Aaya Ram, bhagaya Ram

You don¿t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

All the major papers had a ball on Tuesday morning over the Musharraf-Sharief comedy which started late on Sunday night and ended on mid-morning on Monday. They also proved my point that sometimes it is so much easer to write an edit than breathing.

And believe me there is none easier than an edit on Pakistan. Its rulers manage, almost invariably, to get things so dreadfully wrong that our leader-writers have a field day. All they have to do is to do is to give quick recap of the events (125-150 words), and bit of moral posturing (250-300 words), a para for the conclusion (100 words), a mot juste at the end, and you are done.

And if, like this time, something happens in mid-morning, it is even better. You can go out for a long lunch and start writing at 5 pm and not analyse anything much, saying not enough is known just now, let us wait for tomorrow. Indeed, in many ways, that is the real skill: to squeeze two edits out of a slam-dunk topic like Pakistan.

The Telegraph, Hindu, Pioneer, Indian Express, Times of India all wrote on Day 1. But not the Asian Age. I wonder why.

The Telegraph edit was a gem of the genre of say-nothing edits. It said absolutely nothing at all of note, thus leaving the reader completely foxed. I think it was written in about 20 minutes, before lunch. The writer did manage to slip a point that " But what is particularly disconcerting about the former prime minister¿s adventure at the tarmac is that it has forced upon the Musharraf administration a precedent that it will be compelled to follow in response to another break-in — that of another exiled former premier when she attempts to force her way into the country soon. Unless, of course, the president climbs down from his high horse and seals a deal with Benazir Bhutto." 

The Hindu said the Musharraf government is "likely to be hauled up for contempt of court." Ho ho, as if it cares. Then it abused the general as a "power-hungry general". The same paper had praised him as a wise peace-maker some months ago. But it did point out the obvious "…forcing Mr. Sharif into exile was an authoritarian regime`s only option… it renders Ms. Bhutto`s attempts at reaching an understanding with him indefensible."  

The Pioneer, as behoves a paper that berates Pakistan whenever it can also cracked a good joke. " The message Mr Sharief has sent out to Pakistan`s seething masses on Monday is simple yet quite significant: Unlike Ms Bhutto and the PPP, neither he nor his party, the Pakistan Muslim League (N), is willing to compromise democracy for power." If Nawaz Sharief is a democrat, George Bush is a Iraqi.

The Indian Express said much the same thing as the others. For example "No one expects political usurpers like Musharraf to differentiate between right and wrong" and "…Musharraf has repeatedly demonstrated that political competence has deserted him. Instead of letting Sharief and the other exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back into Pakistan in a bow to the popular resentment against army rule, Musharraf made the former a martyr and discredited the latter." Why is that so stupid? Then came the apocalypse warning. "With no possibility of legally extending his tenure either as president or as army chief, Musharraf might have to fall back on martial law. As he sinks, Musharraf may want to take Pakistan with him."

The Times of India warned against the dangers of civil war which "land Pakistan in the same predicament as 1971. That would have major implications for India as well as for the international community. New Delhi, of course, has little leverage in Pakistan and cannot hope to play the sort of role there that it did in Nepal `s case. But it can alert the international community to the dangers of a civil insurrection in Pakistan . Those who have leverage on Musharraf - the US in particular - must influence him to adopt a moderate course."  

Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com