The writer is a retired army officer and a freelance columnist

pineswah@tx.micro.net.pk

There were three bad calls over the last ten days, two from the government and one from Ms Bhutto. In the first, the President was most ill advised to be seen in the company of Chaudhries Shujaat and Pervez of the House of Zahoor (widely reported to be the main architects of the Great Cooperatives Scam), hard on the heels of the well-publicised return of some of the stolen money to the account holders in the coops. In which, mark, the General was seen to be so solicitous towards the poor things, guiding and helping the aged among them on to the stage to receive their cheques, a kind smile upon his face. Why then, the very next day, were the two Chaudhries allowed to call on him? The Chaudhries had extended their support to the General for the Agra summit we were told. Big deal. For it is not as if either of them are any great experts in foreign affairs; nor any great political heavyweights (barring the protection they provide to the now sacked - thank the good Lord - crooked "parliamentarians" of the PML-L), if their ignominious showing in the local bodies elections is taken into account.

But, was the meeting predicated (and recommended) not on the necessity of General Musharraf being in any great need of the Chaudhries' go-ahead to him for the Agra summit, but on the Chaudhries' own narrow political considerations? Is it not the case that just a day later the PML(L) announced its candidates for Nazim of Lahore and Rawalpindi, and the names of the Chaudhries' close kin as Nazims of four districts? Is it the case then, that being seen in the company of the President at this time was meant to send a clear message to the country that the PML(L)'s candidates had the complete support of the military government? If this was the case, then it was a bad call, indeed. For, having ascended The Hill, it is now even more important for General Musharraf to be seen way above the party fray.

The second bad call was when Asif Zardari was moved without warning from Islamabad to Hyderabad in the dead of night and produced before a court as accused in a murder case, the last hearing of which was held in September 2000, ie, almost eleven months ago. He was without legal counsel, and protested loudly that he was being set up for being hanged "like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto"; that the government violated Supreme Court orders that he was to be detained under medical treatment at PIMS, and not moved without permission from the Court. What was the whole point of this entirely precipitate action? Why does the government repeatedly lose sight of the fact that there is already a very strong perception in the smaller provinces that their political leaders are treated quite differently from those of the Punjab? Why does it persistently take steps that strengthen, nay cement, this perception into hard fact? There may well be a case that Zardari has to answer, but why can't he be made to answer according to law? The upshot of all of that heavy-handed action was that Ms Bhutto hit back almost immediately (as she would) in articles in the press which were also posted on the Internet. While a case can be made against the PPP having ducked the invitation to meet the President for consultations (in which it could have given its view on the coming Summit), it is actions such as Zardari's ill thought out shifting that damage the government's own imperatives.

And now for Benazir Bhutto's bad call. Appearing on Hard Talk India, she said that whilst Musharraf was a "better dictator" than the fascist Nawaz Sharif, she could not support his visit to India because he was not a representative of the people. Two problems here. If Nawaz Sharif was a fascist and a "dictator", why is the Peoples Party in an unholy compact with him? Secondly if, say, the worthless Nawaz Sharif, a "fascist" to boot please remember, was in power today (mud in my mouth!) would Ms Bhutto have supported his talking with India? Knowing full well that he was severely incapacitated by virtue of being mentally challenged and having his own business interests closer to his heart than Pakistan's?

I write this from Delhi, a city I last visited in 1956 and of which I remember very little but that there was a Connaught Place and a Chandni Chowk, and that I played with Adil, son of Mohammad Yunus (both father and son now deceased, RIP) later a key advisor to Indira Gandhi. Also that Uncle Yunus was an immaculate man who used to carry a starched white handkerchief in the cuff of his sherwani, and which he once used to clean a very small scuff mark on the fender of his car, a gleaming black Humber Super Snipe (if I remember correctly), before he got into it one evening. The mark came from a tennis ball that Adil and I were playing with, and which inadvertently landed on the car. We both thought that we were going to be cuffed on the ear, but escaped any punishment at all.

Looking out of the bus window on our drive into town from the airport, what did I see but the ubiquitous plastic bag; the garbage dumped on the roadside - God, what similarity. The traffic, however, is more docile; there is far less agro on the roads. People don't blow their horns as much as they do in the Fatherland, and I haven't heard even one pressure horn - Omar Asghar Khan please note. Incidentally it was good to read in the papers last week that Minister Omar had asked the Peshawar police to try and get rid of the pressure horns softly softly. He is also reported to have said that he would speak to the horn manufacturers to tone down the sound of their products. This is just to remind him that pressure horns are imported from Taiwan etc, and there is not much chance that manufacturers there will listen to him. Far more importantly, pressure horns are already banned in our Highway Code - why even consider 'muting' them then? No minister, no. You are part of a military government - just see that the damned things are ripped out of the errant vehicles. If a military government can't do this, no government can.

Back to Delhi. This is a swinging city. Every hotel is brimming full of foreign businessmen, tourists and such. You could as well be in London, or Bangkok, even Dubai. While a whole lot goes into making any country a tourist/investment-friendly place, foreigners have to first of all feel safe there. No one glares at women (the pejoratively called goris included) in Delhi, no one ogles them lasciviously. No wonder foreign investment is pouring into the country. While we can do it too, we have such a long way to go. Incidentally, the services provided by the hotels are extremely good; the staff exceptionally polite and courteous. While we have some pretty well run hotels in our country, not one of them can hold a candle to Delhi's.

On the Summit front it seems that Pakistan is slowly winning the diplomatic battle, the assertion that Kashmir is the issue and the easy visas whilst a good thing should be secondary, being a very good move. Also, the invitation to the APHC to come to tea has quite stumped the leadership here. It is actually leaning on people not to attend which fact is being reported in the Press to the certain embarrassment of the Indian government. For it does show the world that whilst Pakistan wants to include the Kashmiris in any solution, the Indians obdurately refuse to do so.