The exit of Pervez Musharraf from authority brings to an anti-climatic end an entire epoch in the sub-continent's contemporary history. The flamboyant General may have become an object of hate and derision in his own country of late, but at the turn of the century he seemed almost poised to make history.

Sadly for him, Musharraf failed to leave behind anything memorable about his uninterrupted nine-year reign. Which is why his rambling farewell speech, listing all his mundane achievements on the economic and political fronts did not generate any kind of sentiment or remorse among Pakistanis, many of whom burst into celebrations with unseemly haste the moment he announced his resignation.

History will probably judge Musharraf more sympathetically for it is true that he tried his best to prevent Pakistan's degeneration into chaos and anarchy, often resorting to rank duplicity by presenting one face to the Americans and another to his own people.

At home, he tried to be a crusader for Kashmir, using the backdrop of the Kargil operation he masterminded without then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's knowledge. Having seized power in Kargil's aftermath from a defeated, demoralised civilian administration, Musharraf promptly attempted to turn peacemaker, while remaining fixated on Kashmir. The July 2000 Agra Summit collapsed due to his haste and intransigence, matched in equal measure by the NDA Government's fully justified rigidity.

It was at Agra that Musharraf first described insurgency in the Kashmir Valley as "freedom struggle" comparable to Palestine. I cannot forget his terminology since it was used in response to my question at the ill-conceived, secretly televised breakfast meeting with 20 Indian Editors at Oberoi Amarvilas where Musharraf, who had proclaimed himself President of Pakistan a few days earlier, was staying.

I got to ask the first question at the meeting and innocuously queried him about cross-border terrorism. He gave a detailed, obviously well-prepared reply in which he outlined a four-stage solution to Kashmir, which shorn of verbiage amounted to seeking a division of the State with the Valley being annexed by Pakistan or, as a long shot, being granted "Azadi", guaranteed by both protagonists. It was in this context that he emphasised the need for out-of-the-box thinking, using phrases not usually heard from straitlaced army brass or convention-bound politicians. Ironically these very ideas and terms have been recycled by self-styled opinion-makers and newspaper tigers of India during the last fortnight to plead for the Valley's Azadi!

In retrospect I feel Musharraf always spoke from his gut especially on India-Pakistan relations. His Agra gamble may have backfired miserably for he had to return empty-handed without even paying obeisance at the dargah of the Garib Nawaz at Ajmer. But he managed to alter international perceptions of the separatist agitation in the Valley by insisting on calling it a freedom struggle, much to New Delhi's discomfiture.

Interestingly, however, hardline secessionists of Kashmir never regarded him with respect. In fact, many doubted his loyalty to the faith because of his unorthodox lifestyle. I recall a Press Conference addressed by his Foreign Minister Mahmud Kasoori during which he made an impassioned plea to the Indian media to empathise with his President who was far from being a rabid Islamist: "He smokes, drinks whisky and even keeps dogs, all of which are haraam in our religion. He is like you and me. So, stop vilifying him as a sponsor of jihad," Kasoori implored. But the failure to make progress on Kashmir, particularly after 9/11 and US pressure, cooked Musharraf's goose.

Never loved by a Punjabi-dominated Pakistani Establishment on account of his Mohajir origins, the President progressively lost support among the people who concluded his rhetoric was not only empty but also repetitive.

Where Musharraf failed, the hardliners have succeeded. First, they managed to destabilise Pakistan. The storming of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad marked the beginning of jihadi resurgence, which he was unable to control. The turbulent frontier regions bordering Afghanistan virtually seceded and every attempt by Pakistani forces to regain authority over the rebellious, pro-Taliban tribes met increasingly fierce reaction. So much so that a big city like Peshawar seems to have slipped out of Islamabad's control over the last few weeks.

The murder of two alleged sex workers, one of whose face was brutally mutilated with rifle butts, by the Taliban in lawless Peshawar earlier this week, shows the extent of the Pakistani regime's steady retreat. With Pakistan itself hurtling towards anarchy and jihadi terror making further inroads each passing day, it is no surprise that Kashmiri separatists have become more emboldened than ever before.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Jamaat leader, is reported to have openly declared his loyalty to Pakistan. Even Omar Abdullah, toasted by the secularist Indian media for his fraudulent double-speak in Parliament during the Trust vote last month, has begun talking of the Azadi option.

And why not? Reinforcing the well-known fact that many Hindus have no stomach for a fight and would rather live in subjugation than valiantly defend their honour, celebrity writers and publicity-seeking showgirls have been harping on the Kashmiris' right to Azadi. Last weekend two prominent newspaper columnists wrote about the need to think out-of-the-box (a Musharraf copyright in this context) urging us to seriously consider if it is morally right to hold "unwilling" Kashmiris back in this country. I agree with them. As a matter of policy, the Government must encourage all those who have no loyalty to this country to leave, migrating across the Line of Control to the country of their dreams.

Once they step over the de facto border, possessions they leave behind should be declared Enemy Property, reviving the provisions that existed on the statute books at least till after the 1965 Indo-Pak war. But under no circumstances can Indian citizens be allowed to promote secession. Advocating the right of Kashmiris to secede, as a professional female agitator (who believes the Vajpayee Government staged the December 13, 2001 attack on Parliament) reportedly did in Srinagar, is tantamount to treason and must invite provisions contained in the law relating to waging war against the State. Personally, I feel that even publicising such treasonable views, leave alone using dedicated columns to indulge in secessionist propaganda, should invite the charge of promoting terrorism and anti-national activity.

No true Indian can forget the way 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits were turfed out of the Valley by secessionists in a horrific instance of ethnic cleansing.

The secularists bay for Radovan Milosevic's blood, but not a word is uttered against the butchers who masterminded the elimination of Pandits and the systematic targeting of thousands of patriotic security personnel who laid down their lives so that the tricolour could continue to flutter atop Government buildings in Srinagar. Traitors are cowards by choice. Like all cowards, they will die many times before their death. But the average Indian -- people like you and me -- will die but once, defending the nation's integrity and honour. Jai Hind!

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, August 24, 2008