Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: Free Press Journal
Date: July 18, 2002
URL: http://www.samachar.com/features/180702-fpj.html
When Deputy Prime Minister L.K.
Advani declared that he does not trust Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf
even Washington would not have dared to challenge him. For the simple fact
is that Musharraf is increasingly talking with a forked tongue. On June
6 Musharraf had given a solemn assurance to US Deputy Secretary of State
Armitage that he would end infiltration across the Line of Control 'permanently.'
There was no hedging over the issue.
This assurance was subsequently conveyed to India not once but half a dozen
times, by American officials. Then Musharraf goes back on his word. In
separate interviews to 'The Washington Post' and 'Newsweek' Musharraf insisted
that he had not given the U.S. any permanent commitment to halt cross-border
terrorist infiltration, adding further that dismantling terrorist camps
in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir was "not on the agenda at all"!
That was some cheek. Asked by the
'Post' whether accepting the Line of Control and the granting by India
of some sort of autonomy to Kashmir will not solve the problem, Musharraf's
reply was: "If the Line of Control were the border, what have we fought
two wars for?". We now learn that when Secretary of State Colin Powell
read the reports he "hit the ceiling" and was "hopping mad" as he has every
right to be and called Musharraf to voice his anger and protest. But there
has been no word either from Islamabad or from Washington that Musharraf
has apologised.
Powell has been reported as being
"totally passed off". This is interpreted in some circles to mean that
Musharraf is on the verge of losing his most powerful ally in the US administration.
But that remains to be seen. What is clear is that Kashmir remains very
much on the Pakistan President's mind. As he told the country's national
Defence College in Islamabad, there is "no question of any compromise on
Kashmir" and it would be a mistake to think that the Kashmir issue has
been 'buried'.
If that is so, then the United States
has much to explain. How can India possibly hold talks with him given his
two-faced behaviour? How much power does the United States actually wield
over Musharraf? That when it comes down to brass- tacks Musharraf has to
give in to the United States is all too well known. Thus, on March 28 this
very year, a team of American law enforcement and intelligence officials
had stormed into several houses in Pakistan to capture five Taliban fighters
and 25 Arabs suspected of having links to Al Qaida.
To save its face the Pakistan government
said the raids were carried out with its "permission" as if it had any
real powers to deny American cops the right to arrest anyone in Pakistan
considered to be terrorists. Musharraf has to obey American orders - or
else! Such has been the American pressure on Musharraf that in just last
eight months Pakistani forces were compelled to catch as many as 378 Al
Qaida militants, most of them from Yemen to be handed over to US authorities.
This has reportedly brought the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists against
the Pakistan President. In a recent search operation, ten Pakistani soldiers,
including two officers, were killed. This has only increased fundamentalist
anger and Musharraf's now reported losing popularity among all sections
of the population. The 'New York Times' reported in early July that Musharraf
is isolated in his own country and has become increasingly "a figure of
ridicule and the focus of a growing anti- western fury that is shared by
Islamic militants and the middle class alike".
Reported the New York Times: "The
decline in the general's fortunes represents an abrupt turnaround since
last autumn... at no time since September 11 has he appeared as isolated
or vulnerable. His dutiful carrying out of Washington's demands is galvanising
a widespread feeling that he has largely traded away Pakistan's sovereignty
to the US. With FBI agents joining in raids of suspected hide-outs of Al
Qaida and the Taliban, the anti-American sentiment here has reached a peak...
A nationwide referendum on his rule two months ago was regarded widely
as fraudulent..."
That is not all. Nobody but nobody
seems happy with what Musharraf has so far done. It is doubtful even his
own Army is pleased with the sacking of a senior general in the powerful
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Pakistan's political parties, of course,
are seething with revolt after the announcement of sweeping changes in
the 1973 Constitution by the National Reconstruction Bureau under Musharraf's
direction. According to the changes which the 'Daily Times' described as
"a nightmare", two former Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto and
Nawaz Sheriff can be disqualified from taking part in the general elections
scheduled for October.
Worse, more than 80 per cent of
the MPs elected in the past 15 years will not qualify for elections to
the Senate, the National Assembly and the four provincial Assemblies, according
to the new rules set up which bar anyone who had obtained a bank loan for
an amount of two million rupees or more in his own name, or in the name
of housewife or dependents, but had either not paid it back within the
due date or had got the loan written off. According to the Pakistan paper
'The News' there are over 28,000 persons who had loans worth Rs 30 billion
written off since 1985. Two thirds of the total loans - Rs. 22.35 billion
- had been written off during the two stints of Nawaz Sharief and the remaining
Rs. 7.23 billion had been written off during the reign of Benazir Bhutto.
Also not making it to the national
and provincial legislature would be former parliamentarians who have either
faced or are currently facing charges of abuse of office or embezzlement
of funds in the past 15 years - and that would include both Benazir and
Nawaz Sharief. These rules apparently have infuriated large section of
the Middle Class. In an interview to the BBC, Musharraf had stated that
he was giving up all powers and "the real power" would devolve on the Prime
Minister. At the same time he had insisted that he retained the power to
dismiss the Prime Minister and his cabinet which he described as "over-watch".
This has led to a lot of laughter
and Pakistan's mainline newspapers such as 'Dawn, Nation, Frontier Post,
Friday Times' have been full of criticism. It is against this background
that the reports of Benazir Bhutto meeting her old political foe Nawaz
Sharief in Jeddah where the latter is now residing have raised questions.
Both, apparently, want to return to Pakistan from the life-long exile imposed
on them by Musharraf. But would they dare to? But would they have come
to any such conclusion without first checking out with Washington? And
what possible role could the United States have for either or both of them
under the present circumstances? One report says that Sharief has promised
in full his party's support to Benazir Bhutto in the coming elections knowing
that on his own, his party will not get a majority. But an alliance between
the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Muslim League - even if most of its
former candidates are debarred from contesting the elections under the
new laws - could bring it to power. And what if they unanimously seek to
get both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharief back home? At this point there
are several ifs and buts and nobody dare predict what the final outcome
would be.
The Chandigarh-based 'The Tribune'
(6 July) reports that "the pro-Musharraf parties are slowly but surely
becoming despondent" with even Imran Khan, who has raised his own political
party, opposing the proposed Constitutional amendments. Noted the 'Friday
Times': "The political parties must be very clear that if the present package
goes through, they will be no more than the military's serfs regardless
of the sales pitch ... fortunately for the parties, the regime seems to
be getting caught in its own contradictions". The regime certainly has
lost the support of the powerful Bar. Hamid Khan, president of the Supreme
Court Bar Association (SCBA) was quoted by the popular journal 'Herald'
as saying that "military rulers in Pakistan have repeatedly abused the
process of referendum to perpetuate themselves in power" and that what
Musharraf has done is "yet another attempt by the incumbent chief of army
staff that is blatantly unconstitutional".
Economically Pakistan is in grave
trouble. A Board of Investment official told the 'Herald' that Pakistan
is still not considered worthy of investment, with Japan insisting that
it will not put in any money in Pakistan until law and order is restored
there and Germany clearly stating that it would prefer to invest in India.
It is against this bleak background that many experts are wondering how
long Musharraf can last and how long the United States can pretend to support
him despite all its misgivings. With the fundamentalists, the media, the
judiciary and all political parties openly opposed to him what are Musharraf's
chances to hang on to power?
At this point nobody is willing
to take a bet. The Pakistan people are not good at civil disobedience and
they don't have a Jayaprakash Narayan to call for a revolution. Most experts
believe that all that can be done is to wait and see. The question is how
long that 'wait' will turn out to be, and what would be the final outcome?
Musharraf, on his part has shut his bolts, and there is no going back for
him.
