Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


The Musharraf case

April 28, 2013

THE return of Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf to Pakistan was naive at its best and disastrous at its worst. On several occasions, he had mentioned that he would return to save Pakistan and help its people. The fact is that Musharraf believed that when he returned, the people of Pakistan would welcome him as a hero and come out in droves and catapult him to become president or prime minister.

Things did not turn out in his favour. His return was bad advice by his supporters, miscalculation coupled with self-delusion, on his part, and, perhaps, exile fatigue.

He did not realise that he would be caught so soon in a legal web and that there would be an intense public reaction against him for the excesses committed during his regime.

Now that he is under arrest, and court proceedings are underway against him, it is absolutely essential that he be tried by courts without any favour or prejudice.

A just court trial and subsequent judgment against Gen Musharraf will do two important things in Pakistan. First, it will establish, once and for all, the supremacy of civilian rule over a military one.

Second, it will make any future general contemplating a coup to think twice before imposing military dictatorship in the country.


Summon abettors Musharraf’s counsel has asked the Supreme Court to summon the people who aided, abetted or collaborated with him in declaring emergency.

The important question is: did anyone aid, abet or collaborate with him when he said yes to the question on the war on terror?

Earlier, he admitted to his consent to drones. He should tell who aided, abetted or collaborated with him on the consent for drones.

He has also mentioned in his earlier statements that he always consulted the prime minister on important matters such as Lal Masjid etc.

If so, why didn’t he tell the caller from Washington that he would consult his prime minister, parliament and others and then reply to him whether he was with them in the war on terror? If he would have said so, the volley from the other side would have been: “What other decisions have you taken after consulting the prime minister that now you need to consult him?”

ZAFAR Karachi

Constitution THIS is apropos of the letter ‘Musharraf did not abrogate the constitution?’ by Tanweer Ahmad Haral (April 24). Gen ( r ) Pervez Musharraf’s plane wasn’t allowed to land at Karachi airport while he was on his way to Pakistan from Sri Lanka where he was on an official tour.

Rather, it was asked to go to Nawabshah. The lives of so many people were at stake as the fuel in the airliner was running out. It was only then that the army intervened, took over the control of Karachi airport’s air traffic control tower and made the airliner land safely.

So, the main reason behind the 1999 coup was Nawaz Sharif, and not Gen Musharraf. If Nawaz Sharif hadn’t played this game with Gen Musharraf, the coup would never have taken place.

Why couldn’t Nawaz Sharif wait for Gen Musharraf to land, call him in the office the next day, and ask him to quit, rather than doing it in a clandestine manner?

Actually, differences had developed between Nawaz Sharif and Gen Musharraf over the Kargil issue. Both Nawaz and Musharraf were assigning blame on each other for the political and military disaster in the country. Nawaz Sharif wanted to get rid of Gen Musharraf but the method adopted to do so wasn’t proper.

AIR CDRE (r) AZFAR A. KHAN Rawalpindi