ELECTION 99
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Special/ Dr Savita Pande

The coup exposes the limitations of the highly exaggerated American influence in the Pakistani polity

With the dismissal of the Pakistan prime minister by the army chief in what some have called a counter coup, Pakistan comes full circle. Interestingly, a term like that anywhere else would be absurd, considering the sacking of the army chief by the prime minister can hardly be called a coup in a parliamentary democracy, particularly when the prime minister enjoys almost a two-third majority the way Nawaz Sharief did.

Although it will take some time before things take a final shape, and probably longer to know or assess what kind of regime will emerge, one thing is certain -- the army is no longer in the barracks, even if it assumes the facade of a civilian government of what is being popularly described as national government.

In fact, Pakistan, particularly after 1959, has been a military state and only that. In fact, had this not been the case, the scenario would have been difficult to understand. This also explains why despite such a massive majority, Nawaz Sharief during his tenure preferred to get his work done through the ordinances rather than normal legislative procedures.

The immediate cause for the coup is being attributed to the Kargil misadventure. There is hardly any truth in that despite the assertion to this effect from the Indian defence minister. As far as India is concerned, it must be understood, there are no two opinions in that country. It is another matter that the level of involvement of the two institutions may be different. That one or the other was not aware or that the misadventure was taken without informing the other is also not true.

It would, however, be more appropriate to say that the rift between the prime minister and the army chief can be traced to the withdrawal from Kargil after the Washington agreement between Nawaz Sharief and Bill Clinton. This was totally unacceptable to the Indian-born Mohajir army chief.

The strongly anti-Indian Pervez Musharraf was not agreeable to the army defeat. It had become very clear during the operations itself that it was not the Mujahideen but Pakistani army regulars who were involved in Kargil. That the army had to withdraw as a response to the Indian military success in the region made no difference to it.

The differences between the two can also be linked to the Taliban. Sharief had spoken of stopping the training and even closing the madarsas. The way things were growing it is difficult to say if this would not have been the eventuality if Nawaz Sharief had not sacked Musharraf. In all likelihood, the so-called coup of Sharief was a preventive, rather a 'pre-emptive counter coup'.

The coup also exposes the limitations of the highly exaggerated American influence in the Pakistani polity. The Americans had warned Pakistan against any coup in the country. The country's economy in dire straits is extremely vulnerable to American pressures. This was also the reason why Nawaz Sharief agreed to the withdrawal from the Indian territory.

Even prior to that the limitations of American influence were more than apparent in testing nuclear devices in the Chagai hills, prior to that in not rolling back the Pakistan nuclear programme, in the sacking of Benazir Bhutto who had friends in the American administration. Even the arguments of American supporting democratic regimes hardly hold well.

The American administration had no problems in supporting the Zia regime both morally and materially when their own vital interests suffered a la the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It is also not without significance that while Americans have, in the present case asked them to restore democracy, they have refused to call it a coup!

As far as the impact of the coup on India is concerned it can hardly be said that there is a change in the ground reality. Irrespective of whichever form of government comes to power, or rather is projected as the main government, their attitude to India cannot change. Kargil was one instance when that country had a civilian government, an army chief appointed by the prime minister, abrogation of the eighth amendment under which previous prime ministers were summarily dismissed. And yet it intruded into India's territory, at places well 10 km inside! And that too at a time when India perhaps reached the climax of confidence building when no less than the prime minister went to Lahore by bus.

This should also tell confidence builders in this country that any amount of CBMs would in the context of Pakistan mean confidence-breaking measures.

Dr Savita Pande, a research fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, is an expert on Pakistan affairs.

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature