People who are brave and patient enough to tolerate my viewpoint here every week know my position fairly well when it comes to our ‘all-in-one’, former ‘commando’/general/chief executive/president Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf is being dubbed as a daredevil as despite all legal odds against him he has landed in Pakistan. Never mind that the commando made a last minute entry after the interference/mediation of a ‘very friendly country’. How conveniently daring is that, if I may ask? Let us be realistic and honest: he did not land here to spend time behind bars. Musharraf’s motivation, of course, is to save Pakistan from the looters, plunderers, thieves, dacoits, etc (the present lot of politicians). You get the picture. Poor Pakistan, only the saviours are way too many. All have only one reason to exist and breathe: to save this poor Pakistan from one another. In this odd circus of saviours, what is the harm if another one wants to try his luck? But it will be quite a rude awakening for him as there are no men in khaki to assist. The people have to vote him in and for every single vote he literally has to beg in front of the ordinary civvies. Now to some more serious stuff. There cannot be any ambiguity about the major blunder committed by Musharraf when he overthrew an elected prime minister. It is plain and simple a violation of his oath as a general under the Army Act. One can easily pinpoint in the constitution and find him responsible for violation of article this or article that. Here comes my disclaimer: neither am I his supporter, nor a legal eagle. I have no background in any kind of law, whether of Pakistan or elsewhere. However, I can throw in an argument for the legal eagles to ponder. It is solely based on my humble and yet remotely logical opinion. Though Musharraf’s transgression may fall into the category of treason, perhaps by the letter of the text, but in substance, it may be arguable for and against. You may be perplexed why I am trying to defend a tin pot dictator. Let me clarify, I am not. I am just highlighting the reality. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander as well. That is precisely my point. I am just highlighting the hypocrisy of the argument. If you recall, as soon as Musharraf overthrew the government of Mian Nawaz Sharif, the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was held in abeyance. Those not very at comprehending English, much like me, would like to know whether it was set aside or suspended. When the former general did all of this, he was blessed by we all know who. In other words, there was a stamp of approval from the highest office of law itself. Legally, the constitution, which serves as the basis of the charge of treason, was absent and instead there was a document in effect by the name of the Provisional Constitution or Legal Framework Order (LFO), so how in the God’s name can someone charge him with being treasonous? If the violation was wrong in the first place then on October 13, 1999, the bench should have struck down the coup without fail. Subsequently, the bench sought forgiveness from the nation, and to the best of my recollection, no referendum was held on that matter, though it was assumed that the nation granted the much needed forgiveness and it moved on. So what if the tin pot dictator wants to exercise the same option, will he be granted that chance or not? Then comes the question of the sequel in November 2007. Musharraf as president declared the state of emergency, which we all know was, for lack of a better word, phony. But may I very respectfully remind everyone, he as the president within his legal powers had the right to do what he did. He sacked the courts and appointed new courts under the same PCO. Here comes a juggernaut of an argument. In law there is a concept called precedent. Musharraf had a precedent of the similar action of 1999 to fall back on. What ensued after that was a political movement to get rid of him. People recall that movement with various names. I have one too in my flawed lexicon. It was a perhaps ‘Go Musharraf Go’ movement. Various actors on the scene wanted him out for their own individual reasons. That emergency declaration was his desperate move at his worst time. So all those actors with varied motivations came to the tacit agreement to get rid of a ‘common enemy’. What transpired after that and how Musharraf left and now allowed to re-enter is again common knowledge. My point here is: there may a laundry list of other things on him, but again in my humble opinion, the charge of treason may not stand. Before I get awarded another title of the apologist and that too for the gentleman who has been heavily criticised by me here and at other venues, Musharraf could have been found guilty of treason according to the Army Act, and perhaps according to the constitution, on October 13, 1999. Pulling out another legal terminology of statute of limitations from my very limited legal hat, I would say after 12 years that basis must have eroded. By all means all other charges against him should be brought forward and as an ordinary citizen he should be given the right to defend himself. Bottom line: you cannot reverse the clock, so to speak. The harm that was inflicted by Musharraf’s bloodless coup, and with utmost respect, its prompt endorsement, cannot be undone. If one has the right to seek an apology, then the other should have the same exact right too. The proper method of seeking an apology from the citizens is to introduce a measure on the ballot. Let the citizens decide whether they have truly forgiven and forgotten. After all, it is their country, and come to think of it, they are the ultimate judge. The writer is a Pakistani-American mortgage banker. He blogs at http://dasghar.blogspot.com and can be reached at dasghar@aol.com He tweets at http://twitter.com/dasghar