Musharraf's 'strategic decision'

GEN. PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, Pakistan's President and Chief Executive, seems eager to persuade his compatriots, especially the critics, that he faced a virtual Hobson's Choice in deciding to go along with the United States in the context of last week's terrorist raids over New York and Washington. For good measure, therefore, he utilised a televised address on Wednesday night to portray his U.S.-friendly act as a ``strategic decision'' that was designed to prevent a proactive India from isolating Pakistan on the international scene in the aftermath of the world's worst episode of terrorism. New Delhi's perceived attempt to drive a wedge between Islamabad and Washington was also cited by him. However, it is regrettable that Gen. Musharraf should have in this manner dragged India into a controversy that had much to do with his own Afghan policy. Now, it is true in a sense that India has also been looking for some new strategic kinship with the U.S. by emphasising their common bonds of grief and democratic outrage over the latest acts of unprecedented terror on American soil. This has certainly alarmed Islamabad, although there is little or no reason why the U.S. should consciously play zero-sum games in respect of India and Pakistan at this particularly poignant moment. So, Gen. Musharraf could have avoided a patently India- centric defence of his pro-U.S. stance at this stage. Yet, if he plainly did not do so, thereby hangs an intricate tale of Pakistan's domestic politics.

For Pakistan, the basic dilemma was that the U.S. lost no time to name Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi dissident, as the prime suspect behind the terrorist carnage that shook America to its core on September 11. With Osama bin Laden being the officially notified ``guest'' of Afghanistan's ruthless Taliban `government', the Bush administration demanded that Pakistan exert its patronly influence over that adamant `regime' in Kabul to help the U.S. track down the Saudi fugitive. However, the issues at stake were not seen in the same perspective in Pakistan, where the Islamic extremists profess a symbiotic relationship with the fundamentalist Taliban. As Gen. Musharraf seemed to indicate in his latest televised address, the pro- Taliban elements within Pakistan may constitute just 10-15 per cent of the population and yet hold the nation to account on a major issue concerning the Taliban. This should explain why the Pakistani leader assured his nation that the current American call for a fight against international terror could not be construed as an anti-Islam affront. By openly disclosing the sensitive information that the U.S. had sought the use of Pakistan's airspace as also its logistical and intelligence support, he seemed to underline that he deserved the trust of his compatriots.

Gen. Musharraf's check-list of concerns - Pakistan's integrity, the state of its economy, the sustainability of its strategic assets of nuclear weapons and missiles, besides the Kashmir ``cause'' - should cause no surprise at all in New Delhi. Yet, his unmistakable message to India to ``lay off'' and refrain from seeking strategic advantages in the present situation appears to be viewed by the Vajpayee administration as some form of sabre- rattling. In denouncing this ``anti-India tirade'', New Delhi is certainly right in arguing that the issue of battling international terrorism should not be lost sight of. However, prior to Gen. Musharraf's latest speech itself, New Delhi had veered to the view that the Agra process of an India-Pakistan re- engagement was receding to a back-burner in the context of a whole set of new international and regional priorities. Last week's overwhelming tragedy with global implications was seen to push this evolving set of priorities to the forefront. Now, while the India-Pakistan equation has once again plummeted, it appears that the U.S. would not, for an entirely different reason, want to see Gen. Musharraf's political position endangered in the present circumstances.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Building blocks for growth