A civil general who despised civilians: Gen Musharraf's peace overtures were overrated

You don't exactly shed copious tears when military dictators, past or present, die. But it must be said to the dubious credit of General Pervez Musharraf that he had a cult following not only in his country, Pakistan, but also some grudging admirers, or rather hope addicts, on the side of the Indian border that his army used to violate with impunity. 

So what/who was he? India's Congress party MP and former UN diplomat Shashi Tharoor is in the dock for reading some of the tea leaves left behind by Musharraf's legacy as a leader who strived for peace rather late in his career. I don't blame Tharoor. The general had a civil style that was charming, but he was far from a civilian. You have to take a deep breath and take stock of his context, approach, and mindset to truly assess his personality. 

Facts help, especially when seen in chronological order and keeping in mind that a smart general cannot be a lone ranger in a diplomatic, political, or military game involving hundreds of millions of people.

Yes, Gen Musharraf was the butcher of Kargil, if the number of dead soldiers, both Indian and Pakistani, were to be counted for his adventurist violation of the Line of Control in Kashmir in 1999. Yes, he is a military strongman who was shrewd enough to start a successful coup literally from the skies when elected civilian prime minister Nawaz Sharif tried to sack him months later while he was on a flight back from Sri Lanka.

Benign views about Musharraf as a man of peace come from reports about his talks with then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in July 2001 at Agra, not from his own birthplace Delhi. His so-called 'four-point solution' to the Kashmir dispute with India involved demilitarisation of Kashmir, self-governance, and free movement of people across the LoC. under joint supervision.

The formula emanating from the Agra summit was attempted to be carried forward by BJP leader Vajpayee's successor Manmohan Singh of the Congress party.

It all sounds so good, but for the fact that Gen Musharraf was himself the elephant in the room. As a military dictator, he may have tried the old military belief that once you show strength, the rivals come to the table. That does not always work. First up, he badly lost the Kargil Conflict, and it was he who lacked strength. Secondly, as someone who overthrew an elected government, he lacked credibility. How can two countries that already had a trust deficit go on with an arrangement that has a credibility deficit as well?

Here's where we need to understand the wider context. Musharraf was in China in May 1999, the month when the Kargil conflict happened, in his role as army chief. And two months after he seized power in October, Pakistan's military wing, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was linked to the December 1999 hijack of an Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu that led to India releasing Islamist terrorists at Kandahar in Afghanistan, where it was the ISI that set up the Taliban rule in 1996.

Pakistan also has strong military ties in with Sri Lanka, an issue that hardly figures in India's diplomatic circles but is of immense significance if you consider the idea that a military notion of surrounding one's adversary is to be brought into play. Pakistan has consistently voted against human rights resolutions against Colombo in the UN, and in return, as it were, Sri Lanka has stayed neutral in the UN on issues linked to Kashmir. Sri Lanka was a base for Pakistan's military during the East Pakistan war in 1971 which led to the liberation of Bangladesh thanks to the Indian army. Pakistan later supplied Sri Lanka with military aid and training to fight the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Interestingly enough Pakistan eventually sought Sri Lanka's support on counter-insurgency when it was itself hit by terror attacks.

Fun fact: Pakistan's ISI has even produced TV dramas (serials) to strengthen its domestic base by glorifying the army in its scripts.

Now that Pakistan's army has also dispensed with elected Prime Minister Imran Khan, once its blue-eyed boy, it is clear who is the boss - or wants to be.

Last but not least, Pakistan's military under Musharraf's leadership was seen helping bloody rioters in Karachi when clashes had erupted between the supporters of deposed Supreme Court chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and activists of the MQM party. About 50 people died in the riots.

As a report in Karachi's Dawn newspaper noted: "May 12, 2007, will live long in infamy. A dictator fending off a populist challenge from a deposed chief justice had turned to his political allies to stage a show of strength.... whatever the role of the MQM, it is undeniable that Karachi was plunged into chaos on May 12 because Pervez Musharraf desired that Iftikhar Chaudhry not enter the city."

In essence, Musharraf was cut from the cloth of a Pakistan honed on military supremacist thinking. General after general in Pakistan has held sway and cracked down on or manipulated civilian groups and democratically inclined or elected governments or independent institutions like the judiciary. So what happened in the so-called peace phase of Musharraf's career may be seen as a fit case to be described by a Muslim proverb: "After devouring 900 mice, the cat set out on a Haj pilgrimage."

However shaky, democratically elected governments and independent institutions reflect a more genuine popular consensus than the propaganda-cum-armtwisting styles of militarist mindsets. Musharraf's legacy is one of a long-ruling military dictator who had scant regard for democracy or the will of common citizens. The Pakistan army's role in wide-ranging geopolitical games in South Asia as well as its undermining of popular leaders is such that you cannot easily assume that any peace generated from the Musharraf formula would have had any lasting impact.

Maybe, just maybe, both India and Pakistan can start producing movies and TV serials that show that there are peace-loving humans on both sides of the border who are regular people in regular democracies. That might work better than the iffy formula produced by the whims of a military dictator.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)