THIS is being written on the eve of the departure of the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, on his 80th flying trip abroad, all to do with matters of import and grave national interest.

In the span of eight years, 80 trips is not bad going — an average of 10 per annum of which any overworked and overloaded head of state should be proud. The purpose of his trips — at least most of them, discounting the numerous umrah performances — is to “sell” his country to the rest of the world and to stress to the world’s movers and shakers how vital is Pakistan for the good and safety of mankind.

Saturday morning’s press carried a banner headline of startling proportions: “Zardari rejects offer to become PM.” Apparently, or so it is believed, “PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari has been indirectly offered to become the prime minister of Pakistan for a one-year interim period heading a government of national reconciliation, but he has summarily dismissed the suggestion.”And quite rightly so. Whoever made the offer, if indeed it was made, certainly did not have Zardari’s interests at heart. He has yet to consolidate his position after the latest episode in the ongoing tragedy that is the life and times of the Bhutto family.

Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister of Pakistan , twice dismissed charged with corruption and by the machinations of her political and military adversaries, was living in comfortable exile away from the turbulence of Pakistan . This lasted until she was made a victim of the wisdom of the Americans and their British allies, who decided that as far as they were concerned her return to Pakistan, with the guarantee that she would be made prime minister, would suit their global and national purposes.

So, back she came amidst much fanfare, joy, dancing and festivity. She came to Karachi and her journey into the city from the airport was scheduled to take 12 long hours. She was warned, her party people refused to listen, the bombers struck and over 150 happy citizens lost their lives and hundreds more were maimed and wounded.

Not heeding the winds of fate or of destiny, she continued her campaigning and at a rally in Rawalpindi, not too far from General Headquarters, she was killed, the third child of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his wife Nusrat to meet a violent, senseless death. We must ask over and over again, did those who encouraged her to return to the violent homeland ever bother to anticipate her possible fate?

Naturally, since the event of December 27, much interest has been evoked about the Bhutto family and its extraordinary unravelling. Much has been written about the father and the two sons, there has been much reminiscing, and objectivity on the home front has been hard to come by. The foreign press has at times been unkind, and at times maudlin.

The main concern at the moment of the family’s well-wishers and friends — but of course not of the political factor which will heed nothing but its own agenda — is the welfare and wellbeing of Benazir Bhutto’s young son, Bilawal. Adulation and sycophancy are deadly propensities and it is hard for a youth to be exposed, with no defences, to both. We must hope that sense prevails and that his young life is not thrown to the mercies of political agendas.

Mulling over the Bhutto era of late, I picked up a book I had not read for years as I recalled a particularly poignant and perceptive passage which has borne the brunt of time.

Perhaps the finest summation of the character and attributes of Zufikar Ali Bhutto came not from one of his fellow countrymen, but from a foreigner, who could stand back and objectively observe and comment. Morrice James of the British foreign office spent a total of nine years in Pakistan in various diplomatic posts. During the first half of the 1960s, he was Britain’s high commissioner in Islamabad and had ample time to observe, interact with and analyse the country’s most compelling and charismatic politician.

In his Pakistan Chronicle, published posthumously in 1993, Sir Morrice James, Lord St Brides, has this to say about Bhutto:

“Bhutto certainly had the right qualities for reaching the heights — drive, charm, imagination, a quick and penetrating mind, zest for life, eloquence, energy, a strong constitution, a sense of humour and a thick skin. Such a blend is rare anywhere, and Bhutto deserved his swift rise to power. From the end of 1962 onwards, I worked closely with him and it was a pleasure to deal with someone so quick-witted and articulate. We got on remarkably well…

“But there was — how shall I put it? — the rank odour of hellfire about him. It was a case of corruptio optimi pessima. He was a Lucifer, a fallen angel. I believe that at heart he lacked a sense of the dignity and value of other people; his own self was what counted. I sensed in him a ruthlessness and a capacity for ill-doing which went far beyond what is natural. Except at university abroad, he was mostly surrounded by mediocrities, and all his life, for want of competition, his triumphs came to him too easily for his own good. Lacking humility, he thus came to believe himself infallible, even when yawning gaps in his own experience (e.g. of military matters) laid him — as over the 1965 war — wide open to disastrous error.

“Despite his gifts, I judged that one day Bhutto would destroy himself — when and how I could not tell. In 1965, I so reported in one my last dispatches from Pakistan as British high commissioner. I wrote by way of clinching that point that Bhutto was born to be hanged. I did not intend this comment as a precise prophecy of what was going to happen to him, but 14 years later that was what it turned out to be.”

For President Pervez Musharraf there is a bitter lesson to be learnt from “what it turned out to be”. It is ironic indeed that had the 1977 elections been scrupulously fair, without any of the mass and totally unnecessary rigging that took place, thanks to the efficient use of the ISI, Bhutto and his PPP would have won comfortably and his opponents would have been denied the rallying cry of election rigging which led to his downfall. However, whether the ultimate upshot would have been any different is a matter for conjecture. His “ruthlessness and capacity for ill-doing” is what maybe got him in the end. President General Ziaul Haq had little option. The price paid for ousting him by the disgruntled liberals and the outraged Islamists who egged on the army to do their bit for king and country was high. Democracy eclipsed and 11 years of military rule ensued.

All the players now on the national scene should watch their steps. There is much at stake. We have faulty stars.

arfc@cyber.net.pk