Mohammad Ali Jinnah's birthday is observed on the same day as the birthday of Jesus Christ. This means that for ever his nation would be able to join much of the rest of the world in its celebrations and festivities.
Each year, for over half a century, the usual articles have appeared in December 25 supplements in our national press dedicated to Jinnah, for years on end many written by the same authors (naturally losing some on the way as the years take their toll), setting forth the two divergent views as to whether the founder intended this country to be a theocracy to be ruled by a self-appointed priesthood or a liberated, tolerant democracy intent on freedom and progress. As of late, it is cheering to note that the majority (even acolytes of Altaf Bhai of London Town) lean towards the truth - that Jinnah meant exactly what he said on August 11 1947 when he spoke to his constituent assembly - that "religion is not the business of the state."
On Christmas eve Musharraf appeared on television to justify to the nation the necessity of the signing of a peace treaty that day between the representatives of the shady government he had been persuaded to cobble together and the doubly hairy opposition thrust upon him. For the first time, including that fraught night of October 12 1999, we saw him in somewhat dishevelled state, in a war-worn combat jacket over an open-necked unpressed shirt with an untidy upturned collar. Why? Was it a sign of the times?
Christmas Day this year was a singularly unjoyous occasion (with not even the customary gun salutes). Firstly, we were confronted in the daily press with a series of ominous photographs taken the previous day depicting the frightening visages of the men who had made the Christmas Eve arrangement that a daylong peace be agreed upon. The appointed graduate leaders of both sides were shown signing a document indicating their mutual agreement to maintain tranquillity and parliamentary decorum until the next session of the national assembly, a day away. Standing behind them were a bevy of party witnesses jockeying for their places on the front page of the press. It was a frightening and a foreboding sight.
That afternoon, the fright and foreboding unravelled with a bang. Those opposing Musharraf's progressive pragmatic views again tried to 'take him out', this time making it a far closer call. He again, to the good fortune of this nation, emerged unscathed. Appearing that night on television, he seemed to be saying, as said Marshal of France, Ferdinand Foch, at the battle of the Marne in September 1914, with his army routed and thrown into confusion, and with the Germans launching a four-division bayonet charge: "My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack." We, along with his international allies, must wish him luck.
Musharraf is a sensible man, who can be dexterous when he chooses so to be (few could have u-turned as swiftly as did he on 9/11). On one day, he can announce with aplomb that Osama bin Laden may be dead; two days later, with equal conviction, he can pronounce that he may be alive. For the uncertain present, he is what we need if we are to survive in the warring world.
The president-general wishes to make peace with India, for he knows that it is now a 'must'. We can never win a war against the 'traditional enemy' (that ridiculous label touted in our press), and our loss will be catastrophic. The 50-year old UN resolutions must be mothballed. Our initial thinking: we have no allies in this particular struggle; and the entire world is as sick of the word Kashmir as it is of the word Palestine. There is nothing new under our aged sun.
To paraphrase an editorial in The Times (London) written at the beginning of this month when Atal Behari Vajpayee, prime minister of India, announced that he would attend the SAARC summit in Islamabad (welcome and unexpected this was termed): The choice between making peace, permanently, or drifting dangerously along the old worn path is for us now all the starker. India is reaping the benefits of a booming economy (despite Shaukat Aziz's frequent pronouncements that ours is booming, it actually is stagnant), and it carries political and electoral weight. Atal Behari Vajpayee and his BJP have realized that a breakthrough with Pakistan will be a vote-winner. As for Pakistan, there may be many here green with envy who feel left behind by India's onward rush. This envy may fuel and strengthen the extremism that plagues us. But others, like Musharraf and his likeminded supporters know that improved and settled relations with India could unlock for Pakistan an economic potential that has been strangled in futile and costly military confrontations.
Additionally, as my friend Pervez Hoodbhoy, a nuclear scientist who strives for peace and progress, has recently put it:
"Most important is the inescapable fact that India, with its hugely abundant scientific and high-tech manpower, is set to emerge as one of the world's largest economies while Pakistan's educational and scientific institutions continue their decline. India has penetrated into America's industrial core, providing it with scientists and engineers, and even drawing work away from US companies into India. Income from just one source - outsourcing and IT services - is expected to swell to an annual export industry of USD 57 billion by 2008. This far exceeds Pakistan's GNP, current and projected. The outline of an emerging US-India strategic partnership is beginning to emerge. The recently concluded agreement on space and nuclear cooperation is one indication of things to come. It is clear that the US no longer regards Pakistan as being in the same league as India."
We have already lost out; all we can now do is recoup. And if Musharraf is allowed to do as he knows he should do, we can make a start.
We have to accept that India is seven times as heavy and as large as Pakistan, and so, to be repetitious, peace must be made if we are to progress in any way in these tricky times.