Oracle has been worked?

What Boucher has said has two components: (a) US wants to see civilian control in Pakistan; but (b) he also told us that he is not asking the President to doff his uniform; it is an internal matter of Pakistan in which America would not interfere. What does it mean in the backdrop of full spectrum of American satisfaction with the policy pursued by the Pakistan government under Pervez Musharraf? Does it by any chance means that the US is going to ditch him? This is the most unlikely thing that cannot easily be inferred from facts all around us. America needs Musharraf and Musharraf needs America. So that these two forces continue to be two are united in policy matters.

There are things that we should not forget. Among these are: (i) the US still desperately needs Musharraf's cooperation in Afghanistan and in fighting what he calls Terror. (ii) Actually the US cannot now take the risk of democracy in Pakistan after what they have seen in Egypt, Hamas victory in Palestine and of course there are the lesson of Latin American elections, not to mention the recent Ukraine election. The Americans would not want to let Musharraf be defeated in what may be called a free and fair or transparent election. (iii) Should Musharraf be able to manage (a) to make PML win the way it won last time in 2002 or (b) if he were to get a proper vote or a measure for his remaining in office by Parliament, in the 2002 way, including keeping the leaders of PPP and PML(N) out of the fray plus using other tricks that the 'agencies' employ. (c) That will be OK by the US because the how of it is an internal matter of Pakistan with which the US is not concerned.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

But once Musharraf makes sure of his next term of office for five years from Oct 2007 onward, no matter how and whether before or after the 2008 polls, the world will behold the spectacle of US claiming that in Pakistan the civilian control over both the Army and national affairs has returned. That is after Musharraf finally doffs his uniform. The US will then give a hoop of delight, claiming there is civilian control in Pakistan while Mr. Musharraf continues ruling the country. The US expects that Pakistanis will be satisfied with that democracy. How they remain satisfied and how the President remains secure would be the details with which America will not be concerned, being internal matters. Pakistanis thus have the prospect of Mr. Musharraf's rule up to 2012 as a 'democratic' civilian.

But what Pakistanis cannot forget is: (a) state of the polity today and the dangers facing the Federation. As it happens, there are full-scale insurgencies in many territories, the FATA and NWFP areas close by. Tribesmen are calling for the withdrawal of Pakistan Army; they think that they have been, and are, free people, not necessarily an integral part of Pakistan. Which is where the whole controversy of Pakhtoonistan arose. As a result the Durand Line became controversial. Not only the governments in Kabul, friendly or unfriendly to Pakistan, have never accepted it as a legitimate boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the position was endorsed by many Pakhtoons on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. The issue is a can of worms that had better remain shut. Continuing military operations threaten to spring it open. All the furies will then fly out.

Pakistanis cannot also forget the dangers inherent in the present state of the Pakistan economy. Pakistan is supposedly shining; the government has been working overtime to show that Pakistan has now taken off and is among the high growth countries where the per capita income is increasing. Well, this is true enough. But where are the extra riches going? No doubt, the streets now are chockful of cars and other vehicles that the government with the help of easy money policy has encouraged. The burden on the poor has increased immensely. Apart from traditional poverty, the differential between the incomes of the rich and the poor has widened, some would say dangerously. The rich are getting richer by a handsome margin. But the poor are also getting poorer by a wider margin.

On top of it is the inflation. This means more money chasing fewer goods. In this case more money in the hands of a few means their ability to corner goods to make the unjust and immoral extra buck. That some of the manipulators and hoarders are inside the government circle is known. The whole arrangement suits the racketeers fine. But the question persists: why is actual inflation, as counted by the government, remains in the region of 9 to 11 per cent?

People want to know where is the extra money coming from and where it is ending up. The issue has now to be discussed. The government's expenditures are being financed by taxes and revenues, plus export earnings plus Pakistani expatriates' remittances plus the money coming in from the sale of family silver plus loans and credits that Pakistan takes, including borrowing from international money markets in the shape of bonds and other instruments. The deficits in the budget, trade and in the balance of payments will one day lead to a drastic devaluation of the currency, which in the first instance would intensify the inflationary pressure and in the next lead to poverty becoming intensified. Can the present trends be allowed to continue?

Finally, someone should analyse and think about what Pakistan is reaping today by sowing the American controlled policies. Look at the social fabric: is it or is it not under strain? Law and order is deteriorating. Pakistan can now boast, like India, of so many insurgencies going on simultaneously. One is in Balochistan, which in itself is a complex phenomenon, comprising more than one insurgencies: there is the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces that are doing their damnedest by way of sectarian terrorism, dividing the people along an ancient faultline. Then there are the Balochistan Liberation Army fighting what it claims to be a national liberation struggle.

Pakistanis can question the legitimacy of their means and not go on about "a few Sardars". But can anyone forget that the popular sentiment over wide areas in Balochistan is now for those "few Sardars"? The Frontier area has several confrontations that divide people's sympathies. There are the MMA parties that look like getting more votes next time largely because of how things are shaping up. Secondly there is the old dormant question about Pushtoon identity and relationship with Afghanistan. The intrusion of America into this old quagmire can scarcely yield peaceful solutions; it increases tensions and polarisations. Then, there are specific al-Qaeda and Taliban groups trying to control the FATA and some other areas close by. Can Pakistan afford to remain somnolent and carry on with its Washington-dictated policies, including how to run the economy according to neo-classical paradigm?

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.