Ever since he took the decision to end his self-exile and return home to contest elections, the going has not been easy for General Pervez Musharraf. Abandoned by the army on which he had reposed his complete faith and confronted by a Prime Minister whom he had once dismissed and exiled, as well as being investigated by a judiciary which he had once tried to marginalise, the stout defence put up by Chief Patron of the Jammu Kashmir Mahaz-e-Azadi (MeA) Muhammad Azam Inqilabi for Musharraf’s actions, must have come as music to the beleaguered General’s ears. However, while the MeA Chief Patron may have lavishly heaped adulation on Musharraf, it is also a fact that there are many who have severely criticised the General for his lack of commitment towards the Kashmir cause. So, since public opinion on this issue is not only widely divergent but contradictory too, the natural question which arises is, whether Musharraf’s dealings, both as the army chief and President of Pakistan, were ‘for’ or ‘against’ Kashmir and its people?
Whereas it would be morally incorrect for a mortal to sit on judgment over another and pry into his or her personal dealings, whenever the actions of a person in power or authority concerns not an individual but a people, there is certainly a need to dispassionately analyse the role played by such an individual. And so, I attempt to put General Musharraf under scrutiny, but without any pre-conceived prejudices or malice. Musharaff has had a long innings at the helm of affairs in Pakistan and even his worst critics cannot but accept that he has acquitted himself well. One must also not forget that it was during General Musharaff’s tenure as army chief that guns on the Line of Control (LoC) fell silent for the first time since 1947 and civilians residing in the vicinity of the LoC on both sides experienced normalcy for the first time after years. This is certainly no mean achievement, as in declaring a ‘unilateral’ ceasefire, Musharraf must have had to face severe opposition from not only the powerful lobby of radicals in Pakistan, but also the ‘hawks’ within his own army!
Unfortunately, the Chief Patron of MeA, while praising the General, has failed to mention this major achievement of his that put an end to senseless violence on the LoC, in which numerous innocents were being killed, injured or maimed as matter of normal routine. Instead, he has sought to praise General for the Kargil war, “which he (Musharraf) initiated in league with Mujahedeen against India.” However, while Inqilabi feels indebted to Musharraf for starting the Kargil conflict “just to keep lacs of Indian soldiers engaged in a protracted localised war to eventually ensure the safety of the innocent Kashmiris,” one really wonders whether there would be any takers for this point of view. Readers would recall that during the Kargil conflict, innocent Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC were ‘caught’ in between two warring armies and suffered a great deal. Therefore even though I have tried my best, I could find no substance in Iqbali’s claim that Musharraf embarked upon the Kargil war just to “ensure the safety of innocent Kashmiris!”
Musharraf himself has repeatedly tried to ‘justify’ Kargil by claiming that it had brought back the Kashmir issue into international focus and that this would pave the way for its early resolution. Unfortunately, facts do not support his assertion, as even after a decade and a half, no headway has been made towards resolution of the Kashmir issue. On the contrary, due to Musharraf’s Kargil misadventure, Islamabad not only drew sharp criticism from the G8 nations and the European Union, but even prompted its ‘all weather’ ally China to demand that Pakistan withdraw its forces to the ‘pre-conflict’ positions. Thus, in the end, all Kargil did was to once again give the erroneous impression to the international community that the Kashmir problem is nothing more than just a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan! And by ultimately withdrawing its soldiers back from Indian held territory in Kargil, while Pakistan has demolished its own contention of the LoC being ‘disputed’, India has found support for its stand on the ‘inviolability’ of the LoC from the ASEAN Regional Forum, besides others! So, I leave it now on the reader to decide whether the Kargil war has actually ‘helped’ or ‘harmed’ the Kashmir cause?
While Inqalabi may be right in his assessment that, “Musharraf after 9/11 dealt with the Afghan situation with fortitude, prudence and political acumen,” he is however being far more than generous to the General by failing to comment on his questionable Kashmir policy post 9/11. While the MeA Chief Patron may not agree with this assessment, I am sure that the United Jihad Council chief and Hizbul Mujahideen supremo Syed Sallaudin certainly will. It is no secret that in a bid to appease the Americans and remain in their good books after 9/11, Musharraf completely neglected the Kashmiri ‘freedom fighters’, forcing an anguished Sallaudin to publically admit that the General had “backstabbed” the ‘freedom fighters’ and thus done great disservice to the ‘armed struggle’ in Kashmir. While Musharraf supporters may claim that he was forced by the Americans to adopt the stance he did, the fact remains that the wily General, who initially refused to accept the dead bodies of his own soldiers in a bid to pass them off as Kashmiri ‘freedom fighters’ during the Kargil conflict could have always used his fertile imagination and found ways to circumvent the Americans dicktats, if he really wanted to!
General Musharraf is also the architect of the ‘four point formula’ which mocks the sacrifices of the Kashmiris and completely disregards their aspirations. His ‘formula’ not only discards the UN resolutions and the ‘right to self determination’ it provides for, but also seeks to resolve the Kashmir issue by legitimising the existing illegal occupation of Kashmir by both India and Pakistan. Yet, Inqalabi has hailed Musharraf as “an ideal well wisher and friend of Kashmiris,” even when the General has shown scant regard for the sensitivities of the Kashmiris! So, while Inqalibi may continue eulogising Musharraf and lament his ‘persecution’ at the hands of judges who the MeA Chief Patron feels are no better than “hatchet wielding butchers,” in the ultimate analysis, the General emerges as no real ‘Hero’ but merely an ordinary mortal. While there is no doubt that General Musharraf may be a well meaning person, his inability to rein-in his highly inflated ego gave way to unbridled ambition and an over- obsession to both prove himself and go down in history as a great General and a statesman. He may well have succeeded, had he not been in such hurry- but by trying to do too much in too short a time, he did not realise that all his endeavours to were just half measures that have done more harm than good to the Kashmir cause!