Viewpoint: Letting the general get away

While our latest military ruler General Pervez Musharraf has made good his ‘escape’ to Dubai, a storm of accusation and counter accusations has erupted among politicians. Monday’s joint session of Parliament called to discuss the controversial PIA privatisation bill turned into a heated debate about Musharraf with the leader of the opposition PPP Syed Khurshid Shah and PTI’s parliamentary leaders Shah Mehmood Qureshi taking the government to task for its decision to let the general leave the country. There are a lot of people who had wanted General Musharraf to be brought to justice: the PPP for his suspected involvement in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, the Baloch people for the alleged murder of their leader Nawab Akbar Bugti, and many others for his suspension of the Constitution to impose and re-impose martial law. The main focus though has been the high treason case that he faced before a special tribunal under Article 6 for holding the Constitution in abeyance. Khurshid Shah questioned the decision reminding the Prime Minister that soon after assumption of office in 2013 he had declared in the National Assembly that his government would try General Musharraf under Article 6. And in his hard-hitting speech Qureshi demanded to know “will the government brief this house how a usurper, an accused under Article 6, was allowed to leave the country?” Everyone of course knows the answer. And also the reason behind the Opposition’s angry noises, namely, ousters of elected governments by military adventurists.

Struggling to defend the government, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan made two points: one that the Supreme Court verdict on the issue of the former dictator’s plea to go abroad had left the government with no choice but to remove his name from the Exit Control List, which is a bogus argument. The court had said it was up to the government to make that decision. His second point though that the PPP was to blame for its “criminal negligence of not taking the general to court” is very valid. In fact, one taunt repeatedly hurled at the PPP by various commentators has been that its government gave a guard of honour send-off to General-President Musharraf. More importantly, at the time the PML-N government initiated the high treason case against Musharraf, senior PPP leader and former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had come out to say at a news conference that he along with then president Asif Ali Zardari, after several rounds of discussions with the ‘establishment’, had made a deal with the consent of Mian Nawaz Sharif to give “safe exit” to Musharraf, adding that it was decided not to impeach him if he stepped down on his own. Gilani had taken the trouble to hold a news conference only to publically tell the Prime Minister that he needed to abide by what he termed as a commitment, and give Musharraf a safe way out. When the deal was struck the PPP government may have found it difficult to withstand the pressure from the ‘establishment’ and certain outside powers for the general’s safe exit. But Gilani’s public defence of Musharraf came at a time the PPP was out of power, ie, in July 2014, and hence under no obligation to do something beyond its control. Which makes its present stance mere empty rhetoric. Still, the criticism emanating from the two major parties carries the important message that extra-constitutional interventions are unforgivable.

The power of the gun may have prevailed for the greatest part but not completely. The imagined untouchability and honour stand severely dented due to the high treason case that forced the usurper to appear before a special tribunal. It must have warmed many hearts when the ever arrogant general claiming “mein kissi sey darta warta nahi hoon (I’m not afraid of anyone)” was seen looking for a shoulder to hide behind. He had to feign illness to find refuge in Rawalpindi’s military hospital. That though could offer him temporary respite only. Some creative thinking was still required. So came the story that the mother was very ill in Dubai and the son needed to be by her side. At one point the ploy nearly worked as a special plane was said to be waiting to fly him up and away but nothing happened, presumably, because the government had dug in its heels. Not just yet, the civilian authority seemed to say, not before we give you a taste of your own medicine and rub your nose in the dirt. Finally, he was permitted to leave acting as a very sick person.

When he arrived in Dubai good sense suggested that he should have stuck to the illness story. But out of the danger zone he appeared before TV cameras looking hale and hearty and enjoying a smoke of cigar among a small group of supporters. If the intention was to thumb his nose at the government, that is not how it was seen by most people back home in Pakistan; it surely did not come across as an act of bravery. In any case, the brave thing for him to do was to face the legal challenges, and accept the outcome.

The government may appear to have acted weakly, but not so considering that treading onto sensitive territory it initiated treason case against a former military dictator, and took its own time to let him go – that too on purported humanitarian grounds. Given the existing nature of civil-military equation, it could not have done better than that. The PML-N leadership therefore deserves to be commended rather than condemned for handling the Musharraf problem the way it has. The general might have escaped justice but in the eyes of the people he is a fugitive since he is still wanted in various cases pending in courts. That’s not a nice category for a former chief of the proud Army of this country to be in. Is it?