It is indeed a relief that we are well into the month of April and the temperature in Lahore is still hovering below what is generally considered as hot. The other advantage is that no newspaper pundit or member of the electronic media can warn us about the ‘Ides of March’. Thank heavens for that! However, the ‘rumour mills’ are going ballistic with possible scenarios of an impending change in the political scenery. Over the last 48 hours, a few very ‘well connected’ and ‘well informed’ people have told me that things are going to change, but every statement about these impending changes was prefaced with the comment, “I cannot really tell you who told me but I can tell you one thing — that the source has impeccable credentials.” All this reminds me how, five years ago, almost every week some pundit or the other predicted the impending demise of the Zardari-led People’s Party government. As Yogi Berra, the famous US ‘philosopher’ said, “It is déjà vu all over again.” There are some important reasons for all these rumours floating around. Clearly the statement coming from the army chief about disgruntlement of ‘the ranks’ has stimulated spasms of ‘wishful thinking’ among the ‘usual suspects’. Adding to this state of heightened excitement is the recent spate of terrorist attacks in Islamabad, rubbishing the government’s policy of negotiations with the ‘good’ Taliban types. Also, the ongoing trial and the ‘tribulations’ of an ex-army chief are definitely not conducive to increased amity between the government and the army. So, all told, things are not ‘hunky dory’ in the land of the pure. And in the background lurk complicated issues like Saudi expectations from Pakistan for the money they have ‘donated’, the Syrian situation, the ongoing Afghan and Indian elections, the Iranian question, and of course the impending NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan. So, unlike previous times, any disagreement between the Pakistani army and its ‘civilian masters’ is not going to be played out in just a local context. These are difficult times for Pakistan. The national economy is teetering on the proverbial brink, the power situation is still ‘dark’, and the law and order situation even excluding the Taliban is murky at best. Not at all a good time for any internal discord between the powers that control Pakistan. I disagree strongly with many policies of the present government and the list of my disagreements is long, but they are mostly based on a divergent view of the role of government in the lives of ordinary people. I have used these pages to elaborate on those differences often enough in the past. However, the one thing I do accept is that this government came to power after a mostly acceptable general election and as such deserves to implement its policies as long as these policies are within acceptable democratic norms. Clearly for those that oppose this government, the way to demonstrate such opposition is also through accepted democratic methods. Dreams for an extra-democratic solution have a habit of turning into a nightmare. The last thing I want to do is resurrect all those rather trite adages about history and about remembering the past. Democracy in Pakistan is still a work in progress. Our Prime Minister (PM), even though it is his third time around in that position, cannot yet be accused of having imbibed democratic principles quite fully. At the same time, our army has not quite forgotten its past glory as the many time ‘conqueror’ of Pakistan. However, it is time for both sides to get on with the proverbial programme and concentrate on what is best for the country at this time. Personal egos and institutional priorities must be made subservient to the national interest. The role of the Pakistan army is and will remain vital in three important areas. First, in any future attempt to control ‘non-state’ combatants, especially if the government-Taliban talks fail. Second, to control the Pakistan-Afghan border after the NATO forces draw down in Afghanistan, and third, if and when any demands are made by our ‘generous friend’ for help in the Syrian civil war or for its own security. At the same time, the army needs a ‘strong’ government to bring about improvement in the national economy without which the corporate interests of the Pakistan army cannot be sustained. It would then seem to me that the civilian government and the army need each other more than ever before. The civilian government cannot survive without the support of the army and the army cannot function effectively as a fighting force without the support of the civilian government. Cooperation does not mean compromise. Both must accept valid demands from the other side. The important point to remember is that, in a functioning democracy, the civilian government must have ultimate control over its armed forces. At the same time, in any functioning democracy that is confronted with serious ‘security issues’, the army must also receive its due importance. Pakistan is not like the Vatican requiring a few ‘Swiss guards’ for ceremonial purposes. Pakistan is a country at war, even though it might be against non-state actors and regional insurgents. And, in a country at war, the armed forces must receive the full support of the civilian government. And that brings me to the continuing irritant between the army and the civilian government: the ongoing trial of General (retired) Musharraf. As many op-ed writers accused of a ‘liberal’ or a pro-army bias have repeatedly suggested that if the matter of Musharraf’s malfeasance is sub judice then why is every member of this government and their aunts expounding upon his culpability? Should not all such persons be held in contempt of court? Finally, I did warn our PM many moons ago that perhaps by choosing a chief of the army staff with a ‘luxuriant’ upper lip growth, he sealed his own fate. Time will tell. The writer has practised and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com