In fact it was during these many prime ministerial sackings and mid-term elections in 1993 that I once asked a prominent Pakistani thinker when it would be that an elected government in Pakistan acquires real control over its foreign, Kashmir and India policies and its nuclear weapons. His answer was quite brilliant: when three army chiefs have retired and gone home to play golf, and when two elected governments have completed their full terms without being dismissed. The truth is, in the past 35 years, only two chiefs have retired to go home at the end of their full terms. But no elected government has lasted a full term. Worse, no Pakistani election has been held under an incumbent government. It’s always been held either under a military dictator, or a caretaker under him, or the Establishment trinity. It is for all these reasons that the latest change is so significant, and intriguing.

Both, the significance and the mystery, arise from the manner of Musharraf’s departure. Over six decades a clear pattern has emerged in the way a Pakistani dictator, whether military or civil, goes. He is either killed or jailed, or he fights an unsuccessful war against India and goes in disgrace, usually into exile. In his departure, Musharraf has bucked that trend, a first for a dictator in Pakistan’s history. He has been removed through an unstoppable democratic movement, howsoever imperfect. As a consequence, he remains alive, free and in his own country. But one other reason it has turned out this way is that the army has allowed the civilians to remove him, while at the same time ensuring his liberty and safety. Under Kiyani, the Pakistani army has earned wide appreciation for staying out of politics. What is not clear, however, is whether it has also agreed to cede to the political class the control over those three issues, foreign and Kashmir policies, and nuclear weapons, Ghulam Ishaque Khan’s “family silver”.

... contd.