* EARLY LIFE:
– The second of three brothers, Musharraf was born into a middle class Muslim family in India in August 1943. His family moved to the newly created majority-Muslim state of Pakistan following India’s independence and partition in 1947.
– He spent seven years in Turkey, during his civil servant father’s posting to Ankara. In 1956 the family settled in Karachi.
* MILITARY CAREER:
– Entering the Pakistan Military Academy in 1961, the keen sportsman first saw action in the 1965 war against India and was decorated for gallantry. He had to endure the army’s humiliating defeat by India in the 1971 war and served for seven years in Pakistan’s special service commando group.
* BLOODLESS COUP:
– Promoted to the rank of general and named army chief in October 1998, Musharraf seized power from then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999 in a bloodless coup. He first led the country as chief executive and then won a five-year presidential term in a 2002 referendum critics say was rigged.
– One of President George W. Bush’s most important non-NATO allies in Washington’s war on terrorism, supporters painted Musharraf as a strong leader who can save Pakistan’s moderate Muslim majority from militant, religious extremism.
– However, a bloody army assault on Islamabad’s Red Mosque in July, during which at least 105 people were killed, led to a rise in attacks by Islamist militants that have killed at least 800 people.
* NEW ELECTIONS & STATE OF EMERGENCY:
– Musharraf won most votes in presidential elections on Oct 6, but was waiting for the Supreme Court to confirm the legality of his re-election. The court met on November 2 and the next day Musharraf imposed emergency rule.
– Musharraf said he acted in response to rising Islamist militancy in nuclear-armed Pakistan and what he called a paralysis of government by judicial interference.
– Most Pakistanis and foreign diplomats however believe his main motive was to prevent the Supreme Court invalidating his re-election while still army chief.
Source: Reuters/ www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk
E-mail this article to a friend
Tags: 1943, allies, Ankara, Islamist militancy, military career, Musharraf, NATO, Pakistan Military Academy, Pervez, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, special service commando group, Turkey, war on terrorism
5 responses so far ↓
1 ziaw // Nov 11, 2007 at 2:54 am
Mush is a traitor and he should be hanged. I don’t care about what his past was. I only know that he is screwing our future.
2 waqar06 // Nov 11, 2007 at 2:57 am
I saw the interview with her mother on a tv program and doesn’t seem that he was such a bad person at all. Irrespective, his mother though that he was not as smart as his other brother.
3 Editor 1 // Nov 11, 2007 at 3:40 am
Part of the reason why I posted this story to you was to demonstrate the fact that when reading his personal-political history President Pervez Musharraf comes across as a fairly sensible person. Some might even consider his track record to suggest that he is quite patriotic. Why, then, did he resort to taking a course of actions that has brought Pakistan to this point?
I believe the answer lies not in an analysis of Pervez Musharraf as a person. The problem is institutional. Even if democratic rule is restored in Pakistan soon, I don’t think there is anyone who would be surprised to find that the military has once again snatched the reins away from the political parties.
I understand that President Musharraf’s personal decision making has contributed enormously to this sad situation of the country today, but what needs to be realized parallel to this is that these problems will persist if the larger institutional framework of Pakistan is not restructured in a way that the armed forces are isolated from the mainstream politics of Pakistan.
The armed forces, I believe, have had a disproportionate involvement in the political developments of Pakistan. Political parties have not had the optimal conditions to flourish. Almost always, they have had to co-opt with the armed forces. The political processes, bodies and functions have always been looked into by the armed forces. The use of coercive force and legitimized violence is perhaps the only mandate the armed forces have used to rule the country. That, and the undeniable fact that throughout Pakistan’s 60-year history, there has been a strict correlation between U.S. aid and the military regimes of Pakistan. With the gloated defense budget of Pakistan, the logic behind these facts is not hard to decipher.
I read an interesting headline somewhere, that “every country in the world has an army, but the Pakistan army has a country”.
Editor
4 guyFromLondon // Nov 11, 2007 at 4:17 am
Quite right, but you have to give due credit to the army for being able to “get things done”. I have seen so many institutions and organizations in Pakistan which, while under the administration of army personnel, have progressed a lot. If I look at the country, while army people may have their own, arguably unlikable, way of dealing with things, they do get stuff done. I am not saying that army people necessarily have any better ethics as compared to civilians — it’s just that an average army guy appears to be much more capable at running large institutions as compared to an average civilian guy!
5 Editor 1 // Nov 11, 2007 at 4:26 am
Well, yes, I agree with you. Army does get things done, but lets not treat that as the objective reality. The reason why this is the case is because the army is the only institution that has the physical capability to enforce its writ. And whats wrong with that? Well, several things are.
For one, our uniformed men seem to forget that their principal priority is to serve, not rule. It wasn’t long ago that there was an overwhelming majority of people in Pakistan in favor of Musharraf leading Pakistan. What happened thereafter is a direct result of the authoritarian impulses of his office, which is something we, as a people, have come to expect from the armed forces.
My own contention was that civil institutions need to be run by civilians, but the army should play a role too, if they are so good at getting things done. I do not like to see the armed forces control my electricity, water, gas, media, cricket board, education etc. Mediation is the key here.
If the armed forces recognize themselves as the most established instiution of Pakistan, then they should use this fact to leverage control into rightful hands instead of claiming direct control of the country itself. This is not service to Pakistan. This is direct control of Pakistan. Surely there is a difference.
So, yes, the army gets things done. But surely that alone does not warrant that the army alone should have the right to get things done. How else will the people of Pakistan develop the capacity to run their institutions and make decisions for themselves?
Editor
Leave a Comment