WHAT happens after Oct 10 is difficult to say. Following the polls, many politicians may scramble to be part of a new government under the army’s tutelage. But at the moment there appears to be a consensus among most political parties against a political role for the military. This is no small gain.

The attitude of the Nawaz Muslim League best captures the change that has come about, particularly in the mood in Punjab, historically the army’s bastion. The PML (N) and its leader, Mian Nawaz Sharif, are products of the military, both having been patronized by the Ziaul Haq dictatorship. Both are also representative of the Punjab elite. The League is now pitted against the Musharraf regime as much as the People’s Party is. Its breakaway wing, the Quaid League, which is supporting Gen Pervez Musharraf and is believed to enjoy his backing, also includes stalwarts of the Punjab elite. But even the Chaudhry brothers have been forced to maintain some distance from the military establishment.

Announcing the salient points of the PML (N) manifesto the other day, its chief coordinator even said that military law would be amended to “restore obedience of lawful commands” and the civil-military relationship would be recast. The party official also said that the military budget should be debatable in parliament. This represents a sea change in the thinking of the Punjab elite, although the effort is to single out the Musharraf regime by name rather than the army as an institution for criticism.

More, the PML (N) is said to believe that if the party comes to power, it would revive the Lahore process which was symbolized by Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s bus journey to meet Mian Nawaz Sharif in the Punjab capital. At that time, the military was reported to be unhappy with Mr Sharif’s gesture. Saying that the process may be revived marks another point of difference with the army. But it also shows that the temper in Punjab has changed: the province’s old elite, barring a few notable exceptions, as well as much of the elitist younger generation are no longer implacably hostile to the idea of a rapprochement with India. In fact, Mr Sharif as a representative of the elite, which includes industrial and commercial interests, had sensed this change when inviting Mr Vajpayee. Thus, for the first time we may be seeing the beginnings of a divide between the military and civilian establishments on a key foreign policy issue. The posting of military officers at all major organizations and government departments has created a problem of alienation of its own and will be a cause of friction when a political government takes over.

In spite of all this, the proposition that Punjab, too, has turned against a political role for the military bristles with contradictions. Mr Sharif’s Lahore gesture was made despite Kargil, to which he had assented. When the conflict over Kargil broke out in the open, Mr Sharif volubly defended Pakistan’s position in public; his aides would, in private, say something else. Even now, when Mr Sharif’s party appears pitted against Gen Musharraf, the party’s chairman, Raja Zafarul Haq, who is deputizing for his exiled chief, declared in a speech over the weekend that he was proud to have been called Ziaul Haq’s “opening batsman” by the military dictator himself. He also claimed authorship of the Qisas and Diyat laws. Mr Sharif himself used to be cherubically happy at being called Zia’s son. But that was then. One suspects that Mr Sharif wouldn’t at all be pleased now to be reminded by Raja Zafarul Haq or anyone else of his party’s and family’s close links with the Zia regime.

Looking for consistency of belief among politicians often results in disappointment. But if the signs of disenchantment in Punjab with the military’s self-assumed right to govern and to know best go beyond the person of Gen Musharraf, then that can only help the nation’s journey towards a more democratic dispensation.

THE perception is that all is not well with the Pakistan team. Long accustomed to crisis-situations that in the end turn out to be bruised egos or merely some hiccups, for someone who has been associated with the game as long as I have been, the present muddle is business as usual. There would have been no perception of a crisis if the team had been winning.

The same people would have been involved as are now involved in the losing team. Memories are short but that’s the way it has always been with Pakistan cricket. It is an unalterable script, only the cast of characters has changed, like plays that run for years. Agatha Christie’s play Mousetrap ran for 25 years in London theatre.

What is happening to the Pakistan team is that it has been caught in the netherlands of transition. Senior players have set the World Cup as a cut-off date for themselves. Understandable, they want to play in it as a sort of last hurrah. If that was their avowed goal, then they themselves should have ensured that they remained supremely fit.

Steve Waugh is a good example. The moment he got a whiff that his days were numbered, he went to England to play county cricket, to keep himself in the game, to be match-fit. And he will be leading the Australians in the Test series against Pakistan. At the same time, he will be trying to get back in the World Cup squad. In other words, he’s making an effort, doing all the running unlike our Hamlet-like senior players.

Wasim Akram and Saeed Anwar, reportedly, have opted out for the Test series against Australia I say, ‘reportedly’ because we don’t really know what is transpiring in Colombo between senior players and the team-management. Rashid Latif’s name was also among the players who wanted to be ‘rested’ but he quickly announced his availability.

Yousuf Youhana has indeed a bonafide shoulder injury which makes his unceremonious sending-back on disciplinary grounds as suspicious. Inzamamul Haq apparently needs an operation that will keep him out of cricket for months rather than weeks. Yet, miraculously, as if he had gone to Lourdes, he came out to field as a substitute in Pakistan’s match against Holland. We are entitled to ask: what’s going on?

The upshot of all this is that a ‘new look’ team has been selected for the Test series against Australia. This could turn out to be a blessing in diguise. What we may lose in swing of experience, we may gain in the roundabout of motivation. The only person left out, who deserved to be in the team, is Shahid Afridi. He is in the reserves.

Afridi should be considered a bowling all-rounder. His batting then becomes a bonus. He was always treated as a pinch-hitter and used sparingly as a bowler, someone brought on to break a partnership. But, in the absence of Saqlain Mushtaq, he has bowled as Pakistan’s lone spinner and bowled extremely well. He is an outstanding fielder and someone who seems to enjoy his cricket. He should have been in the Test squad. The squad could do with some cheerful characters who give hundred per cent of themselves.

I was delighted to see Hasan Raza back in the squad. It is hard to believe that he has been out of the senior team for so many years. He was the youngest cricketer ever to play Test cricket and then after two Test matches was consigned to the dust-bin of has-beens. Had he been preserved with, we would have had a top quality middle order batsman by now. The Sri Lankans kept their faith in Marven Atapattu and the Australians in Ricky Ponting.

The squad for the Australian series has many promising cricketers and though it will be a baptism by fire for them, they have the chance to show their mettle and transform their promise into performance. They need to be encouraged, made to feel welcome in the dressing-room. Most of all, they should not be made ‘tourists’ or drinks-waiters. They should be played. This is a Test as much of them as it is of the team management.

The ICC Champions Trophy has gone very much as expected, barring, of course, the early exit of Pakistan. The Australians have looked awesome and they now face Sri Lanka in one of the semifinals. In the best match of the tournament so far, India annihilated England. The target of 270 was not an easy one but India reached it with 10.3 overs to spare. In Virendar Sehwag, India has found a cricketer in the mould of Majid Khan.

Majid too bowled off-breaks but on his day, at the top of the order, he was one of the most destructive batsman in the game.

The Indian batting is clicking but India could be made to pay dearly if they insist on using Rahul Dravid as a make-shift wicket-keeper. He was dreadful in the match against England. But next week, will be the time to do a wrap-up of the ICC Champions Trophy.

I wrote about the ICC Anti-Corruption Unit last week. As if to confirm my description of it as Peter Sellers in the Pink Panther films, they asked to see the tapes of Pakistan’s match against Sri Lanka with special reference to Youhana’s run-out. This got tremendous publicity, thanks mainly to Tony Greig going public on television with a sinister interpretation. The ACU came up with a hasty clarification that it would be calling for all the tapes of the matches.

But where then was there a need to issue a statement that the Pakistan had been cleared of any wrong-doing, confirming, in the process, that there had been some doubts, that Pakistan had been targeted? The ACU sleuths should not be allowed in the dressing rooms of the teams. The dressing room should be out of bounds to Inspector Closseau and his gendarmes.

WHILE many of the requirements involved in the holding of the general elections have been met, the government has still not been able to forcefully convey the impression that the polls would be truly fair and transparent in line with democratic norms and principles.

There are repeated references by political parties to the involvement of the government machinery in support of what is called the ‘king’s party’, adding to skepticism about the fairness of the elections. Behind the charge of manipulation of the election process may even be fears of some parties and politicians that they might not be able to give a good account of themselves on polling day. There also might be an effort to use the visiting EU election monitoring team for ulterior motives.

But it cannot be denied all the same that reports of government officials screening and selecting candidates as well as transfers of officials despite the prohibitory orders of the election commission have raised concerns about the people’s right to free choice in the elections.

In this context, the election commission’s decision that the executive authorities in the federation and in the provinces shall not use state resources to the unfair advantage of any candidate is a welcome development. Also in order was the warning that Nazimeen and Naib Nazimeen found misusing their official position to influence election results would be liable to punishment with imprisonment up to two years. It has significance in view of the general impression that many among the local government authorities would not hesitate to use their clout to enhance the prospects of candidates perceived to be close to the rulers.

Earlier, the chief election commissioner took note of a complaint by a political party that its candidates and workers were being harassed by the police. He instructed senior police officials in the provinces to fully comply with the election code of ethics. Despite this, came loud complaints from a major national party the other day against the harassment and coercive tactics of the police in Faisalabad against its candidates in blatant violation of the election rules and code of ethics.

Elections are just round the corner and the eyes of the world are focused on arrangements to ensure the fairness and impartiality of the process. If at this stage the political parties are not fully reassured of the government’s professed neutrality and their grievances in this regard are not redressed, it will have a negative bearing on the election commission’s promises of holding fair and free elections.

Earlier, the IG Punjab police, taking note of the complaints by some political parties regarding collection of data about the candidates, made clear that the true responsibility of the police was to maintain law and order and abide by the code of ethics. However, mere assurances cannot produce the desired results in terms of impartiality of the government machinery unless the police and government officials concerned are also seen to be fully observing the EC’s directions.

Currently, a major issue agitating the minds of the people is the possibility of election malpractices. While results would be tabulated before the polling agents, there also seems to be no firm guarantee that polling staff would be able to effectively check bogus voting. In the past, people have voted again and again by erasing the so-called indelible ink on their thumbs. While some steps have been taken to prevent this irregularity, if political parties appoint such persons as their polling agents as recognize the voters of the area involved and check their re-entry into polling stations with the help of the police, the malpractice can be eliminated.

There are already restrictions on the display of arms and campaigning around the polling stations. But much depends on how effectively these curbs are enforced and how far political parties cooperate in making them work. To check election irregularities, polling agents should be required to be present in polling stations throughout the voting and counting. In the past, especially during the time of Ayub Khan, the police were indiscriminately used to disperse polling agents before the counting, leading to denial of the people’s right of vote and making the whole process open to question.

In this regard, the procedure laid down in democratic countries should be followed. In some states, in order to ensure secrecy of voting, at least two booths must be set up at every polling station and two more ballot boxes provided for collecting votes. The ballot boxes should be carefully sealed to ensure that no ballot paper can be removed without opening the lock and breaking the seal or injuring the box. More importantly, on polling day, the returning officer is responsible for maintenance of order in the polling area and also has the authority to take other measures to ensure smooth and fair elections. Although the returning committee verifies the identity of the voter entering the polling booth and checks whether he is on the electoral rolls, a person who cannot prove his identity can vote later provided he can produce the necessary identification papers before closing time. When polling time is over, the returning officer has the polling room closed. In addition to the scrutiny committee, only election officials, the staff assisting them and representatives of political parties and the holders of press cards can be present during the counting.

Already, the low turnout in recent elections in Pakistan points to a profound alienation within Pakistani society, Also, the system tends to exclude from consideration people better qualified than those offered as candidates. Voters find personalised politics irrelevant to their concerns and there are complaints over the huge cost as well as the power of vested interests over nominations and elections. Adding to their cynicism is the perception that elections are open to manipulation, offending democratic values. This impression in the long run can be disastrous for the future of democracy, besides causing political destabilization and unrest in the immediate future. The government must, therefore, erase this impression effectively by taking concrete steps to ensure that the elections are fair and transparent.

IN its Sept 9 issue Newsweek carries a cover story captioned ‘Beyond 9/11 — One year. Four Lives. A changed world.’ Printed clockwise on the cover are pictures of President Gen Musharraf, Condoleeza Rice, Gen Peter Pace and Lisa Beamer — a New Jersey housewife who lost her husband on the day when all hell broke at lower Manhattan.

For a Third World leader, a cover story in a leading (popular) journal is just about the ultimate honour and distinction in terms of international projection. Taken at more than its face value, it may well (and often does) act as a psychological destabilizer and a promoter of illusions of grandeur.

Among the several other factors that brought about the downfall of the Shah of Iran, American media hype and the the administration’s unqualified, loud support for him had played no mean role. Just about a few months before the Shah’s overthrow and extermination from Tehran, president Jimmy Carter had named him as one of the twin pillars of the US security in the Gulf together with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi king, to the best of my knowledge, was not mentioned by name.

In Pakistan itself, — Gen Ayub Khan had been both the Pentagon’s and the administration’s icon from the day he took over as the army c-in-c. He was honoured as the ‘most allied ally’ and even as the army chief chosen for protocol close to the one reserved for a head of state. However, the progressive cooling-off of US-Pakistan relations after America’s pro-India tilt through India’s China war (1962) and volte-face during the India-Pakistan war (1965) changed the relationship beyond any similarity to the one in the past for 13 long years (1951- 1964).

Gen Ziaul Haq’s prompt off-the-cuff use of ‘peanuts’ in respect of the $400 million the US initially (and somewhat impulsively) offered to Pakistan (1979) almost earned his single word an abiding place in the US media. Short of finding a place in Webster’s, it stayed all over the place and widely quoted as an unexceptionable example of Zia’s ready wit.

Even an essentially media-shy overindulgent Yahya was president after his historic role in facilitating Henry Kissinger’s top-secret maiden trip to China, America’s arch rival, after the USSR, through the long cold war days. The Seventh Fleet cruising all the way into the Bay of Bengal in the closing stage of the 1971 war was more of a presidential sop to his buddy, Yahya Khan, than a serious military move.

The Newsweek piece on Musharraf, somewhat naughtily, reads: “Musharraf, who idolizes Nixon and Napoleon, has been mocked as ‘Busharraf’ by his many critics.” Who and where might have been these critics? This for anybody to guess. I, for one, must plead my ignorance of any such distortion popularly attached to the president’s name in our part of the world.

President Musharraf (‘Busharraf’), Newsweek reports, made the decision to side with America ‘quickly and alone’. It goes on to add: “For four hours after he learned of the 9/11 attacks, he sat quietly in a private lounge in the Karachi offices of Pakistan TV, the state-owned network. Then he addressed his nation, denouncing Islamic extremists and placing the country squarely on the side of America. He informed some army commanders beforehand, but did not really consult anyone.”

Regardless of the manifest truth of the president’s one-man decision, under an overwhelmingly pressing circumstance, leaving little or no room for a consultative process, its institutional status remains open to interpretation. In an identical contingency arising in an India-Pakistan adversarial context, any such extreme move even as a matter of life and death, might have had only a slim chance of America’s approval. America’s adverse reaction to Pakistan’s riposte to the Indian invasion of international borders — twice in 1965 and 1971 — remains its one good example.

After heaping all praise on the president, Newsweek goes on to pay what may at best be called a left-handed or a sort of a tongue-in-cheek compliment. In his quick fix, one-man decision to ‘side’ with America, Gen Musharraf ‘followed the example of two of his leadership models, Nixon and Napoleon. He (Musharraf) frequently quotes Nixon’s aphorism paralysis through analysis...’

‘Paralysis through analysis’ may be all very well in a democratic country with strong and time-honoured institutions based on the law of the land and the unquestioned legitimacy of the government in power. Such is not always the rule in most Third World countries; and Pakistan is no exception to the rule. Thus the ruler (President Gen Musharraf in our case) while taking a decision, as crucial as whether or not to side with foreign country in a war-like situation, does it as an act of extreme courage regardless of the consequences. How well America appreciates all that and how far it goes in support of President Musharraf and Pakistan remains to be seen.

Considering America’s past record, however, specially vis-a- vis three of its favoured Pakistani soldiers and military rulers, Ayub, Yahya and Zia, it should be best left open to question. A tenable answer, positive or negative at this stage, may well make one sound like the mythological Cassandra or the fictional Pangloss. Available straws in wind would, however, suggest a sort of an expedient American approach towards Pakistan in accepting Gen Musharraf as a key ally in its global war on terrorism with strong reservations about his democratic credentials.

Even on the eve of President Musharraf’s arrival in America (Sept 7) Condoleeza Rice, President Bush’s National Security Adviser, plainly ‘dismissed’ any suggestion that Mr Bush was ‘compromising’ his democratic principles by ‘keeping close ties with Musharraf’. Elaborating her remarks she said (and I quote):

“There isn’t any compromise in terms of democratic principles here. The president feels very strongly that democracy is the ultimate guarantor of stability...” Viewed in the light of the above pro-democracy statement of President Bush (as quoted by his National Security Adviser), Newsweek remarks, supportive of President Musharraf’s decision taken ‘quickly and alone’, may well leave one wondering as to who is for Mr Musharraf and Pakistan and who is against.

What is to be scrupulously avoided is — the golden cage of the foreign media hype — easy to enter and not so easy to get out.

The writer is a retired brigadier.