Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're taking
a necessary shortcut through one of the most,
I think, astonishing and tragic political lives
of the late 20th century in Azir Bhutto. It's
a story that really is bookended by violence.
I mean, to really understand her mandate, the
sheer intensity of her life, you almost have
to start at the end. Right. December 27, 2007.
Roll up Indy. Exactly. She just finished this
huge rally for the Pakistan People's Party at
Liaquat National Bag. The sources say she was
full of fire, you know, full of promise ahead
of the 2008 elections. And the details of that
scene are just agonizingly clear. As her bulletproof
vehicle is leaving the park, she does something
very characteristic of her. She stands up through
the escape hatch. Yes, for that moment of connection.
One last wave to these massive, adoring crowds.
And that's when it all just stops. An assailant,
who eyewitnesses later said was just meters away,
fires three shots, then detonates a suicide vest.
It was packed with ball bearings, shrapnel. It
was brutal. Budo sustained fatal injuries. 22
other people were killed in that attack. Yeah.
It's just calculated. It really was. And that
death was this shocking but maybe tragically
inevitable punctuation mark on a life that was
just defined by dynasty, by power, and of course,
by violence. She was a stateswoman who, across
two terms, first from 88 to 90, and then again
from 93 to 96, she shattered one of the world's
most enduring glass ceilings. The first woman
ever elected to lead a democratic government
in a Muslim -majority country. That achievement
alone is, I mean, it is monumental. It secures
her place in history. But the stack of sources
you've shared, it reveals a narrative that's
so much more intricate and often so contradictory.
than just that one achievement suggests. And
that's our deep dive mission today, isn't it?
To unpack that tension, we need to go past the
headlines and really try to understand the political
tightrope she was forced to walk. It was a brutal
balancing act. I mean, on one side, you have
this global icon. She's highly educated, projecting
this very Western, almost secularist image. But
on the other side, she's constantly fighting
against this entrenched domestic Islamic conservatism
and a deeply, deeply hostile military establishment
that really dominated politics. through the middle
of it all the widespread corruption that at the
end of the day defined both her premierships
and led to her downfall exactly so this analysis
it relies heavily on biographical accounts we're
digging into her privileged background the intense
political struggles she went through imprisonment
exile her ideological shifts and that constant
battle against the conservative power structures
that ultimately just Well, they ensured her political
life was always unstable and in the end culminated
in her assassination. We're looking for the why
behind the power, I suppose, and the how behind
the corruption. And the legacy that remains so
profoundly and violently divided in Pakistan
today. OK, so let's unpack this journey. Let's
start at the beginning. She was born in 1953
in Karachi. And Benazir Bhutto wasn't just born
into a wealthy family. She was born into the
absolute pinnacle of aristocratic Pakistani political
royalty. that's the critical context right there
her family the buddhas they were part of the
waderos this powerful landowning class a sindhi
landlord's daughter and her father zulfikar ali
budo was a giant figure in Pakistani history.
Oh, absolutely. The architect of the country's
first democratic constitution, the founding chairman
of the Pakistan People's Party, the PPP, and
her mother, Nusrat, came from a wealthy Persian
merchant family with Kurdish descent. So you
have this blend of high political office and
immense aristocratic privilege. It must have
created a very specific, very unique world for
her as a child. It really did. Her first language
was English. And her father, in an era where,
let's be honest, educational opportunities for
women in Pakistan were often limited, he actively
championed her intellectual development. Did
he see her as a successor from the start? Maybe
not as the central revolutionary figure she became.
I think initially the sources suggest he saw
her as a potential diplomat, someone to guide
his political government on the world stage.
And that meant exposing her to global politics
from the very beginning. The dinner table stories
are incredible. I mean, can you imagine? Visiting
heads of state were just normal. Chinese Premier
Zhu Enlai, U .S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
Vice President Hubert Humphrey. These were regular
guests. And she officially joined the PPP when
she was only 13. 13 years old. So she's absorbing
this at a level that's almost cellular. That
kind of global exposure, that political tutelage,
is just incredibly rare for any politician of
that era. let alone a woman from South Asia.
But did that background, this Western aristocratic
upbringing, did it help or hurt her when she
finally had to connect with the deeply conservative,
often rural Pakistani electorate? And that is
the core conflict of her entire career. On one
hand, she had instant global credibility. She
spoke the language of Western powers flawlessly.
She was one of them, in a way. Exactly. But on
the other hand, it made her deeply suspicious
to the conservative Islamic elements and the
entrenched feudal forces back home. They saw
her as too westernized, too secular, maybe just
too much of a threat to their patriarchal power
structure. It's interesting because her father's
famous motto for the PPP was so populist. Islam
is our faith. Democracy is our policy. Socialism
is our economy. All power to the people. Right.
But she really only embodied the democracy and
people part. Her background was a world away
from the socialist ideals the party was founded
on. And this worldly childhood was then deliberately
cemented by this. I mean, you can only call it
an intellectual foundation built at the highest
levels of Western academia. She was an academic
supernova. She was pushed. And she excelled.
From 1969 to 1973, she's at Harvard. She started
younger than usual. Her father pulled some strings.
She studied comparative government, graduated
cum laude. And she later described those as the
happiest four years of my life. You can see why.
The freedom, the intellectual stimulation. The
significance of that, a woman from a Muslim majority
country at Harvard in the early 1970s, you can't
overstate it. She's right in the middle of Vietnam
War protests, second wave feminism, liberal political
thought that was completely, utterly alien to
Pakistan's political reality at the time. Absolutely.
And then she moves on to Oxford from 73 to 77.
First at Lady Margaret Hall, studying philosophy,
politics and economics, the famous PPE degree,
and then international law and diplomacy. And
this period has a capstone moment, one that really
marks her out as a leader long before she returned
home. The Oxford Union. In 1977, she becomes
the first Asian woman ever elected president
of the prestigious Oxford Union Debating Society.
That is immense. The Oxford Union is a crucible
for future prime ministers, future world leaders.
What does that specific achievement really tell
us about her skills at that age? It tells us
she was fearless. persuasive. She had this exceptional
ability to synthesize complex arguments and perform
under intense pressure. These are all skills
she would desperately, desperately need later
in life. This wasn't just about books. It was
an apprenticeship in political performance. And
that apprenticeship continued even during her
breaks from university. The sources highlight
this fascinating early moment of diplomacy. She
accompanies her father to the 1972 India -Pakistan
summit in Simla. A really formative trip. Her
mother was ill, so her father took Benazir instead.
And she's just thrust onto the international
stage, meeting Indira Gandhi. The press, both
national and international, was immediately fascinated
by her. And she understood the power of that
symbolism right away, didn't she? Oh, instantly.
She saw herself as representing a new generation,
one that could maybe rise above the historical
wounds of partition. How did she phrase it? She
reflected on it later, saying, Wow. So even then,
she's signaling that she's ready to transcend
the region's historical baggage. A career in
the Foreign Service. Yes. She's... literally
preparing for the entrance exams, ready to serve
her country as a diplomat, a civil servant, a
guide to her father's government. But the universe,
or maybe Pakistan's deep state, had other plans.
Within weeks of her return, the entire political
world she was preparing to enter just, it violently
imploded, and her path was permanently, irreversibly
changed from diplomat to a political martyr's
heir. The life she planned for, it just vanished.
July 1977. Operation Fair Play. The military
coup led by General Mohammed Z. Ulhaq. And this
political earthquake was just instant and total.
It was. Zia didn't just oust her father. He suspended
the constitution and began this rapid process
of imposing Islamic fundamentalist principles.
Islamization, they called it. So the transition
from this political high life to absolute crisis
was immediate. Absolutely immediate. Her father,
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was rearrested in September.
He was tried under very murky circumstances for
a murder that happened back in 1974. And despite
worldwide appeals for clemency, He was executed
by hanging in April 1979. I'm still trying to
process the sheer historical weight of that,
the psychological trauma. An elected prime minister
executed by hanging. That's not just a political
event. It feels like a dynastic curse. And that
single act fundamentally changed Benazir's mandate.
It transformed her father from what was, let's
be fair, a complex and often controversial politician
into a secular martyr for democracy. Which instantly
solidified her position. It did. She became his
legitimate inheritor. wasn't just ambition driving
her into politics anymore. Now it was dynastic
duty and a burning need for revenge against the
military dictatorship that killed her father.
The Bhutto dynasty demanded retribution. And
she and her mother Newsrat, they took up that
mantle immediately. They took control of the
PPP and became the principal Democratic resistance.
They co -led the formation of the Movement for
the Restoration of Democracy, the MRD, in 1981.
And this wasn't just the PPP. It was a broad
coalition of opposition parties. Some of whom
had been fierce rivals of her father. Fierce
rivals. But they were all united by this four
-point program. End martial law, restore the
1973 Constitution, hold parliamentary elections,
and transfer power back to elected representatives.
It showed her political pragmatism right away.
She worked with people who hated her father but
hated Zia more. And that opposition came at a
tremendous personal cost. I mean, the whiplash
from the Oxford Union debating halls to solitary
confinement in a Pakistani prison. That must
have been a catastrophic mental shift. The ordeal
was prolonged and physically devastating. She
faced repeated arrests, extended periods of incarceration
all through the late 70s and early 80s. She spent
two years under house arrest and suffered through
periods in solitary confinement, sometimes in
Sukkur prison, later back in Karachi. What were
the conditions like? They were severe. Her health
deteriorated significantly. She suffered hair
loss, gynecological problems, anorexia. The sources
suggest she had to rely heavily on that interdisciplinary
she'd honed during her academic career just to
maintain her sanity. That period of suffering,
of course, only reinforced her image as this
defiant martyr. But what about the international
pressure? That was key to her eventual release,
wasn't it? It was crucial. She had a huge network
of influential friends from her time at Harvard
and Oxford, particularly in the US. They mobilized
public and diplomatic pressure on the Zia regime.
And that eventually led to her release in January
1984. When she was immediately put on a plane.
Straight onto a flight to Geneva, beginning her
period of self -exile in the UK. We should pause
here because it's vital to highlight the stark
ideological contrast within the family's own
resistance. While Benazir and her mother were
pursuing this democratic political route, Her
brothers, Murtaza and Shanawaz, they went down
a completely different militant path. Yes. The
family split dramatically over this. Murtaza
and Shanawaz believed their father's legacy demanded
immediate armed retribution. So they founded
al -Zulfiqar. Which was a paramilitary group.
A paramilitary group, yes. They trained members
for assassinations, sabotage, anything aimed
at overthrowing Zia. It was a direct ideological
challenge to Benazir's strategy of democratic
resistance. And their actions directly undermined
it. her political position, didn't they? Catastrophically
so. In 1981, al -Zulfiqar hijacked a Pakistan
International Airlines flight, diverting it to
Kabul. The Zia government used that as the immediate
pretext to re -arrest Benazir and her mother.
Even though she had nothing to do with it. She
explicitly disapproved of the hijacking. She
knew it only strengthened Zia's hand by painting
the entire opposition as violent extremists.
This tension between political struggle and militant
reaction, it was a recurring tragic theme for
the Budo dynasty. So she remains in exile, mostly
in London, until martial law is finally lifted
in December 1985. The sources describe her return
in 1986 as nothing short of... Electrifying.
It was a monumental event. It just confirmed
her immense domestic popularity. In April 1986,
she lands at Lahore Airport and she's met by
crowds estimated at two million people. Two million?
Two million people flooding the streets to welcome
her back. She was, without any question, the
face of democratic resistance to the military
state. But the PPP she was now leading while
it kept its populist name. was already starting
to transform ideologically. What was driving
that? Pragmatism. Pure pragmatism, driven by
her time in exile. While she was in the UK, the
global political wind had shifted. Margaret Thatcher's
influence was everywhere. Right. The rise of
neoliberalism. Exactly. So Benazir, recognizing
the economic realities and needing to appeal
to Western institutions and the Pakistani business
community, she begins to shift the PPP's platform
away from its traditional democratic socialism.
Towards what? Towards a commitment to That's
right, economics and the free market. That must
have been a huge shock to the party's socialist
old guard, the ones who were still fiercely loyal
to her father's original vision. It caused a
lot of internal friction, absolutely. But Benazir
knew she had to win. And in the late 1980s, you
couldn't run a government on purely socialist
economics, especially not one that was inheriting
a mountain of debt. She also knew she needed
the right image to succeed. Which brings us directly
to her arranged marriage in 1987 to Asif Ali
Zardori. He came from a landowning family. but
also had commercial interests. Why was this marriage
considered so necessary? In that conservative
political environment, an unmarried woman trying
to lead the country was politically untenable.
The marriage was explicitly designed to give
her the necessary image of social and political
respectability. And the wedding itself was just
a masterstroke of political branding. A people's
wedding. Yes. The ceremony in Karachi was attended
by 200 ,000 people at a stadium party. It basically
functioned as a massive political rally. It solidified
her connection to the masses while satisfying
the demands of tradition. And crucially, she
kept the Budo name. The dynasty's brand had to
remain front and center. It was non -negotiable.
So in the run -up to the 1988 election, after
Zia's death, despite her massive popularity,
the opposition was relentless. The entire conservative
establishment, Zia loyalists, Islamic fundamentalists,
the military, they all united against her. They
formed the Islami Jamhuri Idihad, the IGI, a
nine -party right -wing coalition. And the propaganda
against her was vicious. It was deeply personal,
arguing that it was fundamentally un -Islamic
for a woman to lead the country. They even ran
a photo of her dancing in a Parisian nightclub
during her exile to smear her character. But
the opposition wasn't just political, it was
institutional. This is where the ISI, the intelligence
agency, really comes into play as a powerful,
unelected political actor. That is the crucial
context you have to grasp. The Inter -Services
Intelligence, the ISI, was heavily involved in
political engineering. They actively funded the
IGI. They engaged in widespread rigging to try
and secure a victory for them. The military establishment
saw Butoh, the daughter of the man they hanged,
as an existential threat to their political and
economic dominance. All of that institutional
interference, she led the PPP to victory. She
secured 93 out of 205 contested seats. It was
a plurality, not a majority, so she had to form
a coalition. But what a historic, monumental
achievement. It was a game changer. At 35, she
became the world's youngest prime minister, the
first woman to lead a modern Muslim majority
government. She called it the tipping point in
the debate raging in the Muslim world on the
role of women in Islam. The global perception
was one of immense hope for democracy. Immense
hope. But the domestic reality, as we're about
to see, was immediate, absolute, and crippling
constraint. So she takes office in December 1988.
She's just achieved this global landmark, but
she's immediately hampered from day one. She
has to form a coalition with the Mudahida -Kwame
movement, the MQM. Which right away alienated
the Sindhi nationalist faction within her own
party. So she's politically weakened from the
start. But the real obstacle was the constitutional
framework and this constant sabotage from the
military -backed establishment. Right. She was
constantly battling what was informally known
as the Troika. Let's define the Troika, because
that was the core threat. Who were these entrenched
conservative forces that were so determined to
stifle her every move? Well, the three points
of that triangle were President Ghulam Ishaq
Khan, an old Zia loyalist, the army chief, General
Aslam Beg, and the ISI chief, General Hamid Ghul.
And they all held deep contempt for the Budo
legacy. Deep contempt. They were determined to
ensure that any civilian government remains subordinate
to military interests. They saw her, with her
massive populist support, as a direct challenge
to the very foundation of the military state
that Zia had built. And their control was cemented
by a specific legal mechanism, wasn't it? The
Eighth Amendment. We have to explain that because
it's critical to both of her dismissals. Absolutely.
The Eighth Amendment was a constitutional legacy
of General Zia's military regime. It was engineered
explicitly to keep the elected civilian government
on a very short leash. How did it work? It granted
the president, who in her first term was the
hostile Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the arbitrary power
to dismiss the elected prime minister and dissolve
the National Assembly on really vague grounds
like corruption or instability. So it's basically
a loaded gun. A loaded gun pointed directly at
the head of civilian democracy, and it was used
to paralyze her. So she has the mandate of the
people, but the real power is held by men she
can't fire who have the legal ability to just
end her government at any moment. That structural
constraint seems... It made governing nearly
impossible. She was constantly arguing with Begg,
Gull, and Kahn over policy, over appointments,
over oversight. She won a few small battles,
like getting a couple of new provincial governors
approved, but she lost the key strategic conflicts.
Like what? Like replacing the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, or even appointing her own finance minister.
They blocked her at every turn. And this external
opposition was then compounded by severe internal
issues. Her administration immediately indulged
in cronyism, didn't it? It did. Her first cabinet
was the largest in Pakistan's history. Her mother
was a senior minister without portfolio. Her
father -in -law became chairman of the Parliamentary
Public Accounts Committee. That must have disheartened
reformers immediately, people who hoped she represented
a clean break from Pakistan's entrenched systems
of corruption and feudal politics. It did. It
signaled business as usual. However, to be fair,
it's important to note the civilian successes
she did manage to achieve despite all those constraints.
So what concrete policy wins did she manage to
push through under that kind of intense pressure?
She did achieve some significant democratic successes.
She immediately lifted censorship, which was
huge. She released political prisoners who had
been detained under Zaya's regime. She ended
the ban on trade unions and student associations.
And internationally. Symbolically and internationally,
she was successful in getting Pakistan readmitted
to the Commonwealth of Nations. These actions
marked a vital shift back toward democratic norms
after years of military dictatorship. But the
policy failures were... significant and often
driven by the structural problems she inherited.
The economy was a mess. A complete disaster.
She inherited a government that was nearly bankrupt.
It had borrowed heavily at high interest rates
during the Zaya years. This made it economically
impossible for her to finance the massive social
programs she'd promised. Things like a million
new homes, universal free education. Right. All
those poverty alleviation schemes. The reality
of the national treasury just did not match her
populist rhetoric. And then there's the failure
to address Zia's religious legacy, the Hudud
ordinances. This is listed as a major failure.
But for listeners who don't follow Pakistani
law closely. What exactly were these and why
couldn't you repeal them? This is a crucial area
of contradiction for her. The hudud ordinances
were a set of harsh, conservative Islamic laws
imposed by Zia as part of his Islamization program.
They dealt with issues like theft, adultery,
and alcohol consumption, often prescribing punishments
like lashing and stoning. They were highly discriminatory,
especially against women. Exactly. And Budo had
passionately vowed to abolish them. She saw them
as barbaric and unfair. But she didn't touch
them. During either of her premierships. Why?
Because the conservative backlash would have
instantly ended her government, probably far
sooner than it did. The powerful religious parties,
the military establishment, they stood firmly
behind these laws. Any attempt to repeal them
would have been painted as an attack on Islam
itself. So she faced an impossible political
choice. An impossible choice. Maintain power
and keep the oppressive laws or try to repeal
the laws and lose power immediately to the fundamentalists.
She chose to maintain power. The Hudud ordinances
stayed in place until 2006. Let's talk about
another critical detail that really demonstrates
the level of military control, nuclear policy.
The sources indicate she was deliberately kept
completely in the dark on Pakistan's most sensitive
military program. This just shows you how absolute
the Chorka's control was. I mean, think about
it. She's the prime minister, a Harvard and Oxford
graduate, and the military managed to completely
exclude her from the nuclear file. President
Khan and the military chiefs just refused to
disclose anything. She later recalled having
to bypass the official chain of command to speak
directly with key scientists like A .Q. Khan
just to get a sense of the program's status.
This plays into her infamous 1989 trip to the
U .S. where she made a very powerful public commitment.
She told the U .S. Congress, we do not possess
nor do we intend to make a nuclear device. It
was a strong, reassuring statement meant to repair
Pakistani -American relations. But while she
was in Washington, she received a profound shock.
What happened? The CIA director, William Webster,
pulled her aside and showed her a mockup of the
Pakistani nuclear weapon. He revealed just how
sophisticated the program had become, information
that she, the prime minister of the country,
was completely unaware of. She must have been
genuinely shocked. She was. And the U .S. immediately
pressed her. President Bush told her that military
aid would cease unless Pakistan stopped producing
nuclear bomb cores. She authorized a few cold
tests of nuclear weaponry, but even that didn't
satisfy the increasingly suspicious military
authorities back home. She was navigating this
intense foreign relations tightrope, wasn't she?
Balancing global pressure with domestic expectations.
Completely. She initially warmed relations with
India's Rajiv Gandhi. They agreed not to attack
each other's nuclear installations, and she terminated
Zia's policy of supporting Sikh separatists.
And the domestic reaction. An explosion. The
conservative forces accused her of being a secret
Indian agent. So facing the severe criticism
and the threat of internal destabilization, she
pivoted fast. How dramatic was that pivot on
regional relations? It was sharp. She adopted
a much harder line on Kashmir. She visited training
camps for pro -independence Kashmiri militants
on the Pakistani side and pledged funds to their
cause, actively inciting Kashmiri Muslims to
rise up against Indian rule. It's a stunning
display of ideological flexibility. It is. She
later even called supporting proxy wars in Punjab
and Kashmir the one right thing that Zia had
undertaken. She was willing to compromise principle
for political survival. And this relentless political
maneuvering brings us back to the seed of her
eventual downfall. The massive corruption surrounding
her husband, Asif Ali Zardari. This surfaced
almost immediately in her first term. The signs
were there from day one. Zardari attended cabinet
meetings despite holding no official post, and
he quickly picked up that infamous nickname.
Mr. 10%. Mr. 10%. The sources suggest this was
a direct result of him receiving massive kickbacks
on state deals. The military establishment, especially
the ISI, saw this weakness and they exploited
it ruthlessly. They didn't just observe the corruption,
did they? They actively facilitated the lawsuits
against him. They absolutely intervened. The
ISI was heavily involved in spying on the couple,
paying plaintiffs to file corruption suits against
Zardari, manufacturing evidence. Now, while the
investigations were undeniably politically motivated
by the military. The tragic reality is that the
evidence of his guilt and her complicity was.
Regrettably, yes. And this combination of institutional
sabotage, policy stumbles, and the rising tide
of corruption led directly to her first dismissal.
It did. The opposition, aided by ISI actions
like Operation Midnight Jackal, which involved
bribing and intimidating PPP parliamentarians
to flip their loyalty, it weakened her coalition
until it broke. And in August 1990, President
Khan finally pulled the trigger. He used the
Eighth Amendment. He dismissed her government.
citing corruption and political instability.
Zardari was arrested on extortion charges and
imprisoned for three years. She was out. And
Nawaz Sharif, the Zia protege, took power. So
Nawaz Sharif's own government is dismissed in
1993, which allows Bhutto to return to power
after another election. She wins the most seats,
again without a clear majority, but this time
she secures a crucial political shield against
that troika. She definitely learned from her
past mistakes regarding the presidency. She made
sure her loyalist, Farouk Lagari, was elected
president in November 1993. Which theoretically
removed the risk of the president arbitrarily
firing her with the Eighth Amendment, like Khan
had done. Theoretically, yes. That was the plan.
And what about Zardari? He's released from prison
as soon as she's back in power. Yes. And he's
immediately appointed to multiple high level,
extremely lucrative roles. He becomes investment
minister, chief of the Intelligence Bureau and
chair of the Environment Protection Council.
This wasn't just about rewarding loyalty, was
it? It was about placing him in positions where
he could exert enormous financial influence.
That's right. And this set the stage for the
true apex of the corruption scandal. the scale
of the reported financial takings during the
second term, It truly tests credibility. By 1996,
the couple's total illicit takings through corrupt
deals were estimated to be around $1 .5 billion.
$1 .5 billion. This wasn't small -time graft.
This was grand -scale international exploitation
of the state. We really need to give this the
depth it deserves because this illustrates the
immense contradiction in her legacy. What are
some of the most specific, just jaw -dropping
details that investigations uncovered from this
period? Okay, consider these specifics. She gave
Zardari a monopoly on gold imports. A monopoly?
A total monopoly. A deal that allegedly earned
him $10 million, which was then deposited in
an Indian bank. And what about their properties?
She ordered the construction of a sprawling new
110 -acre prime ministerial residence in Islamabad
that cost a reported $50 million. But most notoriously,
Zardari secretly purchased the 15 -bedroom Rockwood
estate in Surrey, England. a lavish property
hidden through a complicated network of offshore
shell companies based in the Isle of Man. So
while she's running one of the world's most corrupt
countries, Transparency International ranked
Pakistan the world's second most corrupt during
this term, she's also secretly acquiring these
massive hidden international assets. And the
corruption was deeply globalized. Later Swiss
investigations, specifically the ones led by
a Geneva magistrate named Daniel DeVoe, revealed
damning evidence. Oh, the Swiss investigations
were key. DeVoe investigated $200 million that
was intended for Zardari and another Pakistani
official from the French. aircraft manufacturer
Dassault to facilitate a $4 billion jet sale.
And there was more. There was $15 million in
bribes taken from two Swiss customs firms, SGS
and Catechna. And these weren't just accusations.
These were legal findings. What was the Swiss
magistrate's ultimate conclusion about Boutot's
own role in all this? DeVoe concluded that Boutot
herself knew she was acting in a criminally reprehensible
manner. Now, she consistently maintained that
these were all politically motivated witch hunts,
but a UK court later ruled that the Rockwood
estate should be sold, with the proceeds going
back to the Pakistani state. They acknowledged
it was the rightful defrauded owner. And the
connection to international financial secrecy
just kept growing over the years. It did. The
Panama Papers revelations later linked her to
Mossack Fonseca and an entity called Petroline
International Inc. And even more seriously, a
U .N. inquiry in 2005 concluded that her firm
paid $2 million in bribes to Saddam Hussein's
government to get oil contracts under the U .N.'s
Oil for Food program. The scope is just shocking.
And amidst this tidal wave of corruption, she
was also pushing forward with what our sources
call the imperfect feminist agenda, an interesting
and, frankly, frustrating mix of progress and
concession. This is truly the core contradiction
of her political identity. On one hand, she was
celebrated for advancing women's rights. But
on the other, she was criticized for failing
to deliver core reforms. What were the achievements?
She ratified the convention on the elimination
of all forms of discrimination against women.
She created a women's development division, a
women's bank. She established family courts with
female judges and appointed the first women judges
to the Supreme Courts of Peshawar and Sindh.
Globally, she was... So why the title Imperfect
Feminist? Because despite all of that, which
required immense political capital, she failed
utterly on her most potent promise, repealing
the conservative discriminatory hoodoo ordinances.
The same ones from her first term. The very same.
She'd vowed to abolish them and she failed again.
She was heavily criticized by liberal and feminist
groups for prioritizing political survival over
fundamental rights reform. On top of that, she
maintained a strong publicly anti -abortion stance.
She even spoke forcefully against it at a 1994
international conference, accusing the West of
trying to impose its secular norms on religious
societies. So a political feminist? but a traditionalist
in many social and religious areas. It seems
so. And while she's dealing with all this international
scandal, social compromises, she's facing an
explosive internal threat. the Budo family civil
war, which erupts when her brother Murtaza returns
from exile. This was intensely personal, political,
and ultimately deadly. Murtaza returns in 1993,
and he positions herself as the true socialist
heir to their father's populist legacy. His entire
platform was based on genuine egalitarianism
and direct public criticism of Zardari's soaring
corruption. The clash of the dynasts. It was
highly publicized and deeply damaging for her.
Deeply. Murtaza was arrested when he arrived,
held for eight months, and then when he was released,
he formed his own breakaway party, the PPP, Shahid
Bhutto. Shahid means martyr. Symbolically linking
his party closer to their martyred father than
his sisters. Precisely. And he publicly distanced
himself from her by scornfully referring to her
as Begum Zardari, implying she'd abandoned the
Butoh legacy for her corrupt husband. The family
rift became absolute when Benazir turned on her
own mother. Yes. The animosity was so severe
that Benazir ousted her mother, Nusrat, as co
-chair of the PPP for supporting Ritaza. Nusrat
even told the New York Times, about democracy,
but she's become a little dictator. The dynasty
was just fracturing in public. And this internal
conflict culminates tragically in one of the
darkest chapters of her career. On September
20, 1996, Murtaza was ambushed and killed by
police near his home in Karachi. The widespread
suspicion was immediate that a senior government
figure, possibly Bhutto or Zardari, had ordered
the killing. And whether it was true or not,
the suspicion alone must have shattered her domestic
credibility. Beyond repair. She immediately brought
in Scotland Yard to investigate to try and quell
the rumors, but the damage was permanent. And
this final scandal, combined with the crushing
economic crisis and the rampant corruption, it
proved too much even for the loyalists she had
installed as president. Exactly. President Ligari,
the very man she chose to shield her from the
military, turned on her. He had warned her repeatedly
to address the corruption and the economic collapse.
When she failed to do so, and perhaps motivated
by the suspicion around Murtaza's death, he used
the Eighth Amendment to dismiss her government
in November 1996. Citing the same things as before.
The very same things. Corruption, the economic
downturn, and suspicion of her involvement in
her brother's murder. Zardari was arrested immediately
and this time remained in prison for eight years
until 2004. So following this disastrous second
dismissal and then a historic PPP electoral defeat
in 1997. Benazir is convicted in absentia in
April 1999. She gets a five -year sentence, an
$8 .6 million fine, and is disqualified from
public office. She chased self -exile. And for
eight years, she lived primarily in Dubai and
London, managing the PPP from afar and fighting
this intense series of global legal battles against
the corruption charges, especially the Swiss
ones. She was also caring for her mother, whose
Alzheimer's disease had progressed severely by
that point. Her political position seemed completely
finished. She was a convicted criminal in exile
facing global financial investigation. What changed
in the mid -2000s that suddenly made her return
not just viable but actually desirable for external
powers? The political landscape in Pakistan shifted
dramatically. The U .S. and U .K. governments
were losing faith in General Pervez Musharraf.
His domestic approval rating had just plummeted
because of his continued military rule, and he
was facing a severe rise in Islamist violence.
So the West needed a stable civilian secular
partner. A partner who could potentially bridge
the gap between Pakistan's political elite and
the West. And Bhutto, with her democratic credentials
and her global profile, fit the bill perfectly.
This sets the stage for what the sources call
her US -brokered return. How does she go from
being this rival to negotiating with her political
enemies? Well, first, she reconciled with her
longtime rival, Nawaz Sharif, in 2006. They signed
a Charter of Democracy calling for an end to
military rule. But crucially, she began direct
negotiations with Musharraf in 2007 under the
implicit supervision of the U .S. and the U .K.
And the political bargain was messy but clear.
It was. What was the critical legal tool that
allowed this whole thing to happen? Or NRO, Musharraf
signed it. And it was the mechanism that dropped
corruption charges against numerous politicians,
including Budo and Zardari. Allowing them to
legally return and participate in elections.
Exactly. And it also, very conveniently for Musharraf,
lifted the two -term limit on the prime ministership,
which would have benefited him if he could secure
a civilian role. The deal was basically, Musharraf
steps down as army chief and stays on as a civilian
president, and she would serve as his prime minister.
A classic political competition. trading principles
for a path back to power. She returns to Pakistan
in October 2007, arriving in Karachi to this
immense public celebration. Her return was met
with a massive crowd. It was a sign that the
public memory of her corruption had largely been
overridden by this deep desire for a democratic
transition. But that celebration turned instantly
into terror. Her cavalcade was hit by two bombs.
149 people were killed. She was miraculously
unharmed, shielded by her vehicle. And her reaction
to that attempt was immediate and highly aggressive.
What did she do? She immediately accused key
government officials, whom she suspected were
rogue elements within the intelligence agencies,
of being involved in the plot. She sent a list
with their names directly to Musharraf, demanding
accountability. She then demanded a formal investigation
by the UK's Scotland Yard or the FBI. Because
she had no faith. within the domestic authorities?
None. And Musharraf refused that external investigation,
which strained their already fragile bargain.
It just confirmed her deepest fears that the
deep state was actively working against her.
And when Musharraf declared a state of emergency
in November, she publicly denounced him. A strategic
distancing. She knew that any continued association
with him would ruin her credibility ahead of
the 2008 election. So she returns to campaigning.
She files her papers, announces the PPP platform
based on the five E's, employment, education,
energy, environment, and equality. But that manifesto
made a direct promise that challenged the very
power structure that executed her father. It
was explicit. The manifesto called for greater
civilian oversight of the military and the intelligence
agencies. It sought to rid them of elements driven
by political or religious motives. She was publicly
and unequivocally targeting the deep state that
had fought her family for decades. And that campaign
led directly to Rawalpindi, December 27, 2007.
Right. And we should reiterate the open questions
around her assassination because the conclusion
is still deeply controversial. The official accounts
were messy from the start. Very messy. Pakistani
authorities and the CIA immediately blamed Baitullah
Massoud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban.
He certainly had a clear motive. He saw her secular,
pro -American agenda as a direct threat. But
then an al -Qaeda commander, Mustafa Abu al -Yazid,
also claimed responsibility. He declared they
had terminated the most precious American asset.
So you have conflicting claims. But the real
controversy isn't just about who pulled the trigger,
but about the investigation itself. The internal
cover up is the lasting stain on the case. No
autopsy was ever conducted. Zardari later rejected
requests to exhume the body. A subsequent U .N.
inquiry led by Geraldo Munoz concluded that the
original police investigation was deliberately
botched. suggesting assistance from rogue elements
within Pakistan's intelligence agencies. Exactly.
The sad reality is that many powerful factions
in Pakistan, from the military establishment
to fundamentalist groups, had strong reasons
for wanting her dead. The case remains, for all
intents and purposes, unsolved. And even in death,
the dynastic element of her political life continued
without missing a beat. She left a political
will. It designated her 19 -year -old son Bilawal
as her political heir and co -chair of the PPP.
Asif Ali Zardari served as a custodial chairman
until Bilawal finished his education. And Zardari,
of course, eventually became president of Pakistan
in 2008. And sharing the Bhutto family's central,
enduring, and controversial role in Pakistani
politics remained absolutely intact. Benazir
Bhutto's life. It just demands a complex verdict.
When we look at the totality of the sources tracing
her journey from being Pinky Butoh in Karachi
to the tragic end of a global icon in Rawalpindi,
you have to confront these core contradictions
head on. On one hand, she was celebrated globally
as a respected world leader. an icon for women's
rights in a deeply male -dominated society. And
her achievements in breaking that glass ceiling
are undeniable. They inspired millions of people
worldwide. Yet domestically, her image was severely
tarnished. The sources paint her as a corrupt,
compromised politician who was perhaps more addicted
to adulation than she was to implementing true,
painful reform. The contrast is just jarring.
She was lauded in the West speaking perfect English,
holding Harvard and Oxford credentials. But she
was despised by the powerful extremist Sunni
Islamist elements who fundamentally opposed female
leadership and saw her as this dangerous secularist,
a puppet of the West. One of the analyses refers
to her as a feudal Democrat. That term seems
to encapsulate the central failing of her premierships,
tying her right back to her roots in the landed
gentry. It's a perfect, painful description.
It means she spoke like a Democrat. She thought
and felt as a dynast. Despite all her fiery rhetoric
about egalitarianism and all power to the people,
she did nothing during her time in power to seriously
challenge the feudal nature of Pakistan's rural
society. How did that manifest in her policies?
Well, the wealthy feudal class continued to dominate
the PPP at all levels of government. They maintained
their control over vast tracts of land and economic
influence. Her policies, despite the populist...
language primarily benefited these privileged
classes. They reinforced the status quo. So critics
argue that the PPP under her leadership became
in practice a center right party, not a true
left wing party. Exactly. It maintained the very
structures of inequality her father had at least
nominally opposed. So she was a pioneer who broke
a monumental barrier for women. Yet she exploited
and perpetuated the institutional corruption
she inherited, often enriching her own family
while claiming to serve the people. And that
ideological flexibility is central to any judgment
of her career. She shifted the PPP from socialism
to Thatcherism to secure power. But she couldn't
bring herself to fully enact the liberal reforms
she championed, like failing to repeal the oppressive
Hudud ordinances, the very laws Musharraf eventually
revoked after her death. Her life was a constant
negotiation. A constant negotiation between political
principle and political necessity. And in the
end, necessity and dynastic ambition often won
out. She was unable to truly dismantle Pakistan's
deep -seated power structures, but her symbolism,
as the first woman elected, was undeniable. Okay,
let's tie this all back to you, the learner.
The complex figure of Benazir Bhutto forces us
to confront a really difficult moral and political
judgment about what legacy means. When a leader
is defined by both a historic, world -changing
accomplishment, becoming the first woman PM in
a Muslim -majority country, and by massive personal
and institutional corruption that arguably set
back the fight against institutional rot, which
one is the primary legacy? She broke the ceiling,
but did she corrupt the house? That is the question
you have to carry forward. Is the primary story
the breaking of the glass ceiling, which inspired
millions globally, or is it the institutional
damage she caused and the futile rot she exploited
and perpetuated at home? Her life was a victory
for symbolism, but a profound tragedy for governance.