




















 
 
 
 
|
Games that
generals play
By Manohar
Malgonkar
WHEN, on October 12, 1999,
Pakistans dismissed Army Chief managed to turn the
tables on his Prime Minister and seized power in a
brilliantly executed military coup, the leaders of the
worlds major nations gasped in disbelief. Their
knee-jerk reaction was a unanimous condemnation of the
coup and a loud and clear demand for the restoration of
democratic rule.
In particular, the USA
which considers itself to be the cradle and bastion of
democracy and also seeks to cultivate an image of itself
as a protagonist of democracies in the rest of the world,
was strongly critical of the latest coup in Pakistan. The
USA, made the proper sounds: We deplore the coup! We
expect the coup leader to announce a time-table for the
restoration of democratic rule, without delay.
General Pervez Musharraf
took his own time about saying anything at all. He knew
that good old Uncle Sam was only performing a war dance
which was more ritualistic than seriously meant a
sop to the cranks and liberal intellectuals in the USA
itself. That, on its track record, the USA had shown
itself to be supportive of military dictatorships
why, they had even engineered military coups to defeat
popular regimes which were hostile to US policies. In
Iran, they had displaced a man called Mossadek by the
Shah who was their puppet. The list of military dictators
they had sponsored and nourished was as long as your arm:
Anastacio Samoza, Hissen Habre, Ferdinand Marcos,
Pinochet Papa Doc Duvalier why, in his own country
they had treated his Musharrafs,
predecessor in Pakistani coups and indeed his role
model, Mohammad Zia-ul-Haque, as a favourite son.
Zia had taken control of
Pakistan at a time when Pakistans relations with
the USA were close to breaking point; indeed they had
been on a par with Americas relationship with
Libya. The people of Pakistan had made known their
feelings for the American by burning down their embassy
building in the capital, Islamabad, even as the Pakistani
police stood guard, watching benevolently.
That was in 1979. Barely
a year later, the US President, Ronald Reagan, began to
pour money into Pakistan: $ 10 billion in the first three
years in open aid, but there was
covert aid too, through undercover agencies,
and on the well known iceberg principle of
such clandestine activities: Seven times of what is
visible above the water.
Much of that money was
siphoned off by Pakistans military elite, but even
what was left over was enough to revive a wheelchair
economy, and the prodigality with which the USA poured
military hardware into Pakistan, transformed its raggedy
army into a formidable war machine and then went on to
make Pakistan an armament merchants dreamland. The
spillover of arms that Pakistans military system
just could not absorb (or of arms clandestinely sold by
the generals for private profits), was so abundant as to
flood the bazaars: Pistols, rifles, sub-machineguns,
hand-grenades, rocket-launchers, were piled up in
street-shops like so many pots and pans. A Colt 9 mm
pistol for the price of a bicycle; a bullet cheaper than
an egg. Mary Ann Weaver, an American reporter saw a
Stinger missile displayed in an arms shop in
Quettas bazaar. At the time, the
Stinger was still on the secret list in the
country of its origin, America.
The parallels between
the conditions in Pakistan at the times of its last two
military coups are amazingly close: An economy in
tatters; law and order in headlong retreat; appalling
corruption in the administration at every level and with
political fat cats and their cronies actually robbing the
kitty as it were, by taking vast sums on loan from the
countrys banks which they had no intention of
returning. Add to this the countrys historic,
tribal feuds; its religious killings and revenge-killings
between the Sunnis and Shias with the Ahmadies caught in
the crossfire.
At that there was a
crucial new factor. At the time of Zias takeover,
Pakistan had not become a major drug-supplier to Europe;
now the profits from the drug trade constitute a major
part of Pakistans foreign exchange earnings. In the
battle against drugs, Pakistan has to play both hound and
hare. It must support the clandestine refineries for
drugs along the Afghan border and at the same time make
out that it is vigilant against drug traders. The drug
trade is Pakistans gold-eggs laying goose. To stamp
it out is to cut off a vital source of dollars and marks
and deprive thousands of people from gainful employment,
to say nothing of displeasing drug barons who are
powerful and influential members of society.
So far, Musharraf has
shown himself as being shrewd, cool under fire, and a
positive genius in the precision of his planning. He is
also piratically bold, as demonstrated not only in the
way he pulled off his takeover but, even more, by his
cavalier visit to Turkey which is so out of character
with military dictators for the excellent reason that
every time they leave the country which they rule,
theyre challenging the fates: What is to prevent
some madly ambitious rival from doing precisely what they
themselves had done? staging a coup.
The armed services of
any country are snake-pits of intense rivalries. By the
time a colonel makes it to the top position of Army
Chief, he has made a thousand enemies many of them
equally ambitious, talented, dedicated whom he has
superceded. In Pakistan itself we have the example of
half a dozen senior army officers being tried for their
crime of obeying the orders of the democratically
elected Prime Minister. All of them have good
reason to hate Musharraf. In their eyes, it is Musharraf
who should be tried for treason.
For their part, the
people of Pakistan accepted their new dictator without so
much as a murmur of protest. The countrys political
leaders, public servants, its spokesmen in world bodies
who, only days earlier, had so loyally supported every
action of Nawaz Sharif, showed themselves to be equally
loyal to the new ruler; people in public life, rich
business executives and intellectuals, mullas, diplomats,
civil servants, fell into line as though nothing out of
the way had happened.
It was against this
background of being in total command of the situation
within the country itself that Musharraf came out with
his agenda for the future. Sure he would restore
peoples rule in Pakistan, but ... but only after he
had managed to root out corruption in public life,
punished all those who had made private fortunes by
cheating the state and the public, and given Pakistan a
booming economy.
In plain words, some
time in the future inshallah:
When Zia-ul-Haque
brought off his coup, it was the Russian invasion of
Afghanistan that had proved a boon to him. It looks as
though this time, too, it is something that is happening
in Afghanistan that will play a make-or-break role in
Pakistans affairs.
Osama bin Laden using
Afghan territory as a base for his war against the
enemies of Islam in general and the USA in particular, is
the key factor. In their counter-offensive against Bin
Laden, the USA needs Pakistan as an ally.
A situation that would
seem contrived even in fiction confronts Musharraf. To
pump new life into Pakistans bedridden economy, he
needs vast amounts of money not in loans but as a gift.
Only the USA has that kind of money only the USA
can give it, but as a reward for helping out with its
plan to flush out Bin Laden from Afghanistan. But
Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban which owes its very
existence to Pakistan: It was raised, armed, trained and
guided by Pakistan, even today, many of its key officers
are Pakistani regulars, posing as volunteers.
On one side, barrels
full of dollars plus all the military weapons he needs
for the peaceful purposes he has in mind. On the other,
Bin Ladens highly trained and fanatically motivated
death-squads and suicide bombers. Not an easy choice even
for someone as cool-headed as General Pervez Musharraf. 
|