Sir: We have been hearing a lot from the people at the helm of affairs for the past many years about holding talks with extremists and terrorists but such idiosyncrasy by these politicians was never seen while they were in opposition. Who is more powerful: the state actors or non-state actors? I wonder what went wrong with Musharraf who at least tried to meet the extremists with iron hands. Why did politicians and the media malign him? What policies, be they economic, political or social, by the Musharraf regime differ from those of the current civilian government? I must say his policies and stance were clear and firm when compared to his current counterparts, Nawaz and Zardari. If we calculate his performance and compare his government with the successive governments of the PPP and PML-N, I must say that his performance was much better. Musharraf built institutions like the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the National Commission for Human Development (NCHD). Pakistan was the first country in South Asia to enact the Freedom of Information Act in 2004. He installed the local bodies election system. No one pointed a finger at any fake appointments in any department unlike during the time of the PPP and PML-N. For the first time, Pakistan got rid of IMF loans as well. It is only the PPP government and current PML-N government that took loans from the IMF, leaving us in this terrible situation.
His stance on Kashmir and the post-9/11 situation were worth appreciating. He at least suggested some formulas to solve the Kashmir issue and the Pak-Afghan issue. If the current government is holding talks with non-state actors who have killed thousands of innocent people in Pakistan, why is Musharraf being punished? Most of the policies of the Musharraf regime were continued during successive governments, i.e. the same foreign policy, economic policies, policies on drone attacks, policies concerning institutions like NAB, NCHD and the local bodies elections. All these initiatives were taken during the reign of a dictator. Dictatorship does not mean that a person has donned a uniform; it can be in the form of civilian dictatorship as well. Who is not aware of the dictatorship of Nawaz and Zardari? Everyone knows that decisions are made in Bilawal House and Raiwind.
Musharraf’s one sin cost him dearly when he deposed the Supreme Court’s (SC) chief justice (CJ). Had he not committed such a mistake, perhaps the map of Pakistan would have been different. The dog in the manger policy continues unabated in this country. Who is the traitor and who is loyal in this country cannot be defined exactly, but who is following the constitution and who is following the orders of the apex court is no myth today. One who eats away the money of the nation without providing food security and respect to the people, and deceiving the nation only to canvas votes is the traitor. The SC rightly said that governance in a dictator’s regime seems far better than that in the current civilian regimes.
ASHFAQ AHMED SIYAL
Karachi