Editorial: The Express Tribune - 26 June 2013

 

Trial for treason

We have a new “first” in our history. A former military ruler faces treason charges for acts committed during his tenure in power. The Nawaz Sharif government has brought a case for high treason, which carries a maximum penalty of death under Pakistani law, against former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, who ruled the country from 1999 to 2008. Aside from his illegal takeover of power in 1999, overthrowing the elected Sharif government, the emergency he declared in November 2007, suspending the superior judiciary, clamping down on the media and other basic rights have been widely interpreted as acts of treason. The Supreme Court had already said it was the government, which was required to bring a treason case against General (retd) Musharraf, who currently remains under house arrest in Islamabad.

There can be no doubt the PML-N government needs to be congratulated for its courage in taking this step. It could prove vital to our future. Doing the “right thing” has never been a pressing priority in the country, especially when it comes to issues related to the military. This time round, things could change. As citizens, we must hope this will indeed happen, setting a key precedent for the future. The appearance of General (retd) Musharraf in court for treason should certainly make others think harder before taking similar steps in undermining democracy, seizing power and subverting the Constitution.
General (retd) Musharraf’s lawyer has immediately dismissed the move as a means to distract people from other problems, such as the energy and the economic crises. But this may be too simplistic a view of the development. The key question for Pakistan will be how the military reacts to the action against General (retd) Musharraf and what the final outcome is to be. Certainly, the court proceedings themselves will be closely followed and each statement made during them carefully noted. This, in itself, is extremely significant in the light of our history, where domination by the military has blighted democracy, and in fact, made it impossible for elected governments to operate. Perhaps, things will now change. We must hope this is the case.

India and the Af-Pak question

Recently, US Secretary of State John Kerry elaborated on the need for India to take on a proactive role in Afghanistan’s elections next year. According to him, Indian involvement in Afghanistan could lead to greater institutional stability in the country and help Afghanistan’s nascent, troubled democracy. This statement may ring alarm bells in Pakistan, especially its security establishment. A key concern of Pakistan’s strategists for post-2014 Afghanistan is not to be encircled by its traditional arch-rival. Pakistan has often stated its geostrategic concerns to the world, including to the US. Secretary Kerry’s comments do little to alleviate those reservations. With India to the east and an Indian presence in Afghanistan to the west, Pakistan’s conventional security paradigm gets challenged. Indian influence in Afghanistan may also lead to Pakistan further militarising the Durand Line. Pakistan may even be pushed to embark on a relentless drive to increase its influence in that country, even if it were to involve alignment with the Taliban.
Unless Pakistan’s concerns are taken seriously, it is likely that a post-2014 Afghanistan may turn into an arena for proxy wars between India and Pakistan. This is recipe for further instability in the region. Afghanistan and Pakistan need to forge constructive relations so that they can fight the menace of terrorism together. Hostilities between them would allow insurgencies to foster, further relegating the region to a spiral of militancy.
The Af-Pak question cannot be answered without the involvement of India, but the US’s reluctance to view Pakistan’s concerns as viable does nothing to mend South Asia’s most fragile relationship. Lastly, elections in Afghanistan must be an Afghan-led process where all political factions in that country agree to resolve their differences through dialogue rather than through guns, while all regional countries firmly commit that they will not interfere with its internal political process.