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

Search Rediff

Admiral J G Nadkarni (Retd)

There is no reason to believe that General Musharraf's rule will be different from that of Ayub, Yayha or Zia

The enthusiasm with which General Parvez Musharraf's overthrow of the Nawaz Sharief government has been welcomed by the people of Pakistan is surely a case of collective amnesia. It is also the triumph of hope over experience. It is suspected that not a few in this country looked across the border with envy hoping that something similar might deliver this country from the plodding ways of democracy.

People of the subcontinent have notoriously short memories. They are also a forgiving lot. Self confessed smugglers, like Haji Mastan, become instant public heroes. Bandit queens are elected to Parliament. A sizeable population of this country looks back with nostalgia on Indira Gandhi's Emergency, forgetting its excesses. The country has had hundreds of rulers, many of them despotic and cruel. Yet there is no record of any Indian king being put to the axe like Charles I of England, or guillotined like Louis VI of France or shot like Nicholas II of Russia. It is not therefore unusual that such people have few lessons to learn from the history of military dictators.

All the more surprising because military dictators over the world follow a familiar script. A badly run democratic government is of course the starting point. There are the usual scenes of the soldiers taking over the TV and radio stations and surrounding the residence of the prime minister. Very soon the usurper goes on national TV immaculately dressed in military uniform. Even his address to the nation, delivered in a clipped accent, is now becoming familiar.

My fellow countrymen, the country is going to the dogs. The prime minister/president has destroyed the institutions. Law and order has broken down. Corruption is rampant. The army really loves democracy but we have had to take over most reluctantly to save the country. Please be assured, democracy will be restored at the earliest. Oh yes, in the meantime the constitution, human rights etc remain abrogated.

Five years down the line nothing has changed. Corruption is as rampant as ever, possibly the recipients are different. The generals have lined their pockets. The lot of the people has hardly changed.

General Musharraf is following the script to the last T. He is already bold enough to say that it may take three years to restore democracy. This unfortunately is the story from Ayub to Zia, from Peron to Galtieri and from Marcos to Idi Amin. Hundreds of military dictators have taken over their countries in the past. Except for very few exceptions, not a single worthy has been able to deliver.

Suharto ruled his country with an iron hand and no opposition for over thirty years. After his overthrow it was discovered that he, his wife and his brood of six children had looted the country for a cool $ 30 billion. At one time it was thought that he had at least taken his countrymen to new levels of prosperity. Not so. Despite massive support from the United States and other western countries, it now transpires that nearly 50 per cent of Indonesia is still below the poverty level.

Ayub, Yahya and Zia together ruled Pakistan for over 20 years. It can hardly be said that our neighbour was any better economically for it. Two of them led their country to disastrous wars with India and the third planted the roots of militancy in Kashmir. At the end of Zia's rule, Pakistan was rated as the third most corrupt country in the world.

The same dismal tale can be told about every tinpot military dictator in the world. Misrule, corruption and the wholesale looting of their country. The simple fact is that army generals may know everything about winning battles. But in the matter of running a country they lack experience. Confined as they are to their cantonments they are far removed from the people of their countries. They soon find out that the "danda", which works effectively in disciplining a small group of soldiers, does not work when governing a nation of millions.

With such uniform unexceptional records, why is it that the people of many countries still hanker after army rule?

To start with, democracies in most developing countries have failed to deliver. India, which has had a continuous democracy for over fifty years, still wallows way down in the UNDP report on human development. It still has more than 400 million people below the poverty line. 700 million do not have basic sanitation facilities and half the population is still illiterate. In a recent report India ranked 76th in the world index of corruption, a dismal score of 2.9 on a scale of 10-1.

Furthermore in their plodding ways, it takes ten years to convict a Harshad Mehta, 12 years to file a chargesheet on Bofors and more than two years to frame charges against Jayalalitha. People of many third world countries are becoming impatient with the meandering ways of a democracy. To your average man on the street, the price of onions is far more important than the right of free speech. The people of the subcontinent have waited fifty long years for their lot to improve, with no avail. They are not going to wait another half century. The sugar level is high. They want a quick dose of insulin and will not wait for the long term cure of diet and exercise.

They perceive the army as the correct instrument to give them that shot. And the army is certainly the master of the Quick Fix. Indeed, in most military takeovers, the first few days invariably lead to hope. Economic reforms are pushed through. Corrupt officials lie low for a while. People begin to attend offices instead of lolling on the lawns nearby. Mussolini even made the trains run on time.

The dictator's stock begins to rise. But only for a short while. His given script has no solutions to the long term problems of his country. Soon the early rumblings of dissent start and the midnight knocks begin. Very soon people realise that army rule was no panacea for their problems. If only they had studied history.

There is no reason to believe that General Musharraf's rule will be in any way different from that of Ayub, Yayha, Zia or a hundred other military dictators over the world. In fact there is already a feeling of deja vu in all his actions thus far. With the inevitability of a Greek tragedy he too is destined to go to his doom in a few years, one more footnote in the history of that unfortunate country.

Beware my countrymen, lest you too be tempted to go in for the quick fix. Indian democracy is certainly no utopia. Nevertheless, history indicates that the alternative will be far worse.

There is also a lesson for our political leaders in the events, which took place in the neighbourhood. If you don't deliver, the country gets that much closer to a military rule.

Admiral J G Nadkarni

Tell us what you think of this column