December 27, 2025 marks the eighteenth death anniversary of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, the great visionary leader, who resisted with extraordinary courage the agenda of neo-colonial forces—pushing Pakistan to a theocratic State incapable of progressing towards an egalitarian and democratic polity. In recognition of her great services, she was awarded posthumously the prestigious UN Human Rights Award on December 10, 2008. The UN Human Rights Award is given every five years. The 2008 award was special as it coincided with 60th anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Dr. Ikramul Haq
The valiant act of courage demonstrated in 2007 by Shaheed (martyr) Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, praised all over the world, changed the entire political scene of Pakistan, unfortunately for the worst.
For resisting the agenda of forces of obscurantism—working on the dictates of Late Neo-Colonial masters—she lost her life. Her removal from the political scene paved the way for the United States to get rid of General Pervez Musharraf (late) and installation of elected (sic) elements more keen and willing to both toe and implement their agenda.
A very few analysts and scholars have tried to view assassination of Benazir Bhutto from this perspective. In her last book, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy & the West, she tried “to trace the roots, causes, and potential solutions to the crisis within the Muslim world and the crisis between the Muslim World and the West”.
Benazir, in this book, has painstakingly unveiled the agenda of Neo-Colonialists, bigots, terrorists and the obscurantist. She has quoted extensively from Al Qur’an to prove that Islam is a religion of peace, but it has been brutally abused by a handful of extremists through out the Muslim history to create chaos and disorder.
Benazir traced the factors behind the militant Islam and exposed the colonial and neo-colonial forces behind it. These views must have hit hard and annoyed the forces that want to keep the Muslim World in dark ages for their nefarious designs. They used their proxy—Islamic militants—to get rid of her.
In the wake of her brutal and ruthless assassination—still shrouded in mystery—there was great euphoria among Pakistani liberals over the presumed ‘return to democracy’. Dr. Sachithanandam Sathananthan, a Visiting Research Scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University School of International Studies, in his paper, The Great Game Continues, noted with concern that “they are yet to discover ‘Late Neo-colonialism’.
He argues that removal of Benazir and thereafter, easily maneuvered victory for Asif Ali Zardari in the presidential election “brought to a high point the tortuous process of regime change in Pakistan. Anyone who has followed the ‘colour revolutions’ that installed pro-American rulers in Georgia (Rose Revolution, 2003), Ukraine (Orange Revolution, 2004) and Kyrgyzstan (Tulip Revolution, 2005) could surely not have missed the tell-tale signs”.
The theory propounded by Dr. Sachithanandam gets credence in the wake of events taking place after the assassination of Benazir and culminating in the Mumbai carnage. It is rightly highlighted by Dr. Sachithanandam that “the earliest foreboding surfaced in the backroom manoeuvres by United States (US) and British intelligence services to engineer panic about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets”. It was a repeat of the duplicitous hysteria they generated over non-existent weapons of mass destruction that Iraq allegedly possessed.
The phenomenon of fundamentalism, like fascism, is complex and riddled with many puzzles. It cannot be understood without studying the foreign policy of United States in which terrorism, drugs, arms and war, play a pivotal role. This is not a recent phenomenon. From the early part of the twentieth century, the US leaders have been using arms, drugs and war hysteria as tools to advance their foreign policy objectives.
A carefully worded article, co-authored by former State Department officials Richard L. Armitage and Kara L. Bue, signalled the shift in US policy. After formally acknowledging then President Pervez Musharraf’s many achievements, the authors continued: “much remains to be accomplished, particularly in terms of democratization. Pakistan must…eliminate the home-grown jihadists…And…it must prove itself a reliable partner on technology transfer and nuclear non-proliferation”. And the denouement: “We believe General Musharraf…deserves our attention and support, no matter how frustrated we become at the pace of political change and the failure to eliminate Taliban fighters on the Afghan border”. Translation: Musharraf has to go”.
It was ‘Washington’s renewed interest’ in Zardari and Rehman Malik and not Benazir that forced Musharraf—once a close friend of Bush—to offer firm opposition to US Late Neo-colonialism to ravage Pakistan. According to Dr. Sachithanandam, “politically challenged Pakistani liberals — a motley crowd that includes members of human rights and civil liberties organisations, journalists, analysts, lawyers and assorted professionals—are utterly incapable of comprehending the geo-strategic context in which Musharraf maneuvered to defend Pakistan’s interest”.
So they slandered Musharraf an ‘American puppet’, alleging he caved in to US pressure and withdrew support to the Afghan Taliban regime in the wake of 9/11 although in fact “he removed one excuse for the Bush Administration to ‘bomb Pakistan into stone age’, as a senior State Department official had threatened”.
In view of above, it is understandable why Benazir decided to join hands with Musharraf to resist US Late Neo-colonialism. American discomfort with Musharraf’s government was palpable by late 2003, after he dodged committing Pakistani troops to prop up the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.
When Musharraf offered to cooperate under the auspices of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), naïve Pakistani media and analysts lunged for his jugular, condemning him once again for succumbing to US demands. But in fact he nimbly sidestepped American demands: he calculated that diverse ideological stances of the 57 Muslim member-counties would not allow the OIC to jointly initiate such controversial action and therefore Pakistan’s participation could not arise, which proved correct.
Benazir was fully aware of the fact that Bush Administration had been becoming increasingly hostile to Musharraf’s determination to prioritise Pakistan’s interests when steering the ship of the state through the choppy waters of the unfolding New Great Game, in which the West—led by the US—has been manoeuvring to contain growing Russian and Chinese influences in Central and West Asia.
Benazir decided to work with Musharraf, precisely for resisting the agenda of Pakistan-hostile forces. She became the prime target of these forces and was hence eliminated. Since then, events show and prove that under the “chosen” leadership, Pakistan would side with US and Britain. This process even continues till to this day.
Benazir became victim of this New Great Game in which her own party stalwarts betrayed her. Hers has been a legacy of continuous struggle and resistance against the enemies of Pakistan and Islam.
Pakistanis need to continue Benazir’s legacy of resisting the ongoing Great Game of US Late Neo-colonialism—controlling of South Asian region through the bogey of Islamic militants and Hindutva with ultimate aim of containing China and getting hold of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals.
__________________________________
Dr. Ikramul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, is Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and member Advisory Board and Visiting Senior Fellow of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE). He is author of many books, including Pakistan: From Hash to Heroin and its sequel Pakistan: Drug-trap to Debt-trap, exposing the deadly twin menace of narcotics-for-arms trade and terrorism.