Not in my name

I have to disagree with Amit's take on Musharraf's visit to India. And I'm not doing it for emotional reasons.

I agree with the overall sentiment of Amit's post - that the opening up of trade between the two nations will invariably go a long way towards building peace. I also support people-to-people relationships and dislike mixing cricket matches with politics.

However, I oppose any deal with Musharraf on one rational ground alone and that is the simple notion that the General - as all dictators - will act in the best interest of himself. One may argue that elected leaders also act in their own interests. However, democratic systems have checks and balances that counter any adventure-seekers. Can Musharraf ever offer a quid pro quo agreement with India? Let us try to do an exercise by wearing his shoes:

Advantages
1. Increased trade between the two nations bodes well for the economies of both countries, particularly to Pakistan's exports.
2. A positive press in India, often acts as a counter balance to a hostile press in his own nation. In a perverse way, a deal with India could bolster the legitimacy of his illegal position as supremo. In any case, India can possibly never deal with a civilian government in Pakistan -at least not without one which has tacit approval of the army. Therefore, an agreement acts as a seal of personal approval for Musharraf, from India and the West.
3. The United States could look favorably at a deal with India since that leaves one less strategic problem to worry about for them. They will do all they can to keep Musharraf in power to enforce any deals he makes with India.

Disadvantages
1. The very terrorists that his army has trained will need to be subdued - a problem described rather aptly by Shelley. As a RAND corporation article says, Musharraf has consistently sided with militants:

Complicating the situation, the repressive political environment in Pakistan encourages the population to turn to fundamentalist Islamic parties. In the last parliamentary election, President Pervez Musharraf closed the political arena to secular candidates Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. This manipulation of the electoral system gave more votes to the coalition of Islamic parties than in previous elections.

2. Peace with India could reduce the raison d'etre of Pakistan's defense spending and the power of the military in day to day affairs of the government. Any perceived reduction in the army's role would have dire consequences for Musharraf personally.
3. Any reduction in Musharraf's power would certainly imperil his freedom and possibly his life. A new government could conceivably sacrifice him on charges of nuclear proliferation.

For Musharraf, the disadvantages of a deal clearly outwiegh its advantages. Hence, as an Indian, I would be wary of any negotiations with him. The General's track record offers ample testimony to his blatant disregard for agreements. He cannot be trusted to see any peace agreement through.

Directions to add this image to your blog are here. Varnam has this list of participating bloggers: The Acorn, India Defence, Secular Right, Nerve Endings Firing Away, Rabble Rousing Random Ramblings, Seriously Sandeep, Dancing with Dogs, Rojnamcha, Niket Kaisare