General Pervez Musharraf has snuffed out democracy in Pakistan as easily as blowing out a candle. Under Mr. Nawaz Sharif’s ‘democratic’ rule, editors were jailed, opposition leaders were hounded out of the country, the judiciary was blackmailed and the opposition parties and movements were denied even a modicum of political liberty. In the eyes of the hapless folks the civilian rule became synonymous with corruption. If today the civil society in Pakistan heaves a sigh of relief at this demise of ‘democracy’ rather than rising up in a popular insurrection, then the ‘democratic’ pretenders themselves are to blame.

Be that as it may, the Kargil misadventure is said to be at the heart of the present crisis in Pakistan. The foreign policy of a country is, in the ultimate analysis, an extension of its domestic policy. The ruling classes of Pakistan, especially the dominant military component, could exercise political hegemony over society only by constantly whipping up national chauvinism and war hysteria, and of late, with an added safe dose of Islamic fundamentalism. This is often disguised as the ground swell of solidarity for the self-determination of Kashmiris. It is within this larger context the Kargil fiasco became a bone of contention between the civilian and military leaderships, locked in a perennial battle for supremacy.

Now, the US disengagement in Afghanistan and its altering of what it calls ‘strategic asymmetry’ in the subcontinent are bound to signify an inevitable dilution of the role of the Pakistan military establishment. But the generals refuse to be cut to size. There have been reports — both real and exaggerated — of official attempts at stoking the fires of fundamentalism in a limited way without letting the flames engulf the entire state. Dark visions of disintegration of the Pakistani state — a nuclear one — and a Taliban-style takeover by the fundamentalist fringe have been drawn up only to project the military as the only cementing force and the last buffer against an Islamic takeover.

Invoking all such apprehensions — more pretended than real — the Americans, despite all their hype about democracy, have chosen to treat the new military rulers of Pakistan with kid gloves. Only Clinton is a bit upset that Gen. Musharraf has not set a date for the return of the democracy.

Meanwhile, Brajesh Mishra is rushing to Washington for discussions with the Pak developments figuring on the top of the agenda. For all their concern about the recent developments and their attendant risks, the Indian rulers should shed all their illusions of a US-India axis against a Pakistani ‘nuclear-Islamic threat’. In the more immediate context, they should resist the temptation to launch into sudden bout of democracy rhetoric so as to reject any move for rapprochement coming from military rulers. After all, Musharraf has only done to his country what the Indian rulers have been periodically doing to Kashmir. A thaw in the Indo-Pak relations — irrespective of who is there in the saddle and for how long and no matter whether the generals out there are serious about their overtures or not — would be a big contribution to the strengthening of the forces of democracy in Pakistan.