ASSASSINATIONS such as Benazir Bhutto's alter the course of history. Because it is her third death anniversary doesn't necessarily explain the sudden surge to find her killers. While some within her party have been questioning why their own government has been dragging its feet, the administration's troubles have suddenly multiplied too. Is this an attempt to divert public attention? Or are they serious? Given what we are, a vassal state, a perception fortified by Wikileaks, it's hard to believe that they are really looking for the real killers, for that may well change the course of history too. But if perchance they are, they should seek answers to the following questions. What power convinced Benazir to return home early instead of after the elections, as agreed? It put her squarely in harm's way and changed the course of history. Who was Khalid Shahinshah? He was standing on the stage besides Benazir during her last rally, repeatedly making peculiar gestures, as if signaling to someone. Who were the two hippy-type photographers behind Shahinshah mimicking the squats that he did twice? Why did her vehicle make a right instead of left turn after exiting Liaquat Bagh, as the agreed security protocol required? Why did her driver stop the car instead of speeding away, as also agreed? Why did she stand up through the homemade sunroof in her armor-plated vehicle, thus exposing her head and shoulders and presenting herself as an easy target? Who in the vehicle manually opened the sunroof for her, thus painting a bull's eye on her head? Was everyone in that vehicle totally stupid? Shouldn't someone have stopped her? The excuse that they respected her too much or were too scared of her doesn't wash: did they really love her or are they mentally lobotomized members of a cult? Shahinshah was in her vehicle, which shows his closeness. Did he open the sunroof? Surprisingly, no one seems to recall whether it was he or someone else that did so. If they really cannot, they must be lobotomized – or complicit – or dead scared. Why was Shahinshah later assassinated? Did he know too much? Was he turning Bolshoi? Was he silenced? Why is the investigation into his murder not being pursued aggressively? Why did Benazir's family or senior party members not allow an autopsy, both of which have been variously blamed? Regardless, where autopsies are necessary, there is nothing to stop the authorities from doing one. They need no one's permission. But one can also understand the doctors' reluctance in a country such as ours, where they would almost certainly have been accused to removing ‘vital' evidence. WHAT is stopping them from exhuming her body and doing an autopsy now? Respect again? Is not getting to the truth real respect, for her death would then not go in vain and to someone else's advantage – those who think they fashion the world. To claim that Benazir's killers will never be found because the place was hosed down is clutching at straws. Enough time lapsed between the assassination and the hose-down to collect evidence. What would they have found? ID cards? Phone SIMs? Bullet shells? Explosive leftovers? The most vital SIM is that of Benazir's phones themselves and of those who were in her vehicle? Where are they? The ID card, SIM and facemask of the failed suicide killer of President Pervez Musharraf were found in the police station's courtyard that is behind the building after all possible evidence had been taken away from the actual scene of the crime. Don't forget that in both assassination attempts against Musharraf some of his own people were found to be involved. Why should it not necessarily be the same with Benazir? We now know that a police official has admitted to ordering the hose-down. Was it his own initiative or did someone order him to do so? To contend that the Military Intelligence chief ordered it is facetious, for it is none of his business. In any case, he is only one of two major generals that reports to the army chief directly and acts only on his orders. Army Chief General Kiyani has already said that he ordered no such thing. Yes, events such as Benazir Bhutto's assassination do change the course of history. 1. It caused elections to be delayed by five weeks. 2. The Nawaz League got time for electioneering and picked up nearly twice as many seats as the so-called King's Party, while winning only about half the votes, such is our illogical system. 3. The People's Party won perhaps some 25 more seats due to the sympathy vote. 4. Asif Zardari took control of the party as a de facto regent for his underage son. 5. Mr. Zardari went on to become President of Pakistan. 6. He handpicked his new prime minister instead of someone that Benazir would have chosen. 7. Benazir and Zardari's son would still have been a boy enjoying his youth and growing up normally. Now he has been made the new icon of the PPP cult and telescoped into becoming a mature man, youth gone in a hurry. Poor boy. But what else could they do? Without a Bhutto as icon the party would dissipate in a jiffy. 8. President Musharraf was the biggest loser after Benazir herself. He had to eventually resign, which would not have happened had Benazir been alive, despite the UN Commission's childish assertion that there was no power-sharing deal between her and Musharraf. There was. Such deals are never written down on paper, but how would a mundane diplomat, a limited lawyer and a clapped out policeman know? To deflect attention from the real killers, some challenged people started raising a ruckus that Musharraf should be tried for Benazir's murder. Benazir loyalists that they claim to be, what they should have done is raise a ruckus that the government, their government, must seriously and concertedly try to find Benazir's real assassins and bring them to justice. Her killers must be laughing all the way to the bank. – The writer is Op
