The Hindu Business Line : Long live, Gen Musharraf!

If Gen Pervez Musharraf can win applause from the US Secretary of State for the `good' he is doing to Pakistan, one can expect the US Administration to apply the same yardstick to every other dictator. But where does that leave the world and its democratic principles?

UNWITTINGLY, perhaps, the US Secretary of State, Ms Condoleeza Rice, has opened a great debate on ends and means with the pat on the back she recently gave the Pakistani strongman, Gen Pervez Musharraf. Speaking to a US newsweekly on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York, she is reported to have said that though not quite 100 per cent up to Washington's expectations in terms of "democratic development or having rooted out extremism", the Pakistani general "was an extraordinary man who is trying to create a stable nation". She added: "In this case, you have somebody who, I think, has made a principled decision to rid Pakistan of its extremist elements and of the extremism that started to grip that country when it became a transit point for jihadists at the time of the Afghan war."

She even found a plus point in Gen Musharraf's policy vis-à-vis India. Recalling the military flashpoint reached in ties between the two countries four years ago, she said: "Four years ago, I will never forget Christmas 2001 on the phone with Colin Powell and Jack Straw (the British Foreign Secretary), and David Manning (Foreign Policy Advisor to the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair) trying to figure out who was going to visit from Great Britain or the US so that they would not go to war between India and Pakistan." According to her, today the situation has undergone a seachange. To quote her: "Now, you have an Indian-Pakistani rapprochement in large part because Musharraf has taken a stand against extremism."

What is the inference that one can draw from this public stand of the US Secretary of State on the issue of democracy, in general, and the US State policy, in particular? The first thing that strikes one is the sense of approbation with which Ms Rice has welcomed the policies being pursued by Gen Musharraf who usurped political power through a military coup replacing by force the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif. Clearly, without going into the specifics of the American reaction to this particular case of forcible takeover of state power by men in uniform, one can argue — basing oneself on all that American political democracy stands for — that Gen Musharraf's action flouted all the basic political norms cherished by American society and enshrined in the US Constitution. So, Gen Musharraf's action in forcibly taking over power from a democratically elected political leader could not have been acceptable to Washington, in the first place. But the US Secretary of State now seems to feel that, after usurping power, the Pakistani strongman has done all the right things (particularly so far as `combating' jihadi terrorism is concerned, from the American point of view) so much so that the dictator is now considered to be "a remarkable figure" who "is making a difference".

In fact, the Pakistani dictator — who has actually followed in the footsteps of a long line of military strongmen who have ruled Pakistan since the late 1950s — has even been credited with improving India-Pakistan relations. Indeed, Ms Rice says that there is now "an Indian-Pakistani rapprochement in large part because Musharraf has taken a stand against terrorism". In other words — that is, if one can ignore the Kargil episode in which Gen Musharraf is said to have played a prominent role — what is being argued is that the India-Pakistan problem since Independence has really been nothing but an offshoot of `terrorism' and all that, and is not connected in any way to Islamabad's state policy vis-à-vis New Delhi, which, one is constrained to say, is just not acceptable.If Gen. Musharraf can win applause from the US Secretary of State because of the `good' he is doing to Pakistan, one can at least expect Ms Rice and the US Administration to apply the same yardstick to every other dictator, military or otherwise, who usurps power in the name of the people from a democratically elected leader.

But, of course, the yardstick will probably be geared to the furthering of American `security' interests. This, arguably, is acceptable in terms of realpolitik, but where does it leave the world and its baggage of democratic principles, et al?

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Long live, Gen Musharraf!

Beware the gyrations

The knowledge revolution still eludes the Indian farmer

The pain be mine, but thine shall be the praise

How to disclose FBT?

Dragged beyond imagination

Give time its due

Disproportionate punishment

On how much is spent and how it is spent