Benazir Bhutto (1953-2007)
A conversation with Akbar Ahmed
Gustaaf Houtman
Akbar S. Ahmed holds the
Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic
Studies at the American
University in Washington,
DC. His email is: akbar@
american.edu. For more
information, see www.
akbarahmed.org.
Fig. 1. Cover of Time
magazine, 14 January 2008.
 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 24 No 1, February 2008
Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on 27 December 2007,
two weeks prior to the date scheduled for the Pakistani
general election, in which she would have been a leading
opposition candidate. Here ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY asks
Akbar Ahmed how anthropologists might interpret the
events and Bhutto’s legacy.
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY: How familiar are you
with Benazir Bhutto and her politics?
Akbar Ahmed: Quite familiar. My wife and my sisters
studied with her at the Convent of Jesus and Mary boarding
school in north Pakistan. I also knew her personally. I was
in Pakistan when Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, her
father, was foreign minister in the 1960s and, after having
become prime minister in the 1970s, was removed from
office by a military coup and executed. I saw her grow up
as Bhutto’s pampered and precocious daughter, and then,
of course, after her brief period in prison, as a leader of
the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in her own right in exile
in the UK in 1984. I followed her career when she subse-
quently became prime minister of Pakistan twice (1988-
1990, 1993-1996).
AT: Who do you think was directly responsible for her
assassination? Were there any indirect complicities?
AA: Many other assassinations have taken place in
Pakistan and it is often difficult to know exactly who was
ultimately responsible for these – for example, [former
president and military ruler] Zia-ul-Haq. Benazir’s father
had been murdered, and she was haunted by the idea that
sooner or later someone would get her. One theory is that
Baitullah Mehsud, an Islamic militant with al-Qaeda links
from south Waziristan, was responsible. Benazir repre-
sented many things that fundamentalists disliked: she was a
woman, she was articulate, she was brought up in the West,
she did not hide her close relationship with Washington,
and she expressed her dislike of fundamentalism. Since
hard-line fundamentalists do not accept women as polit-
ical leaders, and considered her as public enemy number
one for her relationship with the West, she was an obvious
target. However, her party members and she herself sent
several letters to [current president] Musharraf and to the
media, saying that, were she to be assassinated, the gov-
ernment would be responsible for her death.
There was an ideological clash between the party
founded by her father and the army. Bhutto strove for
Pakistan as a modern democratic Islamic nation with an
emphasis on the needs of the poor, whereas the army sup-
ported a more centralized nation with an emphasis on
security. As the army is the most organized and dominant
factor in Pakistani politics Benazir had to come to terms
with it when she came to office in Pakistan in the 1980s,
and undertook to work with it. More recently, she began
clandestine negotiations with Musharraf, a deal brokered
by Washington that saw them working as a team to move
Pakistan towards stability and democracy. It opened the
possibility of her becoming prime minister for the third
time. Although Musharraf wanted this also, some lower-
ranking army officers sympathized with the Taliban and
in that sense many Pakistanis believe that these elements
may be implicated in her assassination.
AT: What in your view were her chief assets and faults
as a political leader?
AA: She embodied what Weber referred to as charis-
matic leadership. Charisma is generally understood as
tied to the individual and rarely transmitted from one gen-
eration to the other, from father to son or from father to
daughter. Familial charisma is rare, but in Benazir’s case
the Bhutto name matters, in that her father’s charisma
easily transferred to her. She had her own charisma when
she emerged in the 1980s as a young, articulate, well-
­educated and well-spoken woman. Her chief assets were
her intelligence, her confidence, and the fact that she could
talk to people of various backgrounds with empathy. She
had the rare quality of humour, which she never lost in
spite of leading an uncertain and challenging life. Above
all, she could use the media effectively. Her faults as a
political leader were many. Too many stories of corruption
stuck to her. She was not a good administrator. She was
too inclined to listen to her small kitchen cabinet, which
very often consisted of people who would say what they
thought she wanted to hear. She became prime minister at
a particularly young age and had no prior political or other
cabinet experience. Her first administration unravelled
quickly, as did her second one. Both were unlamented.
AT: To what extent has her life in the West interfered
with her popularity as a leader in Pakistan?
AA: Her global popularity at her death was a sociolog-
ical phenomenon. She became one of the very few Muslim
leaders to assume the iconic status of a political martyr in
the West while simultaneously evoking strong sentiments in
the Muslim world. Most Muslim leaders fall either into the
category of strong ‘nationalist’ leaders who, while popular
in their homeland, are seen negatively in the West (Saddam
Hussein is just one example in this category), or into that of
those who curry favour with Washington or London, and
thereby alienate their own people, of which Musharraf is a
good example, as is Mubarak of Egypt. In Pakistan, critics
know Musharraf as ‘Busharraf’. Benazir transcended this
division. She was loved and adored in the West, where she
was seen as a vulnerable but charming figure who was also
part of their world. Her Oxford and Harvard background was
constantly played up, and she spoke good English. She was
regularly seen on television chatting with David Frost one
day and with Wolf Blitzer the next. And yet in the Muslim
world she was seen as a genuine Muslim political leader,
the leader of the most popular party in Pakistan. Now how
did she reconcile these two worlds? She was comfortable
in both worlds. She knew the limits of both. For example,
when she came on her first state visit to the UK she dem-
onstrated her awareness of her image back in Pakistan. For
one thing, she would not shake hands with men and just
greeted them in a friendly manner. Also she would not be
photographed with a glass, even if it contained only a soft
drink, lest it be interpreted back in Pakistan as her drinking
alcohol. She always wore a scarf and dressed modestly. She
had the ability to speak carefully within the bounds of what
is deemed appropriate for an Islamic woman. In these ways
she always kept up her awareness of sensibilities among the
population back home and was able to reconcile her two
roles even while in the West.
AT: In what way does the manner of her death follow
on from or feed into the martyr cult prevalent in Shia
Islam?
AA: I find this an interesting question. The Western
media sees her as a democrat and a woman leader who was
killed for this reason, without covering the sectarian side
to her story. She lived and grew up in a culture which does
not forget those who die for a greater cause. Shia culture
draws inspiration from the death of Hussein at Karbala (in
 presentday Iraq); he was killed fighting against impos-
sible odds. He knew he was going to die, but he was the
grandson of the prophet of Islam and fighting for justice
against oppression and tyranny. He therefore made the
ultimate sacrifice. Hussein’s father and brother were also
martyred. In Shia culture these are the most revered fig-
ures. In her martyrdom, Benazir evokes history for her
followers and enters mythology alongside her martyred
father.
Like her father, Benazir fought for a just vision of the
world, namely to support the ordinary people of Pakistan,
who saw her as their saviour. Her father said: ‘Roti
(food), kapra (clothes) and makan (house) – these three
I promise the landless poor people of Pakistan.’ She kept
this promise alive, but it is unlikely that in any third term
she would have been able to achieve much.
1. Ahmed, A. 2007. Journey In my last interview with Benazir, in 2006, I asked her,
into Islam: The crisis of and other leaders, about role models.1 Musharraf’s role
globalization. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution
model was Bonaparte. Benazir’s role model was Fatimah
Press. (c. 605-632), the daughter of the prophet. Fatimah was
married to Ali, later to inherit the Islamic caliphate, and
was the mother of Hussein, considered the rightful caliph
by the Shia community. Her husband and two sons carried
the prophet’s message forward and became martyrs. She
stood by her father’s side until his death and saw herself
as destined to follow her father’s politics. Benazir, who
admired the piety, wisdom and courage of Fatimah, saw
the same relationship with her own father.
AT: Female leadership is common throughout South
and Southeast Asia. To what extent was her politics rel-
evant beyond Pakistan? What did she have in common
with other female leaders across the region?
AA: In her interview with me Benazir told me that one
of her role models was Indira Gandhi. Benazir’s choice
echoed her own life. Both Benazir and Indira reflected
South Asian political culture: both succeeded their fathers
as prime ministers themselves. Both consciously culti-
vated the idea of ‘dynasty’. Indira groomed her son to
succeed her; so did Benazir. Criticism about politics as a
family business being far from modern democratic prac-
tice mattered little to those millions of supporters in the
villages and shanty towns of South Asia, who simply saw
in Indira’s sons yet another Nehru and in Benazir’s son
Bilawal yet another Bhutto. Bilawal is already attracting
international media attention even though he has only just
entered Oxford University as an undergraduate.
AT: How and why is Pakistan a particularly important
country internationally at this time?
AA: For many reasons: Pakistan is seen in the Muslim
world as a leader. It is also a key ally of the West in the so-
called ‘war on terror’. The USA has designated Pakistan
a major non-NATO ally, along with Israel. Pakistan has
received about US$15 billion in aid, some of it in covert
form. Pakistan has a population of 165 million, which is
growing rapidly. Pakistan is strategically located in a sen-
sitive region of the world, and shares borders with Iran,
Afghanistan, China and India – countries of vital impor-
tance to the West. Pakistan is the only Muslim nuclear
power. Finally, Pakistan was created in 1947, with an
imprint of Jinnah’s vision of a modern Muslim nation in its
ideology, and that has sown the seeds of democracy which
carry the potential of spreading in the Muslim world.
AT: Benazir Bhutto supported the mobilization of the
Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. To
what extent did she have a hand in setting up conditions
for the current 9/11 crisis?
AA: Yes, she was partly responsible for supporting
the Taliban. But there were others involved in ‘the great
game’ in which the allies of the US had used their intel-
ligence services to create so-called ‘freedom fighters’
armed to fight the Soviets. They were still around in the
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 24 No 1, February 2008 
early 1990s. They took the form of brash, ill-informed
Pashtun Taliban who wished to Islamize society and
whom Pakistan continued to support. In case of a war
with India, Pakistan needed ‘strategic depth’, for which
Afghanistan was crucial. Benazir’s own interior minister
referred to the Taliban as ‘my boys’. At the same time, she
was prime minister, with little influence over the army.
The issue was presented to her as one of security, and she
went along with that. She did not want to be seen to be in
conflict with the army on an issue of national security. So
Pakistan indirectly helped to create the Taliban.
AT: To what extent did corruption play a role in her
downfall? Do accusations of corruption feed militant
Islam?
AA: The corruption charges are many but yet to be
proved in court. While the Pakistani government used
these charges to keep her out of politics, her downfall had
more to do with structural and ideological issues. In spite
of being popular politicians, both Benazir and her father
were doomed to failure when the army decided to act,
indirectly in her case and directly in her father’s. There
is a tragic zero-sum relationship between Bhutto’s party
and the army.
AT: How will ‘moderate Islam’ fare after her death?
AA: I describe three models of Islam in my recent book
(2007). The first is the mystic Sufi – like Rumi; the second
is the modernist – like Jinnah of Pakistan; the third is the
literalist fundamentalist – like the leaders of the Islamic
parties. The first model is marginalized and largely invis-
ible, the second seen as failed and the third is on the
ascendant in the Muslim world. The clash is between the
modernists and the literalists on several levels of political
action. Modernist leaders led the nationalist movements
half a century ago but then failed to provide answers to
poverty, good education and health facilities, and jus-
tice for all. Millions now look to the literalists as the last
hope.
AT: What does democracy mean in Pakistan and what
will it now mean without her? Under what conditions
can Pakistan move beyond a military dictatorship?
AA: Democracy has taken a hit but the momentum
towards it is too great. Pakistan is at a crossroads: one road
leads to dictatorship and the other promises democracy.
The anarchy and turmoil will not abate unless a resolution
of this predicament is found. We need a modern Pakistan
with rights for women, minority and human rights, a
nation concerned about education, health and poverty
issues – just as its founding father Jinnah envisioned.
AT: How do you think anthropologists might best
approach her life and her legacy and politics in Pakistan
more generally?
AA: I think it is important to look at her life in the context
of her culture rather than through commentators in Chicago
or Cambridge. It is her behaviour in her own society that is
of interest. I noted she arrived in Pakistan after eight years
in exile last October. I was watching her carefully on TV.
She began to cry like a child. She was so moved to be home.
Benazir then had to make a choice whether to go straight
to the tomb of Jinnah, the father of the nation, or to that of
her own father. She decided to pay homage to the former
and was on her way to Jinnah’s mausoleum when her pro-
cession was attacked and over a hundred people died. Her
Shia supporters would be quick to note with approval that
on her right hand she wore an armband with the name ‘Ali’,
a great figure in Islam but of particular importance to the
Shia. Her followers would see her as someone sensitive to
their political and emotional needs – from paying homage
to the father of the nation above her own father to publicly
supporting the symbols of her religious identity. It would
create a sense of pride and hope in them. That is why they
mourn her death so deeply and will never forget her. l