Latest news with #ZulfikarAliBhutto
Express Tribune
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Bilawal terms July 5 'darkest day'
Pakistan People's Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has termed July 5 as the darkest day of the country's history. In a message on July 5 - the day when the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was toppled by military dictator — the ppp chairman said it was the day when the democratic journey was derailed through tyranny. He said Quaid-e-Awam Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became the voice of voiceless people and gave the poor dignity. The purpose of July 5 tragedy was to stifle the voice of the people and usurped the powers. Despite the tragedy and persecution, the dream of the Quaid-e-Awan remained alive. The dictatorship, which was imposed after July 5, started a series of terrorism and destruction of democratic institutions, highlighted Bilawal. The PPP chairman reiterated to continue the struggle for realization of Benazir Bhutto and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's dream. The vision envisages the people of Pakistan powerful and the Constitution supreme. He said the PPP never compromised on principles despite its leaders and workers languished in jails. He expressed his resolve to continue the struggle until Pakistan becomes democratic, peaceful and prosperous country.
Express Tribune
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Sindh CM remembers July 5 as 'darkest day' in Pakistan's democratic history
Listen to article Sindh Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah has said that July 5, 1977 marks the darkest chapter in Pakistan's democratic journey. On this day, a military regime ousted the elected government of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, trampling over democratic values and public mandate. He said the removal of Bhutto was not just a political move but a direct attack on democratic principles and the people's will. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, he added, gave political awareness to the nation, which dictatorships tried to suppress through force. مجھ کو مارا گیا، مجھ کو پیٹا گیا، مجھ کو سڑکوں پر جبرا" گھسیٹا گیا، کیا خطا تھی میری، کب یہ پوچھا گیا، مجھ کو باغی نصیبوں میں لکھا گیا، ہاں ! میں باغی ہوں ایسے منشور کا ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ کالے دستور کا ۔۔!! #5thJulyBlackDay — PPP (@MediaCellPPP) July 5, 2025 Shah noted that the Pakistan People's Party has always resisted authoritarianism with courage and commitment. He said the events of July 5 remind us to continue the struggle for democracy, constitutional supremacy, and protection of public rights. He stressed the importance of remaining vigilant, as threats to democracy and national stability still persist. Shah concluded by paying tribute to Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto for his enduring contributions and sacrifices. On July 5, 1977, military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew the elected democratic government of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, imposed martial law, and suspended Pakistan's first consensual constitution. Read More: Black Day for PPP today Earlier in March, President Asif Ali Zardari conferred Pakistan's highest civil award on the late former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in recognition of his excellence, contributions, and remarkable achievements across various fields. In a prestigious ceremony held at Aiwan-e-Sadr, President Zardari awarded the Nishan-e-Pakistan—the nation's highest civilian honour—to the late prime minister and founder of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). His daughter, Sanam Bhutto, received the award on his behalf, marking a significant moment in the country's history. Historically, on March 6, in its opinion on a presidential reference filed by President Zardari, the Supreme Court admitted that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was not given the right to a fair trial—almost 44 years after the founding chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) was hanged in a murder case. Also Read: Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto honoured with Nishan-e-Pakistan posthumously A nine-member larger bench of the apex court, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, announced its opinion. The announcement was also broadcast live on the YouTube channel of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Isa read out the court's reserved written order, stating that Bhutto's trial in the Lahore High Court (LHC) and subsequently in the Supreme Court was not conducted in accordance with the fundamental rights and fair trial guarantees provided by the Constitution. The larger bench included Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Musarrat Hilali. 'The good thing is that the opinion on the presidential reference is unanimous,' said Chief Justice Isa before delivering the verdict. 'We cannot move forward without correcting ourselves—until we acknowledge the mistakes of the past,' he added.
News18
02-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
SCO Summit: India, Pakistan And The Curious Case Of Missing Fingers
How Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's SCO gambit is a case of a Bharat rising confidently, self-assuredly and surefootedly Not every agreement inked from a position of strength translates into strategic triumph. The 1971 war is a telling reminder. Bharat's decisive victory split Pakistan, created Bangladesh, and saw 93,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendering in Dhaka—one of the most humiliating defeats in modern military history. Yet, just months later, the Simla Agreement of 1972 exposed how battlefield gains could be squandered at the diplomatic table. Despite explicit warnings from then RAW chief RN Kao to 'count her fingers" after shaking hands with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mrs Indira Gandhi fell for his charm, unilaterally agreeing to release the Pakistani prisoners without even securing the return of Indian soldiers languishing in Pakistani jails. If all treaties signed from a point of strength are not success stories, then all treaties not signed aren't failures either. Last week, when Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign the SCO's joint statement on countering terrorism, he not only safeguarded Bharat's core security interests but also offered a glimpse of a country willing to stand firm—alone if necessary—in pursuit of its national priorities. The Defence Minister's conduct at the SCO summit reflects a growing confidence, maturity, and self-assuredness of the country while dealing with global powers. Unlike in the past, when New Delhi would have been tempted to make a compromise for the sake of 'consensus" or 'regional solidarity", today's Bharat doesn't mind walking that extra mile on treacherous terrains if the country's long-term interest so demands. The SCO draft statement was a watered-down document that, with Chinese collusion, sought to downplay Pakistan's terror connections. It also refused to acknowledge, far less condemn, Islamabad's sinister role in not just waging but also spreading global jihad. What particularly irked New Delhi was the refusal to give the dastardly Pahalgam attack a place in the draft statement. For Bharat—having borne the brunt of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for decades—any endorsement of such a document would have compromised its core security interests. More so in the wake of the much successful Operation Sindoor, where Bharat drew for Pakistan—and the world—a new Lakshman Rekha on terrorism. Critics argue that Bharat should reconsider its engagement with institutions like the SCO, given their internal dynamics and frequent tilt against Bharat's interests. But there is a compelling counterpoint: Bharat's very participation forces these blocs to confront their inconsistencies. By attending and then refusing to endorse a flawed document, Bharat highlighted the SCO's duplicity on terrorism. New Delhi's presence gives the SCO a democratic legitimacy, especially when most of its member states lack genuine democratic credentials. At the same time, it does moderate the innate anti-Bharat tendencies of such institutions. Yet, the incident is also a reminder of the solitary nature of Bharat's fight against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. The West's support often stops at rhetoric. Washington's Bharat policy is still largely China-driven, focused on counterbalancing Beijing rather than addressing Islamabad's terror machinery. Europe, preoccupied with internal crises, besides being wary of disturbing its fragile equations with Islamic states, rarely ventures beyond routine condemnations, followed by an exhortation to both sides to return to talks. Russia, Bharat's time-tested partner and an SCO member, finds itself increasingly aligned with China, compelled by geopolitical realities and economic compulsions after the Ukraine war. Moscow's growing dependence on Beijing inevitably narrows the space for unequivocal support to New Delhi, especially on issues where Chinese and Pakistani interests converge. Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from the SCO saga is the fact that Bharat is, in many ways, alone in its fight against terrorism emanating from Pakistan. While Western capitals may occasionally put up rhetorical support in Bharat's favour, very few will be willing to shun, far less confront, Pakistan for its terror connections. However, the path ahead is not without challenges. Bharat will likely face more such moments where standing up for its core interests may mean standing alone. The international system is inherently transactional. Allies shift their positions, interests evolve, and moral arguments often give way to strategic calculations. This reality makes it imperative for Bharat to continue diversifying its partnerships—deepening ties not just with the Quad countries but also with nations in Europe, ASEAN, Africa, and the Middle East. Simultaneously, Bharat must persist in exposing Pakistan's duplicity on terror at every available forum, denying Islamabad the international space it needs to whitewash its record. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that Bharat's conduct at the SCO summit reflects the case of a confident, self-assured, and surefooted nation. Yes, there is this concern of finding itself isolated on the international platform, but one needs to see it in the larger context of Bharat rising at an unprecedented pace and scale—a pace and scale that seem to be unnerving its friends and foes alike. The next couple of decades will be critical. As Bharat continues its unprecedented economic and geopolitical ascent, it will inevitably unsettle entrenched interests, both among rivals and even some partners. How deftly Bharat navigates this phase—balancing assertion with strategic partnerships, principle with pragmatism—will determine how swiftly it cements its place as a global power. The good thing is, as Rajnath Singh's resolute stance at the SCO shows, Naya Bharat not just counts the fingers after shaking hands with other powers; it has also started making them accountable if some of the fingers go missing after the handshake! About the Author Utpal Kumar Utpal Kumar is Opinion Editor, News18 and Firstpost. He can be reached at He tweets @utpal_kumar1 First Published:
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
02-07-2025
- Politics
- First Post
How Rajnath Singh's SCO gambit is a case of a Bharat rising confidently and surefootedly
Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from the SCO saga is the fact that Bharat is, in many ways, alone in its fight against terrorism emanating from Pakistan read more Not every agreement inked from a position of strength translates into strategic triumph. The 1971 war is a telling reminder. Bharat's decisive victory split Pakistan, created Bangladesh, and saw 93,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendering in Dhaka—one of the most humiliating defeats in modern military history. Yet, just months later, the Simla Agreement of 1972 exposed how battlefield gains could be squandered at the diplomatic table. Despite explicit warnings from then RAW chief RN Kao to 'count her fingers' after shaking hands with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mrs Indira Gandhi fell for his charm, unilaterally agreeing to release the Pakistani prisoners without even securing the return of Indian soldiers languishing in Pakistani jails. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If all treaties signed from the point of strength are not success stories, then all treaties not signed aren't failures either. Last week, when Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign the SCO's joint statement on countering terrorism, he not only safeguarded Bharat's core security interests but also offered a glimpse of a country willing to stand firm—alone if necessary—in pursuit of its national priorities. The Defence Minister's conduct at the SCO summit reflects a growing confidence, maturity and self-assuredness of the country while dealing with global powers. Unlike in the past, when New Delhi would have been tempted to make a compromise for the sake of 'consensus' or 'regional solidarity', today's Bharat doesn't mind walking that extra mile on treacherous terrains if the country's long-term interest so demanded. The SCO draft statement was a watered-down document that, with Chinese collusion, sought to downplay Pakistan's terror connections. It also refused to acknowledge, far less condemn, Islamabad's sinister role in not just waging but also spreading global jihad. What particularly irked New Delhi was the refusal to give the dastardly Pahalgam attack a place in the draft statement. For Bharat—having borne the brunt of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for decades—any endorsement of such a document would have compromised its core security interests. More so in the wake of the much successful Operation Sindoor where Bharat drew for Pakistan—and the world—a new Lakshman Rekha on terrorism. Critics argue that Bharat should reconsider its engagement with institutions like the SCO, given their internal dynamics and frequent tilt against Bharat's interests. But there is a compelling counterpoint: Bharat's very participation forces these blocs to confront their inconsistencies. By attending and then refusing to endorse a flawed document, Bharat highlighted the SCO's duplicity on terrorism. New Delhi's presence gives the SCO a democratic legitimacy, especially when most of its member-states lack genuine democratic credentials. At the same time, it does moderate the innate anti-Bharat tendencies of such institutions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Yet, the incident is also a reminder of the solitary nature of Bharat's fight against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. The West's support often stops at rhetoric. Washington's Bharat policy is still largely China-driven, focused on counterbalancing Beijing rather than addressing Islamabad's terror machinery. Europe, preoccupied with internal crises, besides being wary of disturbing its fragile equations with Islamic states, rarely ventures beyond routine condemnations, followed by an exhortation to both sides to return to talks. Russia, Bharat's time-tested partner and an SCO member, finds itself increasingly aligned with China, compelled by geopolitical realities and economic compulsions after the Ukraine war. Moscow's growing dependence on Beijing inevitably narrows the space for unequivocal support to New Delhi, especially on issues where Chinese and Pakistani interests converge. Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from the SCO saga is the fact that Bharat is, in many ways, alone in its fight against terrorism emanating from Pakistan. While Western capitals may occasionally put up rhetorical support in Bharat's favour, very few will be willing to shun, far less confront, Pakistan for its terror connections. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, the path ahead is not without challenges. Bharat will likely face more such moments where standing up for its core interests may mean standing alone. The international system is inherently transactional. Allies shift their positions, interests evolve, and moral arguments often give way to strategic calculations. This reality makes it imperative for Bharat to continue diversifying its partnerships—deepening ties not just with the Quad countries but also with nations in Europe, Asean, Africa, and the Middle East. Simultaneously, Bharat must persist in exposing Pakistan's duplicity on terror at every available forum, denying Islamabad the international space it needs to whitewash its record. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that Bharat's conduct at the SCO summit reflects a growing maturity, decisiveness and self-assuredness in dealing with global powers. Yes, there is this concern of finding itself isolated on the international platform, but one needs to see it in the larger context of Bharat rising at an unprecedented pace and scale—a pace and scale that seem to be unnerving its friends and foes alike. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The next couple of decades will be critical. As Bharat continues its unprecedented economic and geopolitical ascent, it will inevitably unsettle entrenched interests, both among rivals and even some partners. How deftly Bharat navigates this phase—balancing assertion with strategic partnerships, principle with pragmatism—will determine how swiftly it cements its place as a global power. The good thing is, as Rajnath Singh's resolute stance at the SCO shows, 'Naya' Bharat not just counts the fingers after shaking hands with other powers; it has also started making them accountable if some of the fingers go missing after the handshake!
Indian Express
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Tavleen Singh writes: Our noisy, chaotic democracy
Next week will be the 50th anniversary of the Emergency. For me, it is a particularly important anniversary because had I not been an impressionable junior reporter in that time 50 years ago, I may not have chosen political journalism as a career. It was because I saw how overnight India moved from being a noisy, chaotic democracy to a dictatorship. Noisy and chaotic are the words Zulfikar Ali Bhutto used for India's democracy during the show trial that led to his execution by a military dictator. They are good words to describe what Delhi was like in the days before that midnight when Indira Gandhi declared the Emergency. Overnight, every major Opposition leader was thrown into jail and in Delhi, policemen could be seen under almost every other tree. And they were so determined to crush all dissent that in Connaught Place a wandering street performer was arrested because a policeman heard Indira Gandhi's name mentioned while he tried to get his monkey to obey him. Overnight, at restaurants and coffee shops where people like us met for noisy discussions, signs appeared warning people that it was forbidden to talk about politics. As a reporter who had until then paid more attention to human rights issues than politics, I learned very quickly that politics, in half-made countries like ours, was more important than anything else. So important that it permeated every aspect of our lives. I also learned that democracy was what held India together and that ordinary, illiterate people understood its importance better than those who spent their evenings gossiping about politics in Delhi's drawing rooms. Ordinary people understood better because it was they who were forcibly sterilised and they whose homes were flattened by bulldozers in the name of beautifying Delhi. The important question is whether that brutal repression of democratic rights can happen again, and the answer is that it can, but in a more dangerously subtle way. There are those who say that since Narendra Modi became prime minister, an 'undeclared emergency' has come into force. I hesitate to make sweeping judgements of that kind, but what has happened is that some freedoms we took for granted have become endangered. This has been done not by throwing Opposition leaders, journalists and dissidents into jail, but by tweaking the laws to make curbs on freedom legally possible. The law that is supposed to prevent sedition has been tweaked to widen the definition of that word. Laws meant to curb black money have been tweaked as well and if a dissident does not end up in jail for 'anti-national activities', he could end up rotting in some forgotten cell because the Enforcement Directorate charges him with money laundering. The Opposition leaders who have these charges thrown at them have fought back valiantly because they have political parties behind them, but dissidents and journalists have just learned to keep quiet. Is that good? Is that democracy? After Donald Trump became president, there are many Indians who have gleefully taken to declaring that if Trump can impose curbs on freedom, then why should Indian leaders not do the same? Having just returned from New York, where I go to see my son, who has been denied an ordinary visa to come to India because of an article he wrote, may I say that there is huge pushback against what Trump is doing. While I was there, he held a military parade in Washington to show off American weapons in the way that tinpot dictators do. And on the day of the parade, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets in 'noKings' rallies. I witnessed one of these rallies in a small town in upstate New York and was astonished that so many men, women and children were unafraid to stand up for democracy. While I was in New York, I also met university professors who did not hesitate to speak out against Trump's attempts to curb academic freedom. It bothers me that there has been so little protest against attempts to curb freedoms in our own ancient 'mother of democracy'. One reason is that the Bharatiya Janata Party has wrapped itself in the Indian flag and turned nationalism into a shield. After Operation Sindoor, this has become so serious a problem that the smallest attempt at criticism can land you in jail for being anti-national. One of the most appalling examples of this was when Ali Khan Mahmudabad was jailed for a harmless tweet. I was horrified that people I thought believed in democracy supported his arrest. So, on this 50th anniversary of that day that led to India becoming a dictatorship for a while, we need to think seriously about what we should all be doing to protect our democracy. It is a fragile thing, democracy, and can easily be crushed unless people, ordinary people, stand up for their rights. Not in a ridiculous way by wandering around with a copy of the Constitution in our pockets, but in a real way by daring to speak up when we see dissidents jailed as terrorists and journalists silenced by the Enforcement Directorate. I hesitate to say this but in recent years that noise and chaos that Bhutto, who hated India, noticed has become a little less noisy. Chaotic it still is but what we need is more noise when patriotism is used as a weapon against dissident voices.
