India may forgive Pervez Musharraf but Pakistan won't

Ayn Rand famously began Atlas Shrugged with the line, “Who is John Galt?” Is it likely that the future generations of Pakistanis might also ask, “Who is Pervez Musharraf?”

Meanwhile, the big question that people in Pakistan and India have been asking is this: “Why did Musharraf return to Pakistan? Did he not know that he was a spent force, a has-been without power or supporters?” No one, neither the experts in Pakistan, nor the cognoscenti in India have a sound enough explanation for the rush of blood that tempted Musharraf back to Pakistan.

In the end, the best explanation may be the old Indian dictum, Vinaash kale vipreet budhi. Perhaps, it is the Karma theory at work; he has to pay for his sins here and now, in this life.

Some of his actions bordered on the unpardonable. He faces two charges related to the murders of Benazir Bhutto and Nawab Akbar Bugti. Separately, there are cases of treason and terror. Pakistan’s Senate passed unanimously on April 19 a resolution calling for Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 of Pakistan’s constitution which says, “Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

Any of these charges is enough to keep Musharraf behind bars for the rest of his life; that is if he is spared the gallows. Sensing this, and like vultures over a kill, many are now busy castigating the man they had lionised once.

This includes some in India too. But it will be a folly to write his obituary in a hurry.

Pakistan is used to the return of people it had buried politically as ghosts. Both Nawaz Sharif and Zardari have spent time in prison, and both had been written off politically. Yet, they bounced back into the mainstream.

Obviously, Musharraf is not a politician. But he is adept at reinventing himself. Look at his various incarnations: an army commando, the army chief, a dictator and finally the President. And all through his luck has held; both against his opponents and against the bombs and bullets of his would-be assassins. He will therefore languish in jail only if his luck deserts him and the army abandons him.

This is where the judiciary would need to tread with caution because even if general Kayani were to leave Musharraf to his legal devices, would the junior officers allow their former chief to be paraded and humiliated routinely in vengeful courts? And, if the judiciary succeeds in punishing Musharraf, as it seems determined to do, will it also not demoralise the army? Will it not be treated as a warning that henceforth any army man who dares tangle with judiciary will invite its wrath? Therein lies the danger and the uncertainty about the reaction of the army and its potential coup makers.

On the other hand, if the judiciary succeeds and sees this process through, then it may lay a healthy ground for real democracy. But the path ahead is rough and the future fickle.

If democracy gains in the current tussle, then the Taliban will be on their guard and wary of the future. But if the army intervenes, and subordinates democracy once again, then the Taliban will become even more aggressive.

That is a real possibility, and it would be bad news for India. But when has any development in Pakistan been good news for us? It is another thing that we, on our own, insist on inventing heroes. Look at how Musharraf was labelled as a great votary of bilateral amity by India. We rushed to congratulate him even before he had been formally sworn in as the President of Pakistan. And we continued to sing his praises long after he had been eased out of that office. India insisted on anointing him as a messiah of peace and as the leader who could have brought in lasting friendship.

In the queerly titled ‘Back Channel talks’ we were guiled into believing every word of his five-point proposal. We also gave him the character certificate that under him all terror activity against India had stopped.

All this while we ignored the mounting evidence against him; the Siachen attempt, the Kargil invasion, the attack on Parliament, the German bakery blasts in Pune, the train bombings of 2006 in Mumbai and finally the 26/11. We also overlooked his understanding with Americans that their drones would not snoop over the training sites in Pakistan for the Kashmir terror squads.

Every one of these happened during Musharraf’s watch. The damage that he did to India in each of these was far worse than anything he might have done in Pakistan.

But we have a short memory, our hearts are kind and we are forgiving by nature. From ancient times, countless travellers to India have commented that we do not learn from history.

It is, therefore, very likely that we will forgive Musharraf, and simultaneously get ready to embrace the next ruler of Pakistan.

But Pakistanis are made of sterner stuff. They do not forget and they rarely forgive; their value system is revenge coated. Pakistanis are unlikely to forgive Musharraf. It is, undoubtedly, true that whatever course they wish to adopt is their concern. However, as a neighbour grievously affected by their actions, we can only hope that their current struggle leads to a stable democratic system that asks, ‘What is the need for a Musharraf?’

The author is a former ambassador. He is an artist and a novelist. Views expressed are personal.