A close brush with death concentrates the mind like nothing else: intimations of mortality remind us how fleeting life is, and how everything we say and do is ultimately written in the sand.
So when Musharraf succeeded in rewriting the constitution to suit himself, did he stop to think whether his triumph would be good for the country, or, in the wake of the recent assassination attempts, would last only as long as he did? The problem with tailoring the law of the land to fit one individual is that all too soon, the person stands exposed, much as the emperor who had no clothes.
But if Musharraf has had reason to contemplate infinity and the hereafter, the rest of us have had cause to reflect on life without Musharraf. Many Pakistanis have had very mixed feelings about the country's current military ruler.
Most of us welcomed him initially as somebody who rescued us from Nawaz Sharif's plans to impose a parliamentary, theocratic dictatorship through the Fifteenth Amendment by means of which he sought to make the Shariah the law of the land with all its implications for women and the minorities.
And, to be honest, many of us were beguiled by his liberal, secular rhetoric and, in our naivety, hoped that he would translate his words into action and roll back the creeping Talibanization of the country.
Then came 9/11 and Musharraf allied himself with the West in the 'war against terror', encouraging the perception that some of this toughness would express itself in action against the jihadi groups that threatened to overwhelm civil society.
The flood of dollars that followed this U-turn staved off bankruptcy and trapped him into the folly of the referendum. Then came the elections and in order to keep out Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the army created a vacuum that has been partly filled by the MMA, the alliance of religious parties allegedly cobbled together by the intelligence agencies that have traditionally tried to fine-tune elections to suit the military.
But irrespective of his faults and barely-concealed contempt for democracy, Musharraf has steered the country through some difficult waters. While appreciating his services, we would have been happier had he handed over power after the elections and returned to GHQ instead of thinking he was ndispensable.
Unfortunately, this is a trap dictators often fall into. Nevertheless, the anger expressed across the country at the appallingly shoddy security that permitted two such near-misses days apart is an indication that most people genuinely feel that the country needs him.
Normally, the constitution of a country is designed to provide a broad legal and institutional framework within which the laws of the land are framed and interpreted.
It also defines how political power is gained, exercised and passed on. But the Seventeenth Amendment that has just been incorporated into Pakistan's much-abused and tattered constitution has been designed specifically for Musharraf, and has no real provision for the transfer of the immense power he wields should something happen to him.
Among the options available in such a dire contingency, the least bad one is for the Senate chairman to assume the office of the president until the office is filled by the electoral college.
However, Musharraf is the only person holding the power-hungry Q-faction of the Muslim League which currently supports him and forms the core of the alliance that is in government today together. The other less popular but more possible scenario is for Musharraf's vice chief of army staff to step in and fill both the posts his boss holds.
The recent deal cut by Musharraf with the MMA opens up darker possibilities. Now that the religious parties have reverted to type and come out in support of army rule, they will want their pound of flesh in the shape of ministerial portfolios and a greater say in the direction the country should take.
Their retrogressive agenda is no secret; the real danger is that in a post-Musharraf scenario, they might want their candidate to have a serious shot at the presidency as the quid pro quo for their support to the ruling coalition.
What this would spell for the 'war on terror' and the efforts currently under way to normalize relations with India is obvious. How the rest of the world would view a nuclear Pakistan with a fundamentalist at the helm of affairs is also pretty clear.
This is the problem with any system that does not clearly define the method for succession. Indeed, Islamic history is replete with bloody wars of succession that broke out almost every time a ruler died or was deposed.
In the modern world, the concept of the constitution was supposed to prevent this kind of confusion and conflict. Unfortunately, our leaders have all considered themselves bigger than the constitution. Bhutto, Zia, Nawaz Sharif and now Musharraf have all bent and twisted the constitution to their own purpose.
Ultimately, no matter how benign a dictator and how much good he does for a country, he is always poison in the long run. Just as a tall tree does not permit smaller plants to grow under it, a powerful leader with no limit on his term of office or the extent of his power does not allow institutions to develop.
Thus, repeated doses of martial law have played havoc with democratic norms and institutions in Pakistan. And even when the generals have not ruled directly, they have played one political party against the other to ensure that democracy does not take deep roots.
Being the country's most organized and powerful sector, it has succeeded in keeping politicians distracted and at each other's throat, thus making it a simple matter to manipulate them.
Musharraf's recent close shaves might have made him realize that he cannot endlessly hunt with the hounds and run with the hares: extremist terrorism and jihadi movements cannot be compartmentalized between Afghan and Kashmiri groups.
The nexus between them is deep and strong. They might change names, but they cannot change their spots. When he indicates that he is serious about resolving the Kashmir issue, he is frightening many individuals and groups whose livelihood depends on keeping the conflict alive.
After his famous U-turn over Afghanistan, the jihadis went to Kashmir to earn a place in heaven. But if the Kashmir issue is sorted out, where will they go?