At this point I must mention a short letter of protest I just received from the Pakistan High Commission, complaining that The Indian Express and particularly this writer were using nasty language about their leaders.

The truth is, we are much tougher on our own leaders but they have the thick skin of politicians. I can’t argue that they listen to criticism any more than the soldiers, or change their ways. But they are more tolerant. So really, this paper has never meant to be disrespectful to leaders — military or civilian — or another country.

There are two more letters, from regular readers. One asks for evidence for the mention in one of my earlier columns of some declassified documents that showed the Americans had identified Ayub as a future ruler of Pakistan many years before he actually took over. The other asks if the Pakistani army acquired its pre-eminent position in the power structure sort of coincidentally, or was it by design? Here are a few facts.

There is telling correspondence in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-57, Vol VIII on South Asia, pages 412 to 481. A despatch from Horace Hildreth, the then US ambassador in Pakistan, describes the then prime minister, Mohammed Ali, as a weakling and Ayub, then army chief, “the final arbiter of the destiny of cabinets.” This note is dated August 26, 1955. Just about five weeks later, in another cable the US counsel-general in Lahore records a fiery conversation where Ayub says he “stands to lose his trousers” if the Americans do not deliver on their promises and goes on to advise that “we should strengthen Ayub’s position in Pakistan” and goes on to suggest that on his forthcoming visit Assistant Secretary Allen “reassure Ayub”. And all this a full seven years before Ayub became President.

... contd.