Musharraf’s Calumnies - 2
By Rais Khan
Fremont, California
Mr. Musharraf scattered some pearls of wisdom in the epilogue of his book that he has termed his Reflections. Attributing disparaging and pejorative misnomers to popular national leaders, he ventured into the intellectual realm to reflect on some moral features. Like on Page-331 he turned to morality and character as, “Moral development forms your core personality. Honesty, truthfulness, contentment and humility are the most important qualities of Character. First, I have seen for myself that honesty-even under adversity, even when it could lead to a negative outcome - always disarms the other person. Second truthfulness is a sine qua non of good character….” It will be within the ambit of the subject matter to analyze his own words and deeds in the light of standards he has set for moral development and character.
To begin with, let’s examine Mr. Musharraf’s reneging on his solemn commitment to the nation to vacate COAS office by the end of the year 2004. On page-177 of his book he refers to the matter in his own words as, “I was serious when I announced that I would remove my army chief’s hat by December 31, 2004. But events that soon began to unfold started putting doubts in my mind.” He then enumerated some domestic affairs requiring political approach like MMA going back on its words, Waziristan insurgency, Dr. Qadeer’s affairs and political thaw with India, nothing that needed to combine the office of Army’s Chief with the President’s office or nothing of military importance in essence. These were all subjects within the parameters of political domain and a political government or Musharraf himself being President could solve those problems. He further wrote in his book, “With all this facing Pakistan … there was a dire need of unity of command in governance …I decided to go against my word”
India had about seven divisions forces in Kashmir but Vajpai held elections and lost the apex office. There had been change of command in the military hierarchy as well. Iran held elections and changed commands during eight years of war with Iraq. Military commanders also changed incumbencies. USA was fighting war in two countries but still elections were held as per schedule. Immediately after World War II, when the country was shattered and battered by prolong war and needed continuity of leadership, elections were held in Great Britain and Sir Winston Churchill lost premiership to Clement Attlee. The military leadership was also changed during the war.
Why couldn’t Pakistan afford to do without Gen. Musharraf? What extraordinary martial traits did Gen. Musharraf enjoy that he could not be replaced even in peace time? Gen. Charles de Gaulle, veteran of World War 1 who as a young officer was wounded on the war front and escaped several times from enemy going back again and again to fight the enemy and who was not an armchair general ambushing his way to power through midnight coupe but led his country in World War II to liberation, was a chain smoker. When he was asked to explain why announcing to everyone that he would stop his heavy smoking obliged him to quit forever, he is reported to have replied gravely, “De Gaulle cannot go back on his word.” That was the commitment of a General and the consistency of his words.
Commitment and consistency form together strong character in a person. Did Mr. Musharraf demonstrate his compliance to the twain by upholding his commitment made to the entire nation on the national TV? No, he proved the want of these traits by walking away from his word on frivolous grounds. Did Mr. Bhutto whom he called “hypocrite” or Mr. Sharif whom he termed liar and characterless ever go back on their words given to the nation? Where do the fingers point to when these vices are discussed? Mr. Musharraf may well educate us whether or not honoring one’s commitment can be construed to suggest a virtuous act of honesty and truthfulness enlisted by him in the development of morality?
As noted in part-1 of this write-up, Mr. Musharraf termed Mr.Sharif as one lacking in character. Lack of character means absence or deficiency of character which is commonly called characterless in daily life. On page 165 of his book, Mr. Musharraf writes, “ Benazir Bhutto had already run away from the country and absconded from the law during Nawaz Sharif’s time. Later Nawaz Sharif and his family were happy to sign a deal with my government to go into voluntary exile in Saudi Arabia, a deal he now brazenly denies. Telling lies comes easily to these people. Both have chosen to avoid the rule of law by staying away…” These were the General’s words but when Mr. Sharif’s forcible expulsion from the country was challenged in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan (called My Government by Mr. Musharraf) was asked by the court to produce documentary proof of its assertion, it failed to produce any valid and legal document to substantiate what Mr. Musharraf claimed in his book. All it showed was an undertaking with a third external party but there was no agreement or commitment entered with Mr. Musharraf’ Government as claimed by him. Was Mr. Musharraf so simpleton or naive as to fail to understand the difference between an agreement with the government legally entered into and an undertaking with a third party on a plain paper, is an enigma for all sound minded people. Who told lies to the people, Mr. Sharif or Mr. Musharraf? Again where does an impartial finger point to?
On page-22 of his book, Mr. Musharraf disclosed, “ Even at that age I was very good at making strategies and planning tactics to ambush and trap other gangs.” Yes the nation has seen him as a master strategist and tactician in political ambushes to a great success. But opinions vary on his assertion on page 93 where he claimed, “Considered purely in military terms, the Kargil operations were a landmark in the history of the Pakistan Army.” Most of the senior Generals like Aslam Beg, Chisti, Hameed Gul, Ali Kuli Khan and a score of others have termed the Kargil Operation as suicidal strategically and disastrous tactically. Some of them even challenged Mr. Musharraf to have a live debate with them on the subject but he failed to accept the challenge. Mr. Sharif went to the US President to save the embattled Army from further ruin but Mr. Musharraf blamed him for turning the win into loss. The best judges in this case are the seasoned generals whom Mr. Musharraf cannot confront. Who is truthful and honest here? Let an impartial judge decide.
Mr. Musharraf recommended Lt. Gen Tariq Pervez for early retirement as according to him (page-112) TP was ill-disciplined. Lt. Gen. Tariq had in fact met Mr. Sharif without the prior permission and knowledge of his COAS, Mr. Musharraf. Mr.Sharif approved TP’s retirement. But on page 81, Mr. Musharraf described his (Mussarraf) elevation to the highest military office and his summoning by the Prime Minister Sharif through the later Military Secretary. As Mr. Musharraf wrote in his book, “OK , I said, Let me inform the Chief.” “ No,” said the military secretary. “This is highly confidential. You just come without telling anyone” “In what connection am I being summoned,” I asked. “Sir you will find out for yourself.” “Should I come in uniform,” I asked. “Yes,” I was told. I got in my uniform… and started for Islamabad.”
Now why such dichotomy of principles; the ranks were the same and the rules were the same. If Mr.Musharraf could be summoned by PM and could go to the PM why couldn’t TP be allowed to see the same PM if summoned by the latter? What moral right does Mr. Musharraf enjoy by calling others hypocrite and with lack of character when he failed to establish and maintain a uniform code of discipline for the officers cadre with strict adherence to its implementation without let or go including his own person. Promoting Jim-Crowism in a disciplined force amounts to un-scrupulosity at its zenith and is the most despicable phenomenon. Poor Gen.(r) TP had to pay a very high price just for following in the footsteps of his Chief.
