The Musharraf trial

In a democratic polity, difference of opinion is embodied in the very nature of the system. There are always two or more ways to look at an issue or a set of problems.

One of the burning issues the country faces these days is the trial of former military ruler Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf. He is in the dock and a special court is holding his trial. But the issue has already rent apart the legal corridors to become a major irritant between the establishment and the political government.

It is indeed true that the head of the democratic government, prime minister Nawaz Sharif, was tried by a high court and sentenced to a term in jail during the Musharraf rule. Sharif was then pardoned and exiled. The event was just a repeat of an earlier episode of a similar nature. A previous military ruler, Gen Ziaul Haq, had booted out a civilian government but it returned to power after eleven years.. Mian Nawaz Sharif himself was returned to power by the people. And there we are – history completing circles. Gen Zia died before he could be tried. But Musharraf is in the dock.

There are three much debated points on which the military establishment and the civilians differ. First, Musharraf pushed Pakistan into the Kargil misadventure as COAS and brought an untoward mini-war to Pakistan that Nawaz Sharif had to quell as prime minister. Second, he arranged a coup against the Nawaz government, an act of treason. Third, he suspended the constitution and imposed emergency rule in 2007.

All three allegations seem valid and reasonable at least from the civilian viewpoint. Let’s see them from the other side as well. It is said that in the Kargil episode, the former COAS had briefed the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif more than once. The civilian leader had neither given full attention nor prohibited the implementation of the plan categorically.

Pakistan could not imagine that the event would blow up on the world stage the way it eventually did. So, the military, whose four generals were directly involved in the plan, feels that the onus of the misadventure lay on the shoulders of the then prime minister who headed the government. They think Sharif had backed out when the event backfired.

Let’s examine the second allegation. The unofficial military view is that Musharraf was on an official visit to Sri Lanka as army chief and in that position he was travelling back home when he was removed unceremoniously. It is argued that, as he was mid-air, how could he order a coup? It is also taken as fact that the civilian plane carrying passengers and crew was not allowed to land despite its fuel having almost finished. The life of all the people travelling in the PIA flight was in real danger.

The act amounted to an attempt to murder. The army acted well in time to save their boss and other passengers as well. They think the prime minister is indeed empowered to remove an army chief but could he just kick out an army chief like that? Hundreds of people are removed unjustifiably and courts restore them. Musharraf was forced to do what he did, goes the argument on the other side. Nawaz Sharif was tried in the plane hijacking case, awarded punishment and jailed (the case was reopened later and he was exonerated).

Opinion is equally and sharply divided on the 2007 emergency as well. As this matter is in a court of law, suffice it to say that both military and civilians hold divergent views. It is said that if Indira Gandhi could impose emergency in India, Musharraf could do so too.

The issue swings to and fro. Even the judiciary remained divided, as is the political stratosphere. At least some of the political leaders, who shared power under Musharraf’s canopy, are opposing his trial. And the hapless people remain worried, not knowing who is right today and who was wrong yesterday.

The question here is not who is more justified, but the truth in this case is certainly opaque. However, there’s a third path too – pragmatism. Leaders should be wiser after their earlier failures. They must realise what made them fall during their previous stints. On compassionate grounds, Musharraf can be allowed to go abroad to see his ailing mother. If he doesn’t return after filing surety bonds in a court of law, let him be a fugitive in the eyes of the law.

It would be only fair to say that the civilian government should focus on issues that direly need attention. Civil-military shifts are part of politics in Pakistan. It is imperative for the prime minister to remain firm in power as controversies weaken the writ of the government. As the economic indicators of his dispensation show, he can out-perform the Musharraf-era economic boom.

Musharraf will die his own death without a trial. Ministers shouldn’t meddle in the military’s constituency; it still considers Musharraf a fallen hero. Nawaz Sharif should also be aware of political double-speaks like former president Asif Ali Zardari who can lead him up the garden path and ditch him. Not slogans but deeds of his ministers will make PM Nawaz Sharif the ultimate winner.

The writer is editor investigation, The News, Lahore. Email: Twitter: @MAKLodhi