Musharraf in the dock

EDITORIAL:

For the first time in this country’s 66-year history, the walls seem to be closing in on the culture of impunity that has dominated its political direction. Former army general and president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf has been indicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) for the murder of Benazir Bhutto, one of Pakistan’s most important political leaders. This charge comes almost six years after the PPP leader’s death — a reality that seems set to erode some of the power the hitherto untouchable military has enjoyed after ruling this nation for more than half its life. Even when it has not been running the show, the powerful army has been pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Hence, to see a former military dictator being hauled up and brought to book is a precedent that one could not have imagined in the past. Musharraf has been in trouble ever since he made the stupid decision to return to the country on a quixotic mission to present himself as a saviour once again. Instead a rash of setbacks and court cases have haunted him since set foot on home soil. The killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti has in particular repeatedly come back to haunt him with the finger of accusation being pointed his way and now the murder of Benazir Bhutto has been placed squarely on his shoulders. Whilst the ex-general is in the dock for the most high profile assassination in Pakistan’s recent history, it is the party Benazir gave her life for that should be ashamed of the role it failed to play in bringing the perpetrators of her murder to justice. It was the PPP that gave Musharraf safe passage out of the country in 2008, even though fingers had already started pointing his way. It was the PPP that in its five years in power did little except go through the motions of trying to track down its martyred leader’s killers. Whilst the UN and Scotland Yard may have been brought in, little to no effort was made to initiate a full blown internal investigation into her murder. The PPP beats its chest and rides on a wave of sympathy for its martyred leaders but also leaves them high and dry when it is most needed. The party and all those who have been at its helm after the assassination should be ashamed of themselves. Musharraf miscalculated every step in the run up to his indictment. Fooled by the many ‘likes’ he received on Facebook while in exile, the ex-dictator rode in on a high horse before the elections of May 2013, expecting a hero’s welcome. He was sorely mistaken as only a handful of people arrived to greet him. He was then disqualified from participating in the elections for which he had travelled to Pakistan and then placed under house arrest — definitely more comfortable than biding time in a prison cell. Now that he has been indicted by the ATC, it seems any outcome is possible, including one in which he is found guilty of murder and conspiracy to murder. The case against him was initiated by the caretaker government before the elections and has now come to this. However, too many questions still remain unanswered. Benazir’s e-mails before her death speak of a woman under constant threat, given the ultimatum by Musharraf himself that her security was contingent on ‘cooperation’ with him. The fact that she did not have adequate security and the numerous attempts on her life before that last fatal blow in 2007 show that without the general’s tacit approval, none of the tragic events of 2007 could have happened. All allegations of militant involvement seem futile when one considers all the circumstantial evidence: a lone gunman in the midst of a thronging crowd when the injury suffered by Benazir could only have been inflicted by a high velocity weapon such as a sniper rifle, a suicide blast and a suspected second body, and, most damning of all, the hosing down of the crime scene immediately after the murder. It seems impossible that all of this happened without the powerful military knowing about it. There are nagging questions that still need to be answered but, it seems, the first step has already been taken: making answerable the man who was ‘king’ when it all transpired.