Treason trials are known to cause them
Don’t kick a man when he’s down; kick him when he’s not looking. Is former president Pervez Musharraf down?
Well, yes, but precisely because there are people who want to kick him. The judiciary seems set to follow through on the former dictator’s trial. And with the ‘N’ League in power, there really isn’t any sympathy from him in the executive branch.
Asked to appear in front of the court Thursday, after an attempt or two to do the same were scuttled by the discovery of IEDs on the road from his farmhouse to the city, Musharraf was on his way for his peshi under heavy security detail when he fell ill, we are told, and was rushed off to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology.
This is being interpreted far and wide as cowardice. The PPP chairperson Bilawal Bhutto, for instance, said he could not believe the fellow once wore the uniform of the nation’s armed forces.
Who knows, it might actually be a genuine case of heart trouble. Or he just might be finally getting the jitters. Both are very human failings. But the latter is particularly jarring given the tough man image the dictator had worked so hard to fashion. Clip after clip of that line, mayn kissi se darta nahi, a particular favourite of his, juxtaposed to his current status, are being played on the TV channels. And one can’t blame the channels either; it just makes great TV.
The PPP has demanded for his medical records to be produced. And even if the evaluation provided by his doctors checks out, precedents are already being dug up, particularly those from the trial of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, that the defendant’s health need not have a bearing on the proceedings of the court.
If this illness is indeed a ruse, it is not his first act of desperation. That honour went to his now infamous plea to the army to come to his aid. He implied he was testing to see how far general Raheel will allow the government to do punish a former general like him. The ISPR, otherwise, not known to show caution or discretion before jumping into matters political, has chosen to remain mum in this occasion. This wouldn’t have inspired much confidence in the man.
On the issue of the trial itself: there obviously needs to be some retribution for his actions. Those who say it is unfair to single the man out have a point only if they mean the systemic flaw in the institution of the army itself needs to be addressed. Any other interpretation muddles the issue and only drags us away from giving the man his due.
Another, more compelling argument asks why we are forgiving the more serious sin of the military takeover of ’99 and focusing on the actions of November 3rd, 2007. Granted, the latter was perhaps the first instance of a dictator staging a coup against himself but it certainly wasn’t as grave a sin as the former. Is it something the judiciary feels uncomfortable handling, given the soul-searching it would have to do itself?
