When Benazir Bhutto died  in December 2007, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described her as “one of the outstanding leaders of our sub-continent, who always looked for reconciliation between India and Pakistan.” Most magazines did cover stories on her and Benazir Bhutto became a “martyr of democracy”.

It is a sad that a mother of three children was so brutally killed and we all mouredn her terrible death. Nevertheless, truth must be told. For, as usual, what the press says is not exactly what happened. Firstly, under Bhutto, anti-Indian terrorism in the Kashmir region was fostered and increased. Benazir was also directly responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir. “She was instrumental in sponsoring jihad, openly inciting militants to intensify terrorism in India,” says Ajai Sahni, the executive director of the New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management. “I find it very difficult to discover a single element with her relationship to India that is positive and for the betterment of her country or the region”, he adds. Remember how she was shouting her slogans of azaadi, and exhorting the people of Kashmir to cut Jagmohan, then governor of the state, into pieces, as in “jag-jag, mo-mo, han-han”. She would say this while making chopping motions with her right hand as it moved from her left wrist to the elbow, leaving nobody in any doubt as to what she meant.
Secondly, under Benazir Bhutto, the Taliban formed and, helped by Pakistan’s intelligence service, swept across Afghanistan and later hosted Osama bin Laden. It is a bit of an irony that she may have been killed by the very people she helped foster if at all she was murdered.
Thirdly, she deliberately increased tension levels and then threatened India with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The tension peaked when Benazir repeated her late father’s immortal boast of waging a thousand-year war against India and even Rajiv Gandhi was forced to mock her in Parliament, asking if those who talked of a thousand-year war could last even a thousand hours.

And fourthly, in her last speech before she died, she alluded to India as one of the threats Pakistan had to face, implying that if she was elected she would deal firmly with it. Then why is it that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called her a friend of India and that Indians still remember
affectionately ?

I interviewed Benazir Bhutto twice, the last one as she was campaigning to be re-elected for a second term.
The first question I asked, was about Kashmir, as she was the one who had called for ‘Azad Kashmir’, a Kashmir free from India, which had triggered the ethnic cleansing of most Hindus of the Valley of Kashmir, 400.000 of them having to flee their ancestral land.
–    – You know, she answered, you have to understand the Pakistani point of view on Kashmir. If one goes by the logic of Partition, then at least the Kashmir valley, which is in great majority Muslim – and it should be emphasised that for long the Hindus Pandits in Kashmir exploited and dominated the Muslims, who are getting back at them today – should have reverted to Pakistan. But let us say that officially we want to help grant Kashmiris their right to self-determination
–    – That’s the only reason, I continued ?
–    – No, answered Benazir, it should be clear also that Pakistan never forgot the humiliating loss of Bangladesh at the hands of India, although India claims it only helped Bangladesh to gain its freedom in the face of what the Bangladeshis say was Pakistani genocide. Zia’s emergence was a result of that humiliation.
–    – But Zia hanged your father, I interrupted…
–    – Yes and I hate him, and God the Almighty already punished him for that, said Benazir (alluding to Zia’s death in a plane crash). But Zia did one thing right, he started the whole policy of proxy war by supporting the separatist movements in Punjab and Kashmir, as a way of getting back at India.
–    – What about Pakistan’ nuclear bomb, I asked?
–    -That’s my father’s work she said proudly. He realized, after having lost the 1965 and 1971wars with India, that both numerically and strategically, we can never beat India in a conventional conflict. Thus he initiated the programme by saying that “we will get the nuclear bomb, even if we have to eat grass”.
–    – But is it not a dangerous weapon if it falls in the hands of the fundamentalists of your country, I asked?
–    No such danger, Benazir answered. Anyway, it is not only a deterrent against India’s military conventional superiority and an answer to India’s own nuclear capability, but also the ultimate weapon to reassert Islam’s moral superiority.
–    – We in Europe have united in a Common Market, why don’t Pakistan and India forget their differences and form some kind of confederation with other South Asia countries, instead of killing each other?
–    – Pakistan and India were never one country, answered the imperious lady. They were only kept together by force, whether by Mauryan, Moghul or British rule. Hindus have recognised the reality of Islam, and we needed our own country to feel free.

I was flabbergasted: here was a lady educated in Oxford and Harvard, who mouthed such irrational statements. She spoke good English, was pretty, articulate and appealed to the Press. But when in power, she had to resort to anti -Indianism to please her voters, her husband, now President of Pakistan, was known as Mr 10%, and she was hounded out of power twice for incompetence and corruption. Is she then a martyr of democracy ? History will tell. But today we see that her niece, Fatima Bhutto, as pretty as Benazir was, is the toast of the Indian Media, every time she comes to the Literary Festival of Jaipur, to sell her books! If one day Fatima becomes PM,as Pakistan have also their favorite dynasty, for sure, she will tread in her aunt’s footprints, for the only way to please the Pakistani voters, is to called for Azad Kashmir…

François Gautier


  1. Didn’t knew all this!! Could you please provide with links wherein I could read more about her malice intentions.

  2. A lot of information , Thanks !

  3. We must treat Pakistan the way Shivaji treated Afzal Khan, not the way Prithviraj Chauhan treated Mohd. Ghori. Otherwise, it would be suicidal.

  4. It wasn’t Rajeev Gandhi but the then PM VP Singh who made the “thousand hours” statement, btw

  5. Indian media have not realized how important it is to print the facts first and only then try to bridge the gap between the 2 nations. In fact the mainstream media are going overboard to hide the facts and to live in denial. Pakistanis have no love for indians whatsoever. All this talk of common heritage and ancestry are onesided. Thanks for printig the interview, Benazir is no exception at all. Pak leaders are now recognizing the element of self destructing devil they have so fondly fed to use against their neighbours. they know now the devil is devouring the feeding hand first. Militancy and terrorism will have a cascading effects and no one can control them, the hydra head must be decapitated.

  6. suprising to know the true nature of the late bhutto. But not suprised about her thoughts on bharat, As this type of hatred towards hindus and bhartiya is thought to young kids in pakistan right from childhood. “Yato dharmasto jay” with this the mahabharat comes to an end which means “dharma will win over adharma”.

  7. Hey! This is my first visit to your blog! We
    are a group of volunteers and starting a new project in a community in the same niche.
    Your blog provided us useful information to work on. You have done
    a extraordinary job!

  8. François Gautier

    Thanks friend. fr

  9. Francois,

    I apologize; I forgot to comment on one more quotation from your article:

    Quoting: “…and it should be emphasised that for long the Hindus Pandits in Kashmir EXPLOITED and DOMINATED the Muslims…” (emphasis mine)

    …if that was the case, as stated by Bhutto quoted above, then why do we have written accounts of both non-Muslims and Muslims detailing the occurrences of forced conversions of Kashmiri Pundits by Mughal authorities and Mughal politic personas? For example, even the widely-used Wikipedia states “A MINORITY of the conversions in Kashmir happened peacefully. Yet, the Emperor’s experiment was carried out in Kashmir. The viceroy of Kashmir, Iftikhar Khan (1671–1675) carried out the policy VIGOROUSLY and set about converting non-Muslims by FORCE”; “Mughal officials such as Nur Muhammad Khan of Rupnagar, Dilawar Khan the Faujdar of Sirhind and Wazir Khan had him (Teg Bahadur) arrested on account of his opposition to FORCED conversions of Hindu Brahmins of Kashmir to Islam” (emphasis mine). [Surinder Singh Kohli. 1993. The Sikh and Sikhism. P.78-89; W. H. McLeod (1984). Textual Sources for the Study of Sikhism. Manchester University Press. pp. 31–33. Retrieved 14 November 2013]
    …I’m honestly trying to make sense of Bhutto’s accusation of Kashmiri Pundits “exploiting” and “dominating” the Kashmiri Muslims…but am unable to find anything definitive to the effect of how Bhutto characterizes her statement. How can they have dominated “for long” when they were routinely seeking the help of the Sikhs? I’m stumped by this one. Can you help me?

  10. François Gautier

    Good points friend fr Franois Gautier Rdacteur en chef La Revue de l’Inde 41 Jorbagh, New Delhi 110003, Inde. (91) 9343538419

  11. Indeed she was a crooked lady…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s