Musharraf suffers from insecurity

I share Mr H.K. Dua’s thoughtful and perceptive opinion in his front-page editorial, “Insecurities and illusions of dictators” (Nov 6) that “dictators suffer from major illusions: One is that they are indispensable; and the other is that they will remain in power forever”.

I agree with the writer’s forceful argument that General Musharraf is suffering from a deep sense of personal insecurity. The Islamic terrorists have targeted him several times in the past. By all indications, he is losing grip on the state apparatus and law enforcing agencies. Moreover, he might have felt insecure from his own colleagues too.

Yet, ground realities suggest that he is still the unquestionable leader of a big army and he is able to cock a snook at the political leaders. Unfortunately, though the lawyers have come out against him in the streets, the common people are yet to be led and guided properly by the divided leaders who have failed to chalk out a common strategy against the wily General.




Apparently, General Musharraf is losing confidence in himself. He is against restoration of democracy for the simple reason that he is bent on perpetuating his dictatorship. It is rightly said that you can fool some people for some time but not all the people all the time. It is time Martial law was lifted and democracy restored in Pakistan.

S.K. MITTAL, Panchkula


The US’ notion that the General is fighting against terrorism is misplaced. It forgets that the terrorist activities in Kashmir and elsewhere in India are of the General’s own making. Musharraf became a fighter against terrorism when it backfired against him and his country. It was he who forced a war in Kargil.

Can anyone expect him to fight terrorism effectively? The US has fought dictatorship in Iraq. But why is it silent over the dictatorships in Pakistan and Myanmar?

IQBAL SINGH, Bijhari (Hamirpur)


Martial law has been the ethos of Pakistan, an unnatural nation born out of social hatred, ever since Ayub Khan and Mirza overthrew Feroze Khan’s civil establishment in October 1958. No marked change has ensured Musharraf’s action. Only the ambit of the extant villainy has been widened and its action intensified.

The worst feature of the continued grisly state of things in the benighted country is that despite the butchery of people’s will, the US which deems itself a messiah of democracy has been sheltering and nurturing various stints of rule of men in olive. Despite its offbeat genesis, Pakistan does deserve a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And India must help the crusaders against dictatorship.

GEETANJALI KORPAL, Advocate, Amritsar


By imposing emergency, General Musharraf has again scuttled the voice of his countrymen. Most of the period since 1947, Pakistan has been under ruthless military dictators. Its politicians have not acquitted themselves well either.

India which itself tasted emergency in 1975-77, has sagaciously issued a balanced, tantrum-free statement. Legal fraternity is, undoubtedly, the backbone of every political party in the world. But the judiciary, as a separate entity, cannot afford to confront the government, least of all the dictators.

S. S. BENIWAL, Chandigarh


The General has clamped emergency for his own survival. Perhaps, he has not learnt from the past events and this decision may be one of his gravest errors of judgement, going by his past actions. This has far-reaching consequences on the judiciary and the media, the print and electronic.

The hardest hit is the Supreme Court as it was in the process of giving a verdict on the validity of Musharraf’s October 6 presidential election, which it was feared might go against him. This has made a mockery of the whole exercise of restoration of democracy in the strife-torn country.


Onus on advocates

I read the letter “Make judges accountable for delays” (Oct 16). In fact, the boot is on the other leg. Let me narrate my own experience. I had filed a civil writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in March 2006. It was finally decided on January 10, 2007. I did not ask for any adjournment but the respondent’s advocate always tried for adjournment or for tagging my case with the other pending cases, which I always opposed.

It is always the advocates — either for the petitioner or respondent — who seek adjournments and the judges have to keep in mind the good relations between the Bar and the Bench to avoid conflict situations.




HOME PAGE | Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Opinions |
| Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi |
| Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail |