were advised to move her to another hospital. Iftari time was approaching & people were saying that we should not travel that night but wait until the next morning. We left anyway though it took a great deal of trouble procuring a car, which we had to fill with diesel worth Rs 755. Our cousin Ikhlaq Ayub drove us to Hajira. From there we rented another car for Rs 3000 & reached the PIMS Hospital in Islamabad. We were already strained financially & thought we would have trouble getting medical attention. However, as soon as we reached the PIMS we were taken care of &, by midnight, Afira was x-rayed, given stitches, & admitted as a patient.



A close relative of ours, Danial Ahmad Jamal, was brought to the same hospital with a fractured leg. A few girls from Bagh, who had lost their mother & brothers, were also there. Seeing others in such a bad state made us feel that our situation was fortunate by comparison. After a week we were refferred to the SACHET Hospital where Dr Habib, Dr Irum, Dr Noreen, & all the nurses took good care of us. They created a homely environment for us. My girl's little finger was amputated & her two other fingers were also affected. Her hand is not moving properly yet. The doctors say she should try to exercise her hand.

We pray to Allah to bless these doctors & to keep Banigala always safe. I pray that God will make my daughter well again, the way she was before the earthquake. I am quite hopeful that she still has the courage to think positively & follow her dream.

Page# 5 from 8:50 A.M 8 October 2005

Liberty Convention q&a and closing




fB tells panel name of Indian painter M.F Hussain

Liberty Convention fB talk

Liberty Convention fB introduction

Saturday, August 29, 2009

From 2005 Earthquake book by Fatima Bhutto

I Want To Be A Doctor


Afira Zara Naz was the reason we started this book. The daughter of Sardar Zulfiqar & Naheed Akhtar. Afira was a student at the Kashmir Public Science School in Muzaffarabad. When I met her I found her to be this fearless little girl who was sitting up in bed with her mother beside her. She answered all our queries articulately & confidently. We didn't quite catch her name initially & she promptly took out a pen & paper & wrote it down for us. Afira wanted to talk about what had happened to her. She had lost a finger, & it was as if this loss & the trauma of the earthquake took away any shyness she may have had & forced her to become brave. It was my mother, Ghinwa, who said to Afira after hearing her speak that it was very important that she write about her experiences, so that others can begin to fathom the extent of the physical & emotional devastation caused by the earthquake. Before my mother had finished speaking Afira had started writing. Here is her story....


"On the eighth of October when the earthquake took place, I was in school. It was during our first period that the earthquake started. All the children started to run outside. I was the last one to get out. My teacher, Miss Shamsa Khalil, & I were running outside when a wall fell on us. We were on the second floor & everyone on the floors below was also trying to leave, but the wall fell on us before we could run any further & we lost consciousness. When I became a little conscious, I looked up & could see children's legs sticking out through the rubble. The whole building had fallen down. With great difficulty, I managed to get out from under all the rubble while the wall was still crumbling. A lot of people from the town had came looking for their children. I saw parents lifting their children out of the rubble, trying to save their lives.

A teacher, Sir Basharat, lifted me up & gave me to some other person. That man took me to the hospital but, as we reached the hospital, we found that it had been destroyed too. There were a lot of bodies of our fellow classmates & other students around. There were so many injured people who were being transported to the hospital-but there was no longer any hospital.

The hospital's doctor, Dr Liaquat, brought some bandages from the medical store & started treating the superficial injuries that people had. He also put a bandage on my hand but it was a very bad wound. My finger was almost separated from my hand, & it looked like it had gone through a mince-meat machine. My bleeding did not stop & I had to be taken back to the hospital where they stitched up my finger; but the doctor told us that I should be taken to the hospital at Kotli or Pindi because they could not fix my wounds properly in our town. So my father dtruggled to arrange a car &, though he managed to find one, it was of little comfort because the main bridge had been destroyed. Because of the landslides all the main roads were closed so we had to take the unpaved katcha roads to Hajira. From there we got into another car & finally reached the Pakistan Institue of Medical Science(PIMS) Hospital where they took good care of my wound & me. The doctors there were very good. They were affectionate towards everybody. It was there that I discovered how much people love Pakistani Kashmiris. Volunteers from schools & colleges, boys & girls, were giving blood, consoling, & entertaining the children.

My treatment took almost a week & then they sent us to The Society of Advancement of Community Health, Education, & Training(SACHET) Earthquake Relief Hospital in Banigala. Here too I've been getting very good traetment. The doctors here are very good. They have given us a lot of encouragement & support-dil se-straight from the heart. I thank these doctors. They treat us with love. Dr Irum, Dr Noreen, Dr Habib, & Brother Jacob are all working on my hand together to fix it, but they had to amputate my little finger. Thankfully, they didn't have to cut my other fingers. The surgery done by Dr Irum was very good for me but my hand is still painful. Because of the pain I can't move my fingers or exercise-it makes me feel so helpless. I just don't know what to do. I am trying to move all my fingers so that I can go home. I also think that, perhaps if I get plastic surgery done on my finger, everthing will be all right again. I would be so grateful if that could be arranged. Then I can progress much faster & in a better way. In the future I would like to be a doctor so I can serve other human beings. God, please give me the motivation & fervour that you have given to these other Pakistani brothers & sisters of mine.

Back home, our katcha house has been destroyed. In our town all the good houses have cracks but are still standing. Our was only a simple house, though, & now it's gone. There were eleven people in our family but eight or nine of them have died & the rest are wounded. God, please keep all tragedies & miseries away from us, Ameen. The roads in my town have been destroyed. Our shops are gone & even our photostat machine has been damaged. I cannot shake the memory of the earthquake from my mind. Whenever I think about it, my head spins. Even now I remember every moment.....I cannot forget it...."


Afira Zara Naz, the patient with a left hand injury, had her little finger amputated. She is now in Kotli in Azad Kashmir, her home village.


Page# 3 of 8.50 A.M. 8 October 2005 by Fatima Bhutto

Friday, August 28, 2009

Fatima Bhutto, Whispers of The Desert

“To my darling Papa,
with all the love in
the world…
this is our story.”

You are, page 3

You are
a solitary
star
in a dark,
empty sky.
You
light up the evening
and never
do you
die.
You are a dazzling
sapphire
that shines
only
in my eyes.
For you are
my star
and I
am but your sky.
(end 1995)

I feel your tender lips, page 12

I feel your tender lips
against mine. Could this
be magic?
Could this be true?

How many nights
have I dreamt of this?
Come
into my arms once more.
Let me feel you are here.

So much time
has passed since
I last held you this close.

Tell me you love me.
Let me hear those sweet words
whispered in my ears.

I cannot believe
you’re here with me.
I’ve counted the seconds
for this moment to come.

But now
that you’re finally here,
tell me
when will
you disappear?
(mid 1996)

I have lost the love, page 27

I have lost the love of my life
but she is not gone
she is still with me.
I have seen her
smile in my sleep. I have felt
her breath on my shoulder as I lie
resting.

I have heard her laughter floating
in the air
and I can still feel her heart beating
next to mine.
(mid 1996)

I lie in the darkness, page 31

I lie in the darkness
unaware of where I stand.
I cannot see you
but feel you standing by me.
I know I am alone
yet I sense your presence.
I feel protected
by your shield,
your armour of love.
The day that armour
breaks
is the day
I shall be truly alone
without you.
(mid 1995)

Will you be near me, page 33


Will you be near me when evening falls?
Protect me from the cold wind,
hold me in your arms?
When the moon lights up the land,
will I have you with me?
When the stars
glitter in the darkness, will you kiss me?
Keep me until the night lifts and daylight gleams
upon us?
Or will the clouds descend on you and sweep you
far away?
(late 1995)

He walks away, page 36

He walks away
with promises of return.
I fear that won’t happen.
But what do I know?
I am but a woman.

He comes back wounded.
He will never heal.
What do I know?
I am but a woman.

He falls,
will not rise.
What do I know?
I am but a woman.
(early 1995)

She sits, page 38

She sits on a throne,
surrounded by others
who grovel at her feet.
She seats them next to her
and dismisses the ones who stand.
She co-operates with those sitting next to her and
forgets the ones who stood
She searches for those who know nothing better
than to worship her every more.
But during all this,
she neglects those who stood there waiting,
waiting for less than power,
waiting for basic needs to be met.
Yet she does nothing but smile at them
and make promises she knows she cannot keep.
Not because of hate.
Not because of greed.
Because power blinds those who are
ignorant.
(early 1995)

He looks on, page 39


He looks on
with caring eyes
sees people from within
ignores exteriors
welcomes them in shares their pain
listens
understands
not like others he feels
not judges
could one this strong
you wonder
have feelings this deep?
Yes yes indeed for compassion
is born only
by those strong within
(early 1995)

Up in the mountains, page 45


Up in the mountains,
I am free, calm,
High, near the heavens,
where the air is clearer,
I am myself at last.
I cry without an audience. I smile
without guilt.
I change for no one.
I am loved
as I am.
(end 1994)

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Talking Terrorism In Mumbai

By Fatima Bhutto

When I was invited to speak on my book, 8:50 am, at the Kitab Literary Festival in Mumbai, I was pleasantly surprised. When I received notice that I would also be speaking as part of a panel discussion on terrorism I was caught between being confused and enthused. There were many writers I read and respect coming to speak at Kitab -- including our own Kamila Shamsie, Hanif Kureshi, and Germaine Greer -- and I felt an odd mix of insecurity and delight at the prospect of being included on such a panel. "Don't be mad," cautioned friends, "you're on the terrorism panel because you're a Pakistani. In India, you're going to get eaten alive". Others insisted it was my decidedly pro-'axis of evil' slant that secured my place (all that's left is North Korea…they whistled under their breath). Regardless, I was more than willing to talk about terrorism and flew off to Mumbai and the festival armed and ready, mentally of course.

Government sponsored massacres and murders are aimed at 'fighting terror' or 'defending freedom' while the terrorists kill just for the fun of it. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which slaughtered a combined total of an estimated 214,000 innocent civilians, are justified under this moral axiom. The Japanese government surrendered and so America's violence was perfectly legitimised as it fell under the 'historically important' category. The earlier Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbour, which killed some 2,500 military personnel, would probably not fit under 'historically important'. It was an act of terror and President Roosevelt declared the day of the bombings, December 7, 1941, a "date which will live in infamy". We could debate infamous vs. important forever, but it bears noting that only certain kinds of states are allowed to engage in acceptable terror.

The moderator at our panel discussion, an editorial writer at The Times of India who will go nameless (Indrani Bagchi), was the only one of our panel -- which included besides Brock, the editor of the New Statesmen, and novelist Philip Hensher -- to be attacked. Choosing the one Pakistani on the stage, she asked me whether I thought counter terrorism had become an excuse for Islamophobia in places like "Britain which has a large population of potential terrorists owing to their sizable Muslim population". I pointed out to the nameless moderator (Indrani Bagchi), who was unqualified to make such a bigoted and racist statement, that her statement in itself was an example of rampant Islamophobia.

Bless her, she didn't seem to think so. I then asked if it would be acceptable for me to come out and say that since the state of Maharashtra had a majority Hindu population it would make sense for me to label it a potentially Hindu terrorist location. She clutched her mike and insisted she would never say that about Maharashtra, missing the point entirely but making her bias patently obvious. Religions do not make terrorists, arbitrary violence does. After the entire panel had a go at the moderator, I was pleased to see that the audience -- overwhelmingly Hindu I add, only to prove what a thoughtless and unrepresentative minority the moderator (I.B) was -- took her to task for her statement.

They ate her, not me, alive this time. As our discussion came to an end and we made our way out of the auditorium, so many Indians approached me and insisted they shared none of the moderator's views. "We don't feel that way", one woman told me as she clasped her hand over mine. "We don't believe that about Muslims and we certainly don't believe it about Pakistanis. We're brothers and sisters after all".

Hasta La Victoria Siempre

By Fatima Bhutto

Forty years ago in La Higuera, Bolivia, an executioner stood poised to make a kill. He lifted his gun to shoot and for a brief moment, hesitated. "Shoot, you coward, you are about to kill a man." Replied the man in his crosshairs. His name was Ernesto Che Guevara.

His murder, at the hands of the Bolivian military and their CIA backers, was hailed as a coup for the tyrants of history but in truth it was a rebirth. Che Guevara's uncompromising struggle and ideals of social action and resistance were not to be extinguished; they were not felled that day in La Higuera. Rather, the revolutionary romanticism and political rebellion inspired by Che Guevara has since spread across the stratosphere, surpassing time and symbolism.

Today, as his 40th death anniversary approaches, we remember Che not as those who feared his message would want us to remember him -- safely ensconced on Swatch watches and tee shirts -- but as a political force whose ideals remain, alive and vibrant even though embattled and rigorously contested, to this very day.

First, we remember Che in the world. We remember him as he is seen and felt across much of the Third World, the south, where the promise of socialist revolution, endogenous economic development, and political emancipation draws new breath. On her first visit to Venezuela, Aleida Guevara, Che's eldest daughter and a physician based at the William Soler Children's Hospital in Havana, met President Hugo Chavez to discuss the free healthcare offered across his country.

"Welcome back", President Chavez said to Aleida, who was quite certain that she had mentioned this was in fact her first visit to Venezuela. "It's my first time here", she replied slowly, repeating herself. "You have always been here," said President Chavez even more slowly.

Under the Bolivarian Revolution, the Venezuelan people have embarked upon a 21st century model of socialism, one that provides medical care and education as an inalienable right while reclaiming sovereignty and economic dignity. In Chile, free from the ghosts of Pinochet, the country is ruled by a former prisoner of conscience, a woman who broke the silence about the dirty repression carried out by the military dictatorship that killed Salvador Allende, Che Guevara's compatriot and comrade. We remember Che as they remembered him in the streets of Santiago, Chile, where they gathered to mourn his murder by proclaiming 'No lo vamos a olvidar!' We will not let him be forgotten.

In Nicaragua the right wing oligarchy's grip on the country was broken last year by none other than a former Sandinista rebel leader. In Ecuador again, big business could not buy the elections, and the triumphant socialist Rafael Correa has vowed to cleanse his country of elitist corruption and political malfeasance. In Bolivia, the president has nationalised the country's oil and gas reserves -- the second largest in South America -- and booted aside the (multinational) economic pirates who pillaged his land for so very long. Evo Morales, an indigenous Bolivian and a simple, humble man, made one change to the Presidential Palace when he moved in: he hung a portrait of Che Guevara in his office. There is more, there will be more, much more to come.

Second, we remember Che through Cuba, his adopted home. Cuba's amazing doctors, who travel the world bringing healthcare to those whose countries deny them their most basic right, recently treated a man named Mario Tetan in Bolivia. Mario Tetan was going blind due to old age and cataracts and it was only through the services provided by the Cuban doctors that he could be treated. Mario Tetan was that executioner from forty years ago. Mario Tetan is the man who murdered Che Guevara, a man not facetiously thought of as Cuba's patron saint. 'Forty years after Mario Tetan attempted to destroy a dream and an idea, Che returns to win yet another battle' read the headlines of Granma, the Communist Party newspaper in Havana.

We remember Che and his perseverance through the struggle of the Cuban Five, held unjustly in American jails. The five, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando Gonzalez, Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labanino and Rene Gonzalez were in Miami monitoring anti-Cuban exile groups. They were in Miami, in the words of their noted attorney Leonard Weinglass, to track the terrorist activities of several exile groups that had previously attacked innocent civilians in Cuba (as well as bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976). The Cuban Five were rounded up, not having committed any crimes, and charged with conspiracies. They were handed life sentences -- sentences based not on any actual wrongdoing but on imaginary and fanciful conspiracies -- and have been held in maximum security prisons without contact with their government or their families for the last nine years despite a 2005 ruling of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that declared the original (non) legal proceedings null and void, called for a new free and fair trial and revoked their unjust sentences. Amnesty International has

criticised the American government for their human rights violations of the Cuban Five, MPs in England lobbied former prime minister Tony Blair to raise the issue of the Cuban Five through his government (he didn't), and nine Nobel prize laureates, including Desmond Tutu, Harold Pinter, Jose Saramago and Nadine Gordimer, wrote an open letter to former US attorney-general Alberto Gonzales insisting that nothing justifies the arbitrary incarceration of the Cuban Five and demanding their "immediate liberation". You can sign the petition for their release at [link].

Lastly, we remember Che Guevara through his words. In his last letter to his children he wrote: "If one day you must read this letter, it will be because I am no longer among you. You will almost not remember me and the littlest ones will remember nothing at all. Your father has been a man who acted according to his beliefs and certainly has been faithful to his convictions. Grow up as good revolutionaries. Study hard to be able to dominate the techniques that permit the domination of nature. Remember that the revolution is what is important and that each of us, on our own is worthless. Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary."

Eviction Kara 2002

By Fatima Bhutto
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Daily Times

VIEW: Evictions in Karachi —Fatima Bhutto

The issue here is not the Expressway, but the rights of the people. Not simply their unalienable right to shelter, but also their right to choose where they make their homes and their right to defend their communities and resist forced resettlement. These forced evictions affect all of us

It’s too early in the day to feel so disheartened; after all it’s only one in the afternoon. I have just returned home, home being the imperative word, after visiting three townships that will be demolished to make way for the behemoth they call the Lyari Expressway. To build this Expressway, they have already demolished 11,000 houses, all bearing legal titles. Several thousand tax-paying commercial enterprises will also be destroyed. These, however, are just figures. Behind them, there is a human tragedy.


Earlier in the day we had passed a graveyard that dates back to the early 19th century. It will be there no longer. An old man made his way through the crowd of those gathered and said simply “I have just buried my son here, and now they are going to take him away”. Even death is not sacred.

Why should it be, argues the government, when we can have a highway that takes us faster from point A to point B and allows a neat profit in the process (don’t ask them about the Northern Bypass, a road that does exactly the same thing, without dispossessing entire communities). Further away from the graveyard there is a mosque that has been home to worshippers as far back as 1840. It is now in danger of being razed to the ground.

The Lyari Expressway is meant to run over the embankments of the Lyari River, encroaching up to 100 feet on each side of the Lyari naddi. For this, the area given to the Baloch of Karachi by the Khan of Kalat in 1780 must be vacated. This is not just land we are wiping off the map, but also a part of the city’s heritage and history. Like preserving Mohatta Palace and the Quaid’s mausoleum, it is necessary to preserve these age-old communities that make up a legacy we owe to posterity. We can’t just leave KFC and McDonalds for the future generations of Pakistanis. Somehow I feel it wouldn’t be as meaningful.

The city of Karachi is home to more than 4.5 million people living in slums or katchi abadis. Not all the slums are in the area that is to be transformed into the Expressway. In fact, there are approximately 1,200 katchi abadis.

More than 16,740 houses have already been razed to the ground in what the city government likes to euphemistically call the ‘clean up’ project. The terms ‘anti- encroachment drive’ and ‘beautification scheme’ have also been used in an effort to sanitise what ultimately amounts to acts of violence by the men and women elected to serve and protect the citizens of Karachi

Last week I visited a Hindu minority township, Prem Colony, not too far from Gulshan-e-Iqbal, that has been bulldozed by government agencies. Stepping out of my car, I had an out-of-body experience. I thought I was in Muzaffarabad. Or Balakot. But I wasn’t. I was in the heart of Karachi, and this catastrophe was of the man-made variety.

The residents of Prem Colony were lathi-charged by the police when they tried to protest the brutality of their dispossession and the nazim, Mustafa Kamal, continually refuses to meet them and hear their concerns.

I was among the people of the destroyed colony as they clamoured outside the nazim’s office to seek an audience with his eminence. I was with them as they sat on the pavement and patiently waited for an elected official to address the hundreds of people rendered homeless by bulldozers in the middle of one of Karachi’s coldest winters. I was there for a long time.

I was with the men, women, and children of Prem Colony and Rahmatia Colony when they were robbed of their right to the most basic of human necessities - shelter. And I fear that I will be waiting with them this week, and the next, and the next, and the week after that.

One invariably brings up the issue of compensation, as if to justify the horrific lack of human concern brought on by the government agencies behind these forced evictions. What little compensation has been given to the people being displaced by the Lyari Expressway is far from adequate. Only 8,000 families affected by the Expressway have been given alternate plots of land to live on, and those plots are miles away from their original communities, from their schools, and from their places of work. And they are the lucky ones.

Many evacuees do not even have the offer of compensation or resettlement. While the government can play hide and seek with its poor, shifting them out of eyesight and constructing meagre shacks for them to live in once their homes have been claimed, the one thing it cannot do is compensate the dispossessed for their memories, their schools, their graveyards, and their anger. Deliberately creating a refugee population flies in the face of the development and progress the government claims to be pursuing.

On the drive back home I felt ashamed. I felt ashamed as I passed Karachi Zoo where even the animals have better homes than most of the katchi abadi residents. I felt ashamed as I crossed the Teen Talwar roundabout that was so spacious and so oblivious to the rest of the city. And as the gates to my house opened I didn’t want to go inside. It just seemed so wrong.

The issue here is not the Expressway, but the rights of the people. Not simply their unalienable right to shelter, but also their right to choose where they make their homes and their right to defend their communities and resist forced resettlement. These forced evictions affect all of us. In the basest terms, if it’s not your house and your family today, it could be tomorrow.

We must take a stand now, before it’s too late for our society and its people. We must, as Gandhi said, be the change we wish to see in the world. Our city government’s casual approach to human life will not and cannot stand any longer than it already has, we simply mustn’t allow it.

Those interested in more information should contact the Action Committee for Civic Problems at 0214643592 or 03332159831. *

Constants

Sunday, January 13, 2008
I have spent the last two months in Larkana, my hometown. Larkana is a wonder, truly it is. It offers some of the most wondrous delights Pakistan has to offer. Dilip Sweets, in the heart of the city, makes a coconut mithai you would die for. Hand on heart, it's that good. In Resham Gali, the fabric bazaar, you can find lavish ajraks -- block--printed in the most beautiful of colours ranging from the usual maroon red to the rarer khaki green (khaki wasn't always a dirty word, you know). The denizens of Katlai Sera make an aloo bun kabab, pure heaven for us rare Pakistani vegetarians. And in Ali Goharabad, in the middle of the usual garbage and unrefined sewage lines that are all too common, lies a little nursery. A small cage of green plants, tended to with the utmost care -- an oasis of nature in a cement city.

I love this city, but it pains me to see it as it is. If we are to take Larkana as a microcosm for the country, and I believe we can, then the following are some of the most serious problems facing our compatriots.

The utter lack of medical care:

Government hospitals are ill-equipped and under-staffed. Private hospitals are everywhere, of course, but they are absurdly expensive. I spend several weekends monitoring free medical camps set up in the village areas surrounding Larkana City. The doctors, four men who volunteered their Sundays and forsook their day of rest, treated over two thousand patients. The medicine was given free of cost -- as it should be, if you ask me -- as was the care. The patients were men, women, children and infants. Some of them came wearing no shoes on their feet and grasping the hands of their children, each who had ailments that if treated would not have caused them unnecessary pain and discomfort, but naturally they hadn't been attended to.

Most of the children had scabies and had sores all over their bodies. Zameer, who was two years old and wore a black shalwar-kameez that didn't fit him right, had scabs covering his earlobes, cheeks, and forehead. He cried throughout his consultation with the doctor. Sapna brought her two infant siblings. She described their cough and fever with precise detail to the doctor, but when I asked her how old she was she couldn't answer -- she didn't know. Sapna must have been ten years old; she wouldn't have had to count back very far.

Most of the women who received their medicines came back to the doctor and stood patiently in line for him to explain how to take their doses --they couldn't read the instructions on the boxes. The doctor had to mark their medicine with suns and moons indicating time and scratch marks for the dosage. When Saima, clothed in bright yellow, showed the doctor the cuts on her feet from her school shoes I could have cried. Saima was one of the few we met that day who could read the instructions on her ointment.

We went to two villages and two Union Councils and we saw over two thousand people. That's two thousand people who have no access to medical care. Some men even came carrying prescriptions from private clinics; they spent their money on the consultations and then they couldn't afford to buy the medicine prescribed. They came to us hoping we would give it to them for free. The United Kingdom, France, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries treat healthcare as an inalienable right. We in Pakistan treat it as a luxury.

Agency:

No one -- and I am not exaggerating here -- has ID cards. No one. Especially not the women. When we go to visit people, there is always an obligatory chai break. This is followed by an interminable wait for the tea to be cooked over a wood fire. We cut time by breaking pardah and going over the women's section where we sit with them while they brew our refreshments.

Social security means that while the state is aware of its citizens it owns up to its responsibility by giving every man and woman the right to stand up and be counted. It means it bestows its citizens with what is rightfully theirs -- agency. Agency to vote, to decide, and to lawfully complete legal, political and financial business.

Are you aware of the sheer volume of transactions that require a shinakhti card? You need a valid ID card to buy a SIM card, rent a phone line, open a bank account, take out a loan, register for a passport, and so on and so on. You also need one to vote, coincidentally. And here's the kicker -- many, many people are on the Election Commission's voters' list but they do not possess the ID cards required to cast a ballot. Do you smell rigging? I do.

No refuge from the cold:

Fiendishly corrupt MNAs and MPAs routinely divert funds from the coffers towards personal fulfilment and comfortably deny their citizens access to electricity, gas, and decent housing. Without electricity you cannot use a heater during these long winter months. Without gas -- well, you can't do much without gas. Without housing you cannot take refuge from the cold -- or the heat, for that matter.

Winter in Larkana is cold. It's not Peshawar cold, but it's harsh. The poor cannot afford any of the above; they are not given any of the above. But even so, romals -- the thinnest and smallest kind of shawls -- cost at least Rs50, less than a dollar, in the marketplace and large families (the only kind we make) cannot afford to outfit themselves in any kind of warm clothing at that cost.

Elections have once more been postponed. The country is in a state of flux; we don't know where we are and where we're going. But these factors are constants. These issues don't go away with the postponement of elections -- so what are we to do? How much longer can we as a nation afford to deprive our citizens of their most basic rights while we lucky few enjoy all that we desire?

The poor of this country have no access to healthcare, to warmth, and now to food. South Asia, according to the BBC, has been hit by food shortages. Hardest hit? Pakistan, of course. In certain parts of the country the prices of roti, or bread, skyrocketed from Rs2 to Rs18. That's a 900% increase. Global prices of wheat, our staple food, are at record highs. The government, price fixers and hoarders at best, have been unable in recent weeks to ensure the distribution of wheat and flour. Let's not even get into sugar prices. Exactly how are people meant to survive without food? If the government has an answer to this one, I for one would be very interested in hearing it.

Source: Daily News

A legacy of love

Sunday, January 06, 2008
Bhuttos die young, they are killed much before their time but they never leave us, not entirely. Bhuttos die only through the body, never through the soul.

Two stories: They say that in the late 1970s a powerful landlord in Jhelum went to his peasants to ask for their vote in the coming elections. He gathered them on a small patch of land and lobbied. 'What did Zulfikar Ali Bhutto give you?' he asked them 'You're not any better off than you were before -- you're still peasants, you're still poor, what did he do for you?' They say that one of the haris stood up and spoke to the landlord 'I'll tell you what he gave us. Before Zulfikar Ali Bhutto you used to summon us to your bungalow and tell us who to vote for. Now you come to us and ask us to vote to for you. That's what he did for us'.

There are so many myths surrounding the Bhuttos, so many fantasies and fables built around them that it is difficult to surmise which parts are fact and which parts are fiction. But there are myths, so many myths, and they envelope the mythologized like a shroud of butterflies, casting a light and a flutter around their beloved.

It is love ultimately that keeps them alive. It is love that refuses to surrender them to the beyond. I remember being eight years old and sitting on a flight from Karachi to Moenjodaro. A man sat in the aisle across from me and waited patiently for the flight to take off. He was a poor man of meagre means. He was on the flight for the same reason as I was -- to attend my grandfather's January 5th birthday celebrations in Larkana -- but he didn't know me then. He didn't know who I was till the plane landed and I was met by my Joonam, my grandmother, outside. After the plane reached cruising altitude, the man bent down and pulled a plastic bag from under his seat. It was his only piece of carry on luggage. I remember it as being yellow, but I'm not sure. Through the passage of time I have also mythologized the man on that Fokker flight to Moenjodaro.

He folded out his food tray and opened the plastic bag. He took out an apple, which he had brought to eat not knowing, I suppose, that PIA would provide him with a boxed luncheon of buttered sandwiches on the flight, and then a photograph frame which he first wiped clean with his handkerchief and then placed tenderly on his tray. The photograph was a beautiful one of my grandfather, wearing a Mao cap and smiling. The man kept the frame in front of him on his tray as he ate and as he napped, tucking it away only as the plane began to descend.

That's the kind of love I mean.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto used to say that his mind was Western and his soul Eastern. By Western he meant he was a student of Bertrand Russel and Antonio Gramsci, among other great theorists and writers. But by Eastern, I believe he meant something different. The concept of love is paramount to Sufi philosophy. Without love, there is no path to the lord who seeks his followers as a lover seeks a companion. Sufis believe that the only way to achieve union with God is through the heart.

It was through his heart that we knew him and loved him.

He was flawed and he was human. There is not one of us who can cast the first stone. But that heart? At its purest, it was so beautiful.

A revolutionary poet, Tupac (Our generation has its own poets and sometimes they happen to be rappers) drew on Reverend King's counsel and sang 'It's time for us as a people to start making some changes/let's change the way we eat/let's change the way we live/and let's change the way we treat each other/you see the old way wasn't working/and now it's on us to do what we have to do to survive'

Yesterday was my grandfather's 80th birthday. It would have been, rather. While we usually celebrate it with joy, this year we could not. There was no joy to draw upon, there was only solemnity and remembrance of those whom we have loved and lost and loved and lost too many times. I know my grandfather could not have lived to see his children die the deaths they did, how could he have bared such cruelty? For his not knowing and not having witnessed, we are lucky.

For his not seeing his dream in tatters and in shame, we are lucky.

How do you own a legacy? How do you possess brave men's imaginations after them? You do not, you cannot.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto does not have one rightful heir, or two, or three, or four or five. He was a larger man than that. He has millions of children who will inherit his political legacy. His legacy belongs not just to those of us who love him, but to those whom he loved. To the people, the masses of men and women whose lives he sought to better, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ultimately belongs to them. They have been waiting for him for many years, they eulogized him even though they did not wish to believe he was really gone, it is to them that he returns and where he will forever remain.

Source: Daily News

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Women, Power and Politics Podcast #2October 2008: Fatima Bhutto

HOST: Welcome to the International Museum of Women and this monthly podcast for the exhibition, “Women, Power and Politics.” Each month, we’ll be talking to remarkable leaders from around the globe. This month’s topic? “Women Who Run.”

FATIMA BHUTTO: Of course, there are risks that come with it and it can be very dangerous. We had a case in Pakistan where a woman, she was speaking at a rally in the Punjab and she was shot and killed in the middle of this rally by a man who believed that women who shouldn’t be in politics.

HOST: In her young life, 26-year-old poet, writer and journalist Fatima Bhutto has witnessed and documented immense tragedy and small triumphs through her membership in a political dynasty and the power of her own pen. She is the granddaughter of Pakistan’s first-ever democratically elected president, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and niece to former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was shot and killed in 2007 as she was campaigning for a third term. Fatima saw her father Murtaza Bhutto, a left-wing revolutionary, bleed to death after being shot under mysterious circumstances outside their home.

A witness to ongoing fear, repression and violence, Fatima now serves her country as a weekly columnist, writing about injustice and tragedy in Pakistan’s homes, streets, prisons and hospitals.
When it comes to women’s political participation, Pakistan is often lumped with other countries in South Asia and the Middle East as a Muslim-majority nation that disregards women’s rights. Reports of the intimidation and harm done to women voters at the polls abound in foreign papers, and critics are quick to point out the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as an indication that women have not, indeed, “made it” in the world of Pakistani politics. Fatima Bhutto herself has entered homes to convince women to vote, documented election fraud and interviewed many about the injustice of current laws.

Women, Power and Politics curator Masum Momaya spoke to Fatima Bhutto by phone from her home in Karachi. She asked Fatima to fill us in on the status of women in Pakistan.

BHUTTO: It’s complex. In Pakistan, you have a population of women that is incredibly politically active. They’re very politically aware, in the sense that women vote in this country, women are aware of their right to vote, you know, we have always had female participation in politics as far back as the 1960s. So it’s something that’s understood as almost common or normal.But on the other hand, you’ve got a system of laws in place in Pakistan put forward by General Zia al-Huq, the dictator we had in the 1980s. And these laws are under the Hudood ordinance and these laws are the most violent pieces of legislation against women around. And what the Hudood say is, for example, that any woman caught engaging in extramarital affairs or in sexual relations outside of marriage or before marriage will be put to death. You have very, very archaic laws that are still in place in today’s Pakistan that absolutely seek to oppress women and that are incredibly violent towards women. But then you have a population of women that also sees it as their traditional role to be involved in their society.

MOMAYA: Would you say that this population of women who is politically involved, would you say that they cross lines of socioeconomic status? Do they cross lines in terms of being women who reside in urban versus rural areas, women in the older generation versus women in the younger generation?

BHUTTO: Well, you know, if you look at the direct political engagement, it’s generally women of a certain class that are able to break the taboo line and come into direct politics. But on the other side of the spectrum, in terms of well, less direct involvement but nevertheless important involvement, that’s across boundaries, you know, that’s whether they’re women in villages or women in cities or women that come from a tribal background or women that come from an agricultural background.We had our first elections in Pakistan, our first democratic elections in the 1970s, and it’s a fairly recent thing, which means that they remember. It means that they remember that they have this right to vote and that it’s somewhat of a duty as well as a right.

MOMAYA: And would you say that’s true of the younger generation, women, I guess, who are in their twenties and thirties right now versus women who are older?

BHUTTO: It’s quite difficult to engage this young generation in registering to vote in Pakistan for several reasons, I think. You know, we have a tremendous problem of brain drain in this country where we have a lot of our, especially, educated young professionals leaving the country, and that’s mainly because they don’t see a lot of opportunity for their generation or for their skills. And that lack of opportunity, I think, extends to the political sphere at this point.Also, you have a country that’s ruled, well, really, for the last 30 years by dictators, you know, either civilian or military. So there’s an incredible amount of distrust that’s been lodged in the electorate so far. And you find that many people now--we had an election in February--many people are saying, “You know, what’s the point if I vote? They do what they like anyway.”
But fortunately, since it is a new country, since this is a new system, there is still space for them to believe that they will be heard, and so they do, if registered, if given ID cards, which, again, is a problem in a country that is something like 60% illiterate, if they are given the ID card, they take it and they vote. But dispossessed of the right of an ID card, of course, then, that's a different matter.

MOMAYA: Can you talk about the process of getting an ID card? Is that difficult?

BHUTTO: Well, it shouldn’t be. You know, the ID card in Pakistan is called the [Shanafti] card, which is the national identity card, and it’s a requirement of every 18-year-old citizen. However, in this country, you still have to pay to get an ID card. It’s a nominal fee, but it’s a fee nonetheless, and this is a quite a poor country. A thousand rupees, which is something
around ten, twelve dollars, is still a price to pay for most people. However, you need an ID card in Pakistan to complete most transactions. You know, to buy an airline ticket, to register for school, to complete the job process, to buy a SIM card for a phone you need an ID card.
So it’s incredibly integral, and what happens in certain closed segments of the society is that the woman will have to rely on a male figure to get her ID card, a father or a brother or a husband. And if the father, brother or husband is simply not pushed, then the woman can be made to feel that you know, it’s not necessary. If she needs a card for her phone, her brother will buy it. So it’s become a problem recently, when you look into these last elections, where you have almost 170 million people and just a fraction of them are registered and of that fraction, a mere fraction of those are women.

MOMAYA: And does one need to be able to read in order to have an ID card?

BHUTTO: No, because basically, the benchmark of literacy in Pakistan is to be able to sign your name, which is why the figures of literacy and illiteracy are highly inflated. Most people learn to sign their name in order to get an ID card, in order to get jobs.

MOMAYA: And it seems like some of the more conservative, I guess, norms or attitudes have become codified into law, as well, in the last twenty years?

BHUTTO: Certainly. I mean the Hudood ordinance, you know, which is the most violent piece of legislation against women and minorities, was signed into law in the 1980s and it remains today on the books.

MOMAYA: And have there been any efforts to overturn the Hudood ordinance?
BHUTTO: Only once, only once we had a woman prime minister twice in our history and that woman prime minister made no effort. It was actually General Musharraf.

MOMAYA: Was Benazir Bhutto pressured by women to overturn the ordinance?

BHUTTO: Well, she certainly should have been. You know, there was a great expectation when she came into office that as a woman prime minister who a lot of people placed a lot of hope in, that she would certainly rectify the Hudood ordinance, that she would remove this incredibly violent piece of legislation and she didn’t. Ultimately, because she had to appease religious parties, and she felt that her touching the Hudood would place her politically in a shaky environment. So, she protected the Hudood actually. She almost, it would seem, purposely went against the expectations that people placed on her.

MOMAYA: Yeah, so it sounds like there is some religious rhetoric that is used to keep some of these things in place.

BHUTTO: Absolutely. And what’s been most disappointing for women, I think, is that we’ve had, we’ve yet to have, a religious government in Pakistan. You know, we have technically elected, you know, members of secular party head the government. You know, even your
military dictators can be secular once and a while. And none of these elected officials have made any strides towards repealing this completely odious piece of legislation.

MOMAYA: Do you think the level of religiosity is changing amongst the younger generation, both men and women?

BHUTTO: I think it’s increasing, and I think it's most visibly increasing amongst women. And again, this goes back to religion being used as some sort of political identification, or some sort of political statement. And of course it’s more visible with women because a woman covers her hair.
MOMAYA: So it's a show of nationalism as well, patriotism.

BHUTTO: Absolutely. It’s a demonstration of national difference, of provincial differences, ideological difference as well as religious difference. And in this post 9/11 world we’ve certainly seen women do this in Pakistan. For example, I live in Karachi, which is quite a cosmopolitan sort of port city in the South. And it’s always been, because of its sort of strategic placement, it’s a gateway, commercially and otherwise. Karachi’s always been a fairly liberal city, and growing up as a child here I never saw a burqa in Karachi, I didn’t know what a burqa looked like. You know, I saw it on TV like everyone else.And now, you know, not only do we have women wearing hijab, which at least is, culturally, has a place, you know, in Muslim societies, but we have things like the burqa, which are really quite alien to most Muslims. You know, they come from places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan; they don’t some from places we recognize or we are familiar with, and they’ve become more commonplace.

MOMAYA: Have you personally had to wear a burqa or hijab going into to certain places in order to protect your own for your safety?

BHUTTO: That’s a very good question. You know, the first time that I’ve ever had to cover my head for my own safety was this past year, in February. And I was working on a political campaign, and I was going door to door trying to get women registered to vote.
And again, I was going into women’s houses, I wasn’t going into, you know necessarily, offices. I was going in to see other women, and I was told at some point that if I wanted to make my point properly, then I might want to consider covering my head.

MOMAYA: Was it different for you, just personally, the experience of walking around having your head covered and still being in your own person? What was that like?

BHUTTO: Well, it was very strange, because in my personal life, if anybody told me to cover my head, I’d tell them to fly a kite. You know, my personal life, when I go to the store or when I go to my bookstore, I dress as I like. And I’m of course respectful you of the cultural sensitivities and so on. But I’m a Pakistani, and I’m no different than other any other Pakistani woman. So, I don’t feel the need in my personal life to change my appearance for it to signify
anything about me. And to have to do it when you’re engaging in political work, it’s disheartening. It’s disheartening to know that you can’t take a message that is really quite objective, to take a message like the importance of voting or registering to vote for women, that that has to be shrouded in something for it to be heard.Also, and this is, I suppose, an intentional effect of the veil, you feel quite managed. You know, your peripheral vision is blurred, for one, because you’ve got this fabric on the side of your face. It falls over your head. You’ve got to sort of look to other people for directions, it makes you manageable, and that was very strange to feel.

MOMAYA: Do you feel smaller?

BHUTTO: You do, actually, that’s a good question. I’m quite small, generally. I’m about 5’3,” but I certainly felt smaller and you know, I felt younger. And in the door-to-door work, I was going into women’s homes and I was going and knocking on their door and walking into their houses to talk to them about registering, I always felt really quite strong doing it before, because the message was strong and because the act of one woman going to another and saying, “How do I help you be part of this process?” is quite empowering, and the minute they put a veil on me, it took that away and I did feel small. And what was amazing to me, is, when I went into these houses with my head covered, how different the reaction was, and how accessible everything was on the other hand. It’s almost like you’ve been let into a secret society of sorts.

MOMAYA: I imagine this is a place in the country where everyone covers their head?

BHUTTO: Well, it is in a place in the country now where everyone covers their heads. Again, this is Sindh, and Sindh is traditionally, you know, Sufi. It’s traditionally sort of irreverent outside of the Sufi nature of Islam because it’s so diverse religiously. It’s not known to be a conservative place. Now culturally in Sindh, you do have things like the chador, which women might wear when they left the house. I mean, it’s not a burqa, it’s not a veil, it’s sort of a covering.
I found that the women I visited were mainly covered. They were behind purdah. They were very serious about maintaining their purdah or their space between men. They were not only covered but they wore burqas, you know, and on the other hand, I couldn’t find them, really, in the marketplace, which is why I had to go to the door.

MOMAYA: And, were these women mothers and daughters? Women of different generations?

BHUTTO: Yes. And, what was interesting in many cases is that the older women of the family, the mother or the grandmother, would have ID cards, because they come from that generation that remembered being given an ID card and being told that you have the right to vote. So they keep their ID cards wrapped in fabric in a special part of their house. But the younger women were almost bored by the idea of having an ID card. They weren’t sort of taken into the immense importance of having an ID card like their grandmothers were, liketheir mothers were, and it just wasn’t something that was useful to their lives.

MOMAYA: So a grandmother could have hers from twenty years ago and that’s still recognized?

BHUTTO: That's still recognized, absolutely.

MOMAYA: And just to clarify a point from earlier, when women are observing purdah, does that mean that there are, in addition to a certain kind of covering, that there are also restrictions on mobility, or that they also restrict their own mobility?

BHUTTO: Well, in Sindh, purdah specifically has to do with mobility, I think. Purdah in Sindh was very literally translated.

MOMAYA: Curtain?

BHUTTO: As when you would enter a house, any house, almost, there’ll be a door and you’ll knock on the door, and once the door’s open, there’ll be a curtain, an actual piece of fabric, so that if it’s a non-family member coming in, they can go “a-hem” and clear their voice and the women will have time to move. So not only is this very literal, there is actually a curtain behind the door.

MOMAYA: Move so that they cannot be seen?

BHUTTO: Yes, so that they can be moved to another room they won’t be exposed to this non-family member or this male who is a stranger. And on the other hand, it is very seriously practiced in the sense that once you push aside this curtain and you walk in, you better be a woman. Otherwise, you will have seriously disturbed the sort of calm and peace of the family. So, their mobility is restricted but in many ways it seems they do it to themselves.

MOMAYA: That they’re adopting these restrictions willingly.

BHUTTO: Yes, willingly.

MOMAYA: So when you got to the point of being able to have the conversations, which it sounds like, was a challenge in and of itself, what were the conversations like? Did people engage you? Was there a lot of resistance?

BHUTTO: When I would go into the houses and I would deal with elderly women, when I would deal with the elderly mothers or the grandmothers, I would be met by this enthusiastic chorus of “Yes, yes, voting, we know all about that and we’re very excited about it.” They would sit me down and they would show me their ID cards. You know, they would take out their ID cards from the drawer or from the handkerchief it was placed in to show me that they knew and they were fully aware of their right.But when I met with a lot of younger women, when I met with a lot of women my age, you know, in their twenties, they would sort of giggle and tell me that they didn’t have ID cards. And I’d say, “Well, how are you going to vote then?” And they would say, “Oh, well, we won’t. What difference does it make?” And I would, you know, try to explain to them, “Well, look, it does make a difference, because in a country where rigging is almost part of the national work ethic, if you don’t use your vote, someone else will. If you don’t vote in your name, even if it’s a protest vote, then your name will be used for an illegal vote.” And I tried to explain this to them and they wouldn’t really agree with me that it was of tremendous importance that they have an ID card.

MOMAYA: So it was apathy versus sort of a calculated resistance or a calculated disdain?

BHUTTO: Absolutely. I think that’s the best way to put it. They were very apathetic, and they were almost condescending about the need to have an ID card. I remember one house I went into, and they were a bunch of young women, and they were excited to have someone in their house, but at one point one of the giggling women stopped me and said, “Oh, we don’t…none of us have ID cards.” So I said, “Well, don’t you need them?” And you know, all of them again very sort of enthusiastically told me they didn’t.
So I asked them, “Do you girls have phones?” And they all had mobile phones, and they were very proud of their mobile phones, so I asked them, I said, “Well, how do you think that chip was brought for your phone? With an ID card. So if you didn’t have an ID card, who bought it for you?” And one of the girls said to me, she said, “Well, my father bought me my chip.” And I said, “Okay, and when your father dies?” And she said, “Well, then my husband will buy it.” And I said, “Okay, and when your husband’s not there?” “So then, my brother.” And I said, “Okay, when your brother’s not there?” And we had to go through, really, the sort of patriarchal line of her family until she said, “Well, I guess, then I would get it.” And I said, “Okay, how could you get it without an ID card?” You know, she considered it for a moment but it was so far down the line of her practical life that didn’t really bother her that much.

MOMAYA: Was access to income a factor, or the money to be able to buy it a factor?

BHUTTO: No, it really wasn’t, actually. In certain cases, of course, when we went into the villages as opposed to the city, women didn’t have ID cards and in that case, finances and the socioeconomic background was a factor. But in the city, it wasn’t. In the city, we went to homes that had, you know, televisions and had three or four rooms in it and with girls that had the latest mobile phones in their hands. But for them, it was either, you know, this apathy slash disdain, or it just wasn’t something that factored as meaningful. While, their mothers or their grandmothers held it to be you know, almost a sacred right and they would keep their ID card with the family Koran or they would keep their ID card with their most prized possessions.
And when I met certain women who said, “Well, look, we have ID cards, but we don’t like the candidates, so we don’t want to vote.” And I would say, “Well, I don’t like the candidates either, which is why I’m using my ID card to stamp a protest vote.” That would make a difference to them because they would see the act of voting as almost empowering or as transgressive or rebellious, as opposed to something that you do to fulfill a duty.

MOMAYA: And, protest vote means you go in but you don't vote for any of the candidates?

BHUTTO: It means you usually stamp the whole paper. So you use your vote so that it’s not used illegally by someone else, so the vote’s invalid but it’s a sign of no confidence. No, we have a lot of strange laws that have been put into place in Pakistan almost to enable rigging. You know, when I said it was part of a celebrated work ethic, I wasn’t exaggerating.
You know, there was a law put into place before this election that said that women in burqas don’t have to show their face. They hand over an ID card with no picture. And traditionally, someone would be at the polling station, you know, member would be allowed to say, “Okay, this ID doesn’t have a picture, could you show me your face so I can see that you are Zubaida Khan, age fifty-eight years old?” And they put in a law that you have no right to do that so the person who comes in and hands you an ID card could be a man. It could be a teenager with an elderly woman’s ID card. It could be the same person coming in with forty different ID cards and you have no way of knowing that. It almost condones rigging, you know. It makes it easier to do.

MOMAYA: Who would have thought that the burqa would be enabling in that way. They’ve managed to turn that around!

BHUTTO: It’s amazing, and it was and the only way when you're not allowed to ask a woman to show her face, the only way you have any idea if it’s the same woman coming back or not is by her shoes. If she’s clever, though, she’ll change her shoes every time she comes in to vote. But imagine the sort of concentration and alertness it would take to staff a polling station and look at people’s shoes and register to yourself whose shoes came in when.And we came across it so many times on the actual election day, where a woman would be breastfeeding a baby and her ID would say that she was born in 1938. And she would lift her burqa up because maybe she’s breastfeeding the child or she’s in a room with women, and she can’t read so she doesn’t know what her ID says. So, when you see her ID and say, “Well, this ID says you’re supposed to be about seventy-eight years old, but you’ve obviously got a newborn baby in your hand. What does that mean?” She’s almost empowered to do that because the laws allow her to come in with a fake ID card. The laws allow her to come in with her face concealed.

MOMAYA: And she can’t read so…

BHUTTO: And she can’t read, so she doesn’t know what’s going on, really, and she was paid to come in and vote twelve times or however many times by whoever. So she’s really doing what she’s got to do.

MOMAYA: And just a couple clarifying questions around the voting process: Does the purdah prevent women from going to the polling booth? Are they concerned about going to a public place? Are there women-only polling stations?

BHUTTO: Yes, well what happens is that in every polling station there is women’s booth and a man’s booth, and by booth, I really mean room or area--upstairs would be for the women, downstairs would be for the men, for example. Or if there is enough space, then they will use separate buildings. And they’ll be staffed by women polling agents.

MOMAYA: And is it hard sometimes for women to actually physically get to the polling stations?

BHUTTO: Well, what will happen is that usually, the candidates in the area will arrange transport usually for women. So let’s say, you’re running in this district. You’ll arrange five buses on that day to go around the neighborhood and pick up the women. That’s obviously problematic because you’re sort of using party transport to cast the votes and that’s difficult, but you know, in today’s Pakistan, that’s really the only way sometimes for women to go and it’s also the only affordable way, because let’s say they are allowed to leave the house. Let’s say they’re able to leave, it’s costly to get a rickshaw, to get a taxi or maybe the bus isn’t running.

MOMAYA: What about women who can’t read the ballot? Do they have pictures, photographs of the candidates?

BHUTTO: So, because most of the population in Pakistan is illiterate, instead of having names you have symbols, a party symbol for example. So there’s a picture of a lamp shade. There’s a picture of an arrow. There’s a picture of a fist. There’s a picture of a lion. And you stamp it. Now what is difficult, there are two opposing parties running for seats, let’s say, and there’s a national seat and a provincial seat, and there are two different ballot papers to vote on. Now, they’re different colors, but to be fair, you know, it is quite hectic, the actual polling stations. So when a woman comes in and she’s told the white is national and the green is provincial, if she’s not really paying attention she won’t understand why she has two of the same paper, because they’re exactly the same except for the color.Another thing people do, parties will say, “Look, on top, meaning on the national seat, vote for this party. And on the bottom, meaning on the provincial seat, vote for that party.” Now because they can’t read, they look at the sheet and as it turns out, the top party symbol is on top and the bottom party symbol is on the bottom. So they’ll stamp the same paper twice as opposed to stamping two different symbols on two different papers, so it invalidates their vote.

MOMAYA: And there isn’t someone available or there is not a provision that someone will help them read the ballot?

BHUTTO: When they come in and they get the ink put on their finger, and again, you don’t sign or you put your thumbprint on a sheet and then you stamp on the paper. So while they’re putting their thumbprint, someone, the polling agents, are meant to explain to them this difference. And then you go behind this sort of cardboard box. Now, if someone goes with them behind the cardboard box to sort of explain it further, you know, that’s quite
compromised, I think, and they should be able to go in alone. You know, the other thing that they use intimidation-wise to rig is that they don’t give you a box. They’ll just make you do a khula vote or an open vote.

MOMAYA: Stand there in front of everyone.

BHUTTO: Stand there in front of everyone and put it openly and most women are afraid to do that because for women, voting, it’s still new. They still don’t feel confident enough in their right to vote and the right, you know, of how to vote to demand otherwise and that’s the way of saying, “Well, look, we know who you are, we’re local, we know where you live, we have your ID number and now we know who you vote for.”

MOMAYA: There were also, during the February elections, I know the New York Times had several articles that talked about how there's a lot of voter intimidation of women – that they were threatened and told to stay home, otherwise there would be consequences. Is that consistent with what you experienced when you were out and about during the election?

BHUTTO: There is. There is a lot of voter intimidation. I saw it both I saw it with men and with women. I mean, with men it’s more violent, you know, with men it's physical violence that’s used to intimidate them and with women it’s really the threat of violence.We went to polling station where the presiding officer was obviously politically obliged to a party and was intimidating the polling agents, and the polling agent's job is to contest illegal votes. In this polling station the women who were the polling agents and who were local were being intimidated by the presiding officer and were being told, “If you keep contesting these votes, we’ll come and take care of your family.” You know, now that’s a threat of violence, whereas in other stations, you know, we saw men who had been beaten and we saw men whose clothes had been ripped and we saw men who had been physically turned away from the stations.With the women, if it’s not the threat of violence, it’s just the lack of access. So the woman will come to the station to vote and her neighbors see her and they see who she is and they know who she’s politically aligned to and who her vote will be cast for and it’s, “I’m sorry, Ruksana, you are not registered here to vote.” And she says, “No, I am. I’ve checked my name is on this thing,” but she can’t read so they can tell her whatever they want, really. And they send her away.

MOMAYA: So, given that, it seems like this is fairly widely known. Is there widespread confidence in the election results or do people just accept that this is a part of the system and so they’re never really going to know?

BHUTTO: Well, you know, this year the government claimed that there was 40% turnout but it had to have been under 10% and it would have been in the single digits. And you can tell this from the amount of votes that people win with. Of course, the numbers are inflated because of the rigging, but let’s say that one candidate in 1980 won with a 100,000 votes, in 1993, he
won with 60,000 votes, and then in 1997, he won with 30,000 votes, and then now, he’s really winning with around 3,000 votes. Of course, again, we can’t tell for certain, because they add votes and they add numbers to these things, but ideally, you look at the numbers and it’s not even half, I mean, it’s more than that it’s really just been decimated. You also see, for example, when we were going around to polling stations and the one thing I would ask is how many votes have been cast and you know, it’s close to 4 pm, an hour before the polling closes. In women’s booths you had maybe 20 votes cast or 25 votes cast.

MOMAYA: All day?

BHUTTO: All day, and then in men’s booths we heard nothing higher than 60 you know, if we went to a station and 60 votes were cast in a men’s booth, that was a good station. And then the votes are counted and the candidate wins as 90,000 votes. So, it’s become ridiculous to the point where you know, you’re part of the process. I mean, you go and you stand in line and it takes you ten minutes to vote because there is no one in line ahead of you. And then at the end of the day, you’re told that the candidate won a landslide. It’s perfectly obviously that there’s been rigging. So people have almost resigned themselves to the notion that this happens. They know they can’t change it, so they let it be. You know, they don’t think they’re powerful enough to fight it, especially women, because they are already dispossessed of agency and power.

MOMAYA: Yeah, and I think the challenge of not being able to read – because you can’t contest things.

BHUTTO: Well, you know, for example, this happens all the time, that there’s a party symbol that’s a tractor and a woman will come to vote and she will say, “My husband told me I have to put the stamp on the tractor.” And the polling agent will say, “Well, okay, here’s the paper.” And she goes, “No. He said I have to put it on the tractor. So where’s the tractor?”

MOMAYA: Oh, the physical tractor?

BHUTTO: They want a physical tractor, and you’ll try to explain to them that, no, it’s not a physical tractor, it’s a symbol of a tractor, and I promise you I’m not lying because it says so on the paper. But they don’t believe you because they can’t read the paper, and they only know that they’ve been told, and if they’ve been told by their family to vote a certain way, then they are feeling intimidated by their family or by their husband. You know, the husband wants them to do a certain thing.

MOMAYA: I want to also ask you about women’s experiences as candidates. I know there is a reservation system in Pakistan where a certain percentage of women must come through parties to be put forth as candidates. Could you comment on that?

BHUTTO: Well, you see, the reserve system is very controversial. Because, even with all these blocks, even with all these cultural or religious impositions, Pakistan is a country where women have always been politically aware. They’ve always been politically included, you know, more than in many Western countries, at least, earlier on in the voting process. You
know, the first woman we had in politics was Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s sister, was the founder of Pakistan’s sister, who ran for elections in the 1960s, when Pakistan was 15 years old as a country.So we traditionally have women involved. We have parts of the country that are run matrilineally, where women really are in charge of the community. So, when you introduce a system of reserve seats, what you do is you don’t empower women in the least, because you are putting a woman in parliament who has no constituency, who has no mandates and who has no connection with the voting public.Most of the women who come in on reserve seats are wealthy women from high socioeconomic backgrounds. They are women from prosperous neighborhoods or from prosperous communities, and they don’t represent women as such in that way. It’s not that the reserve system is being used to take the illiterate woman from the village and put her in parliament. It hasn’t been. It's been used to take the socialite from Karachi out of her posh residential neighborhood and put her in parliament so that she can have “wife,” “mother,” “hostess,” “parliamentarian” on her resume.

There are two women who are on the reserve seats, they host talk shows or they write columns for fashion magazines. And now they’re reserve seat women parliamentarians.Another factor is when these reserve seat parliamentarians want to push something through, where are they supposed to get their support from, in parliament? They are weightless. They don’t have voters that back them up, a base where support comes from. They don’t have a mandate of any kind. They’re benchwarmers. I mean, they’re basically there to cast the extra votes that their party needs in a critical crunch. But they don’t empower women voters in any sense. They don’t empower communities of any sense.

MOMAYA: What do campaigns actually look like? In the U.S., they are obviously very money-laden as well, and we have T.V. and commercials and debates and conventions and things like that.

BHUTTO: Well, you know what's funny is that I went, I was in college in the States during the 2000 election, and I went to a Ralph Nader rally and I was amazed at how like, silly the whole process was. And in Pakistan, it’s really more intense. The media is not really the best way to go through the campaign. I mean, you don’t have debates. Parties with a lot of money do put ads on television, but it’s really just like Chinese water torture, the ads, you know they just repeat them and repeat them until people haven’t seen anything else on TV for like, a week.
But most people are not going to have TV, most people in villages, there’ll be a TV in the main bazaar in a teahouse that people will go and watch TV in. But it’s not accessible to them all the time, you know. It doesn’t make sense, really, to use the newspapers too much because many people can’t read what’s in the newspaper.
So what you do is you have public meetings and they’re not traditionally large. I don’t know why you know, when you see images of Pakistani elections in the media, they're always of one person talking to eight million people. And that’s really unfeasible. I mean, you’d have to
have a tremendous amount of money behind your campaign to arrange that kind of public meeting.But really, what it is, is that you go and have public meetings, maybe you’d speak to a different religious community at once and you speak to communities, you speak to families, you speak to blocks of houses in a go where you talk to 20 families at a time, maybe, or maybe five families at a time. Or to speak to the schoolteachers or to speak to the lawyers community or to speak to the shopkeepers association and then hopefully that’s how you reach the widest spectrum possible.But it’s very intense. I mean, this is a very large country, you know. To go from one end of Karachi where I live to the end of Karachi would take me three and half hours. It’s a huge country and there are so many different communities and so many different languages and different ways in which people group themselves that there’s no easy way to reach everybody, it is very grueling to do.

MOMAYA: I imagine that this mode of campaigning would be more challenging for women, because, for example, for a woman to go and speak to a group of men? Is that possible?

BHUTTO: It certainly is. I mean, of course like I said, you’ve got to fight for it. It’s difficult. It is not easy, but if you fight for it, you can do it. Now, if you sort of present yourself as the woman who is too frightened to speak to a group of men, they’ll never come and hear you speak. But if you go and you stand on a table in a teahouse and you say, “Well, listen, I’m here and I have to talk to you and please listen to me ‘cause I don’t have a microphone,” they’ll come and listen.
But again, it’s about your comfort level, it’s about your ability to feel safe in your community and certainly that varies across communities. If you’re in Peshawar, clearly that’s a very different matter, where conservative attitudes, and you know, where the Pakistan Taliban is increasingly popular, a woman is not going to feel safe speaking to men. A woman is not going to feel safe standing in the middle of a bazaar and talking.You know, we had a case in Pakistan, I think it was a year and a half ago, where a woman who was a provincial minister of agriculture, she was speaking at a rally in the Punjab and she was shot and killed in the middle of this rally by a man who believed that women who shouldn’t be in politics. Now, you know, certainly men feel this way and certainly they react violently on occasion but it’s hard to say where that’s more likely to happen, you know. We can assume that in certain areas of the country that are more conservative are more likely to have these dealings and it’s likely to be more dangerous but there’s no telling.

MOMAYA: Yeah, and It just takes one bullet.

BHUTTO: Absolutely, and she was a very young woman. She was just starting out, really, in her political career. She was untainted by corruption and that’s incredibly rare for a Pakistani politician, and she was shot in the face. So you know, while I am saying that women politically
active and they can, of course, there are risks that come with it and it can be very dangerous.

MOMAYA: Fatima, did you ever watch your aunt [former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto] campaign or accompany her on any of her campaigns, especially early in her career?

BHUTTO: I did. I did when she was first prime minister.

MOMAYA: Did she get exceptional treatment on the campaign trail? I imagine because of her relationship to your grandfather [former Prime Minister and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto], she would not be treated as every other woman candidate would while campaigning.

BHUTTO: Certainly. I mean, absolutely. I think the basis of how she is treated stems from her father and that obviously means that she’s treated differently, like you said, than other women candidates. It also means that she comes guarded and already pre-approved for large masses of people because she is the daughter of someone who they respect and she’s the daughter of someone who they politically agree with. It almost didn’t matter what she was.

MOMAYA: So do you think she transcended her gender in some ways?

BHUTTO: It’s difficult to say, because she played the gender card very trickily, you know. In one hand she was the first woman prime minister of this Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and that’s special to Western audiences, but to Muslims, you know, five of the most populous Muslim countries have all had women prime ministers.

MOMAYA: And all through family lineage.

BHUTTO: Yes, and it’s always been through a feudal family sort of step. But on the other hand, her gender, while it was celebrated or it was something that she supposedly transcended to become this incredibly powerful person in her country, she also used it to hide behind. I don’t know if American audiences watch David Frost, he’s a very famous English journalist. You know, he’s interviewed Kissinger and Nehru and all these people throughout time and he interviewed Benazir just about two years ago on his show on Al Jazeera, and he asked her about her corruption cases, of which there were many, and she said, she responded to him, she said, “Oh, David, that’s a sexist question.” I’m sorry—it’s not!
You know, if it’s very easy for woman to pull the woman card and she did that certainly and to say, “Well, look, I’m a woman, and obviously people want to destroy me for this reason but…” and that was used to a fair degree. There’s also a certain amount of uncomfortable nationalist rhetoric that can be easily plied with the gender thing. You know, “The mother of the nation,” and things like this and “sister of the people.” That is all encompassing and that doesn’t transcend gender that is actually exploited as of gender but is used and that was used by Benazir.But ultimately I think, she was the first--the only--woman prime minister we’ve had and yet nothing substantial was done for women. You know, the Hudood laws were kept in place.
There was no significant or, really, any increases in how women’s education was dealt with or how women’s health care was programmed.And towards the end of her second government, Benazir’s government, under her leadership, recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan. Well, you know, they had a large part in funding it too and then promoting it across the border.

MOMAYA: Do you think there was a symbolic power, for instance, in inspiring other women to become involved in politics, or did was it seen as she was exceptional and therefore people didn't--even if they were women--didn’t relate to her specifically?

BHUTTO: I think it’s a bit of both, I think on one hand, she would have been an inspiring figure for young women, but she wouldn’t have been the first. You know, like I said, Fatima Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan’s sister, again, through family feudal sort of means, was a very active member in Pakistani politics in the 1960s. So we’ve had women in politics before. We’ve seen women be politically involved before and unfortunately, we keep seeing them come from this feudal sort of families. We keep seeing them come from this socioeconomic background that makes up 1% of the country. We keep seeing them come from, you know, wealthy agricultural or industrial families.
So on that side, it’s not inspiring. On that side, you do see them as exceptions and you do say, “Well, if she can do it because she’s from this background and I’m not.” You know, I wouldn’t say that either Fatima Jinnah or Benazir galvanized the cause of women in Pakistan and have opened the floodgates. They really haven’t. They really are a question of birth. Most of Pakistan was not born into that kind of status, so they don’t benefit from it. However, I think it is significant that women are still politically aware. I think it is significant that women come to political meetings. I think it’s significant that women are part of protests, and I think they’ve begun to do this in Pakistan really outside of party lines. They’ve begun to do it outside of organized politics.

MOMAYA: If you could sort of have three wishes, or if there are a few things that you could really change that you feel like would have a very significant effect, what would those be?

BHUTTO: Well, the three things, the first is I would repeal this national reconciliation ordinance. And what that does is it excuses corruption on the governmental level. So, it places, really, corruption, it takes it from under the table and puts it on the table. It sort of glorifies the lack of accountability. I would repeal that. And immediately after it, I would repeal the Hudood laws which sort of legally advocate violence as a means of dealing with society.
And the third thing that I would do, if I could do something miraculously, is I would make sure these 170 million people we have in this country are registered with the right to vote, because nothing is representative, let’s even assume it’s not rigged, when you have like 4% of your country voting, that’s not representative of anything. And when women don’t have the feeling that their numbers added together make a difference then they won’t vote, then five of them won’t vote, why should 500,000 of them vote?

MOMAYA: Thank you so much we really appreciate you taking the time and also just sharing the stories from your own experience.

BHUTTO: It’s really just a delight to be able to help in any way.

HOST: You’ve been listening to Pakistani journalist Fatima Bhutto, in conversation with Masum Momaya, curator for Women, Power and Politics, at the International Museum of Women in San Francisco.

Women, Power and Politics is a groundbreaking multi-media, multi-lingual online exhibition that showcases inspiring stories of women claiming and exercising their power. It connects women from around the world to transform their communities for the better.

Source:www.imow.org.