Making sense of the Musharraf indictment

Yes, Musharraf didn't provide sufficient security to Bhutto and regarded her with great disdain, but did he kill her?

On August 19, Nawaz Sharif addressed the nation. He spoke of staggering challenges: a paralysed economy, a crippling energy crisis, the existential threat of terrorism. The implication: there’s much to be done, with not a moment to lose. The very next day, Pervez Musharraf was charged in connection with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Is this unprecedented indictment of a former army chief a resounding victory for democracy in Pakistan? Absolutely.

But is it also an ill-timed move that smacks of revenge politics? Certainly. What else to make of the fact that the leader of a cash-starved, energy-deprived, militancy-choked, flood-ravaged nation has chosen this moment to pursue the man who overthrew him from power nearly 15 years ago?

Now to the heart of the matter: is there enough evidence for a conviction? Let’s start with what we know. For years, Pakistan has contended that the Pakistani Taliban carried out the attack that killed Bhutto. This may well be true. Yet, if non-state militants pulled the trigger, was someone else pulling the strings behind the opaque curtain of the state? It’s quite possible. But there’s little reason to think it was Musharraf himself.

Certainly, the former strongman is no angel. One could easily argue he didn’t provide sufficient security to Bhutto, someone he regarded with great disdain. Bhutto herself famously sent an email to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in which she said that, were she to be killed, she wanted Musharraf held responsible. This is unsettling stuff. But it doesn’t prove culpability. Now consider the 2010 UN investigation of the Bhutto assassination, which is once again in the news with the recent publication of a Foreign Affairs article by lead investigator Heraldo Munoz. The attack was executed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Munoz writes, and “possibly backed or at least encouraged by elements of the establishment”. One of his most striking conclusions: Pakistan “deliberately botched” its official investigation.

An essay by Owen Bennett-Jones, published late last year in London Review of Books, raises more troubling questions about possible state complicity. After an unsuccessful attempt on Bhutto’s life in October 2007, an official report on that attack contained several newspaper articles quoting Bhutto. She said that if the US located Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, she would “consider cooperating with Washington” to have him detained. She also said that she “would be willing to hand over” AQ Khan to the International Atomic Energy Agency for questioning. According to Bennett-Jones, such declarations represent “possible motives for an attack” on Bhutto.

These considerations suggest that Musharraf may never see the inside of a prison, or even be convicted. The prospect of an investigation and trial that brings out such incriminating material may well prompt an uneasy establishment to order the legal process halted entirely. To be sure, this is all pure speculation. And let’s face it, the case has spawned conspiracy theories galore.

There are very few clear facts in this story. Yet, here’s one: Pakistan is suffering through one of the most trying times in its history. So is now the right moment to expend precious time and resources on legal proceedings for a fallen figure like Musharraf?

Published in The Express Tribune, August 24^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.