One good thing about the revolutionary upsurge in the Middle East was a debate of sorts in Pakistan about its relevance and possible replication in the country. However, the only common thread between the two situations is that people in Pakistan, like their counterparts in the Middle East, are frustrated with their rulers and would like deliverance from them, which the Egyptian people have achieved by overthrowing Hosni Mubarak. But the situation in Pakistan is quite different. Pakistan’s identity is much more fragmented on ethnic, regional and sectarian lines. And there is no single symbol of all that is wrong with the country, like Hosni Mubarak was in Egypt. The religion (Islam) that was supposed to be a binding factor has increasingly become divisive with terrorist violence and the country seems to be losing its moorings. The Taliban in Pakistan want to redefine the country in their own image and their own version of Islam. And realising how hard that task would be, they have decided to achieve it by terrorising the people into submission. But even in Egypt the revolution did not have an easy task. Until the last moment, Mubarak kept everyone in suspense and then announced on state television that he was not going anywhere until next September when elections were likely to be held. In other words, he would still preside over the country’s transition. When the people’s revolution started in Egypt, Mubarak seemed so close to becoming another Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia. But, since then, the regime regrouped, threatening to hold on to power at almost any cost. There were reasons for this. The most important was that the Mubarak regime put up a united front, even when people read signs that the army was somehow empathetic to them. The army said that they would not shoot at their own people and expressed understanding of their legitimate aspirations. But there were first hand accounts of the army’s involvement in the kidnapping and torturing of many people in the popular protest movement. Vice-President Omar Suleiman was even threatening the country with a military coup. He said that the protests were “very dangerous for society and we cannot put up with this at all”. This was not the talk of an empathetic army. The spontaneous outbreak of the people’s movement took the regime totally by surprise. Not surprisingly, its initial response was ad hoc, though brutal. As it went along, it tried a stick and carrot approach, initially coming out with a police crackdown that did not work. The army, declaring that they would not shoot down their own people, followed this. This obviously encouraged the people, and unnerved the regime. The next stage was another dose of intimidation and killings when the regime mobilised their squads of thugs who attacked peaceful protesters. This proved to be counter-productive, creating angry reaction among the regime’s foreign backers like the US, and its western allies. Which brings us to the US and its major western allies’ inability to decide whether to back the Egyptian popular upsurge or stand behind their loyal ally. In the event, they seem to have decided to stand on the fence. Even when the US sought to put extra pressure on the Mubarak regime for change, the emphasis always was that the process of change should happen through the agency of the existing government. Indeed, the Obama administration’s special envoy to Cairo, Frank Wisner (a former US ambassador to Egypt), sent to assess the situation and report back to his government, told a security conference in Munich, “President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical — it is his opportunity to write his own legacy.” Imagine President Mubarak being allowed to write his own legacy by leaving the presidency to his son, Gamal. Hosni Mubarak’s regime was hoping to wear down the protesters through a process of attrition, hoping that the ‘silent majority’ (dictators always live with such fantasies) would rise up in support of the regime. Which, as we know, did not happen. The US vacillation, even though frowned upon and criticised at times, was not altogether discouraging. For instance, if you were Hosni Mubarak, you would not be discouraged with Hillary Clinton’s comment that “revolutions have overthrown dictators in the name of democracy, only to see the process hijacked by new autocrats (read Muslim Brotherhood) who use violence, deception and rigged elections to stay in power”. A constant US refrain was that change and stability should go hand in hand. Mubarak was also encouraged by the active advocacy of his case with the US by Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi king reportedly was even ready to replace US aid for Egypt from its own coffers. All these factors kept Mubarak’s hopes alive that if only he could hold his nerve, and his regime stood by him, he would be able to write his own legacy. Encouraged by these factors, Mubarak was going to tough it out. And his loyal intelligence chief (made vice-president) was right behind him. He bluntly told people that there would be “no ending of the regime” and no immediate departure for Hosni Mubarak. He expressed his preference for dialogue with the protesters, issuing a veiled warning though. “We do not want to deal with Egyptian society with police tools.” This meant that if the Egyptian people did not behave, the government would have no option but to use brutal force. This would suggest that Egypt was close to a bloodbath if the army had gone on to enforce Mubarak’s declaration that he was not going anywhere. So what happened in less than 24 hours that made Mubarak quit the presidency? It would be fair to assume that the army eventually decided against using force on its people gathered in large numbers in Cairo, Alexandria and elsewhere in the country. Without the army’s prop and support, Mubarak was a nobody, with his people dead set against him. It is also relevant to note that, by this time, the popular revolt had engulfed much of the country. Mubarak’s much touted rural supporters were nowhere to be seen. In the circumstances, the task of keeping Mubarak in power till September, when elections were due, seemed absurd at the horrible cost in terms of people’s lives. The scenes of jubilation at the news of Mubarak’s departure went on into the night, and the feeling was so overwhelming that many people seemed unwilling to go home. They wanted to keep on savouring their victory. One academic from the American University in Beirut even described it as cosmic. It was a truly historic moment, not only for Egypt but also for the region and, indeed, for the world. Just to see a country like Egypt, with its rich history and traditions, emerging out of a mummified state to once again take its place in the living world is an inspiring moment in history. Of course, there are worries about the future. At the best of times, military coups are not good for any country, as the people of Pakistan might attest. But, in this case, the military council, headed by the country’s defence minister, Mohamad Hussein Tantawi, a Mubarak lackey, will rule the country until whatever alternative political order emerges. The army has promised a peaceful transition to democratic civilian rule after the elections, whenever they are held. Frankly, there is extreme lack of clarity and uncertainty about all aspects of the transition. But the people of Egypt have won; let us rejoice with them. One thing is for certain: Egypt, and indeed the rest of the Arab world, will never be the same again. It is quite possible, indeed probable, that more dominoes will fall, inspired by Egypt’s example. The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au