Thanks.. but I am pleased Nemer, take care, this was my review on his book..
I think this is a great book. With the benefit of hindsight, one can safely say Musharraf had very similar options like Omar, Saddam and Nasrullah. Going by Saddam, Omar and Nasrullah's politics of stubbornness he could have helped wipe out Pakistan as it is today from the map of the world. The politics of shock and awe is ruthless; but post 911, Indians across the border would have been very satisfied to see increasing prospects of a militarily defeated Pakistan. That would have neutralised the nuclear threat that Pakistan imposes. If Yugoslavia could balkanize, what would have saved Pakistan from thousands of daisy-cutters; a nation with people who would have heartily joined the new powers to balkanize portions of Pakistan into a conglomerate of weak states under Indian hegemony.
Going by what this troika of failed leaders of radical Islam did and seeing what happened to their countries after their foolish decisions, Musharraf did a great job in saving Pakistan from total annihilation. Unlike Afghanistan, where 90 percent of the populace is used to living in a cave age, or Iraq or Lebanon, where possible reconstruction from oil revenues and deep-pocketed Sheiks makes damage short-lived, in Pakistan, taking out economic infrastructure would have been irreplaceable.
Leadership today is about pragmatism and helping Pakistan evolve into the 21st century. This is a very difficult task for a nation caught in medievalism and modernism; on the one hand, it is a nation bestowed with state-of-the-art technology, and on the other, wretched minds looking to re-establish the supremacy of Allah in the subcontinent. The ability to retreat and accept surrender of wills in face of an overwhelming adversary is the finest form of diplomacy. The art of turning an adversary into a permanent ally is a greater art. Post Iraq, USA has learned new lessons: some nations will tear each other apart in the absence of a strong man. The banning of the Iraqi Army was one such step, quick de-baathification did not pay, and quick de-militarization of the Pakistan would also not be helpful. The sectarian divisions and ideological problems between the demands of elites and requirements of Jihadis are far too converged; they can only be suppressed and tamed over the next few decades. All nations become subdued at some point in time. Time is a great healer; it is not necessary to be led by Fascists, like Hitler, and destroy the nation first and then reconstruct. Mush saved Pakistan from Fascists who wanted to put the country on a collision course with a superpower. The result would not have been a Stone Age Pakistan, but a divided Stone Age country, with five predecessor states under Indian hegemony.
Jihad and Holy wars are diametrically opposite to progress and development. Pakistanis suffer from a severe dichotomy - they love Jihad but they love their Rupee/dollar parity too. They also want their exports to be driven by western demand and they want their stock markets to perform.
It is generally believed in Pakistan that politics of the nation and Jihad-driven agenda would have no impact on Pakistani economy. Pakistan depends on Tarbela and Mangla. Take them out and Pakistan goes back to Stone Age; take Pakistani exports out and 20 million people will have no jobs; the stock market will reel to below 1000. This is the price of Jihad and no one but Musharraf calculated the sums right. The bottom line is that he made the right choice and the right decisions for his country, otherwise, Pakistan would have lain in ruins like Iraq, which has the benefit of 2 million barrels of oil every day. Without Tarbela and Mangla, we would have had to switch the lights off; today, a blackout in Pakistan is a timely reminder of what life in Pakistan would be had we stood up for Osama or Omar the blind-eyed.
Pakistan's present and past great political leadership is a product of the Army: Nawaz Sharif was the great protégé of General Zia; the great Bhutto also used to call General Ayub "Daddy."
Today, new leaders, like Pervez Ellahi, take lessons from the books of their earlier mentors, trying to achieve a true public leadership through a New General's backing. What's the harm? If the Shariffs can become the great voice of the teeming masses after dutifully serving Gillani and Zia, why can't Ellahi go down the same route?
The problem with the MMA is that they loved an ideological tyrant like Zia but hate a benevolent open-minded dictator like Musharraf. They claim to die for the Hudood ordinance, the product of a sick male mind, where a woman who has been raped is considered guilty if she fails to produce four witnesses. The issue is freedom of thought and mind, and not freedom of who rules us. We can condemn Musharraf's policies and we can disagree with him publicly, something we could not do in the last 57 years of our existence.
Makhdoom Hashmi, the great democrat in jail nowadays, served Zia with great distinguishment and honour, as did the Jammat Islami leadership. They found no harm in serving Zia's decadent leadership that very much resembled MMA's backward-looking agenda, but have severe problems in accepting the enlightened version of the moderate dictator. Same with the Shariffs, who are hell bent in reviving rule of law, the very law they helped break when Zia ceremoniously dismissed Junejo. And Nawaz joined hands with Zia to help him perpetrate and extend the black power of his ugly rule. Where was his streak of democracy then?
Islam is handicapped by examples who always supported losers, time and time again - from the First World war, when the Ottomans instead of siding with the Allies went with the Germans and lost the Empire, to the Second World War, when the great Mufti of Palestine wanted to create Auschwitz in Palestine and created the Bosnian crack brigade to help the Fuehrer. The leadership is all about self-destruction. Pakistan would not have been any different had it not been for the pragmatism of Musharraf who finally saw reality, which he did not until Kargil, and made a great decision to live and let live. No one agrees with him on Kargil, but that was the old Mush, this is a new one.
amazon.com |
