Now the trouble with Musharraf is his delusion that he is very clever, and can fool India's polite and peace-loving politicians into accepting anything in return for cessation of the proven, Pak-backed terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir as well as elsewhere in our country.
Thus, when Thapar countered by asking whether self-governance and withdrawal of armed forces would be applicable also to those areas such as the Northern Areas of Jammu and Kashmir (which are under Pakistan's control), Musharraf's face visibly lost colour, his eyes blinked and he embarrassingly answered, 'Yes that could be considered yes.'
That quick, combative reaction by Thapar should make Musharraf realise that educated Indians do know that even after the Jammu and Kashmir Maharaja had legally acceded his whole state to India in October 1947, Pakistan has been, despite the UN resolutions, in unlawful occupation of the so-called 'Azad Kashmir' and the geographical entity called Northern Areas comprising Gilgit, Baltistan, Hunza etc. which together equal nearly one-third of the former Jammu and Kashmir kingdom.
Another trouble with Musharraf is his delusion that he is an innovator. Thus it was that he described the suggested 'self-governance' of Kashmir as being more than autonomy but less than independence, something in-between, with joint management by India and Pakistan. Now that is surely novel, but a surrealistic combination of contradiction and confusion.
Just see the meanings of the phrases Musharraf used. According to Wilkipedia, cited by Google, 'Self-governance is an abstract concept Generally when self-governance of nation-states is discussed, it is called national sovereignty --- a concept important in international law In politics, a self-governing city or region e g Kurdistan, Kosovo, Hong Kong SAR is autonomous. Autonomy is usually a pre-requisite to separation or secession; however, autonomy does not necessarily lead to separation. Autonomy is not independence.'
Where in the above scheme does Musharraf's 'self-governance' solution fall in respect of Jammu and Kashmir? He admits he does not know, except that it is 'in between autonomy and independence'; he says it will have to be discussed with the Indian government and, he hastens to add, with the Kashmiris. This is the kind of wordsmith, readers, that India has had to deal with.
The man doesn't know, or doesn't want to concede, that the Jammu and Kashmir state in India is currently under a democratically elected coalition and that it is the only one of the 28 states and seven Union Territories in federal India which has its own state constitution that was framed by a state Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of a universal adult franchise; he pretends he isn't aware that only in matters of defence, foreign affairs and communications does it have to abide by the policies of New Delhi.
Musharraf pretends he isn't aware that the geographical territory in which his Hurriyat lackeys live has the most unique freedom in the political world: it can refuse the applicability to itself of any law of the Indian Parliament and any amendment to the Constitution of India. That territory, moreover, has the legitimate freedom to create certain privileges for one category of its residents and deny those rights, including employment and voting rights, to another category.
What does the above territory in India be said to enjoy, Mr Musharraf? Isn't it autonomy short of independence? And what 'self-governance' do you now want to give it? He will not answer because he, though a commando, is shy to face the truth.
Musharraf believes the Indian people are ignorant of the state of affairs in that part of Jammu and Kashmir which has been under Pakistan's control since October 1947, and therefore he chooses to speak of a 'solution' to the 'Kashmir problem' exclusively in terms of the scenario in and around Srinagar. That belief probably arises from our politicians' cowardly reluctance to openly call a spade a spade, our media's repeated pleas for peace with Pakistan and the willingness of many an Indian to dump everything for a biryani in Lahore towards eternal friendship.
But we know the truth, Mr Musharraf, we who read and study. And the Indian government knows it too. It was the Indian embassy in Washington, DC which was the primary source of our Outlook magazine's tsunami expose of how Pakistan was exercising political tyranny in the Jammu and Kashmir part that it was illegally occupying. In its online issue of July 5, 2001, that magazine told us that:
So where then does President Musharraf place Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in his 'solution' to the 'Kashmir problem'? Is he ready to give them 'self-governance' or 'autonomy' or 'something in between'? He will not answer because, albeit being a commando, he shies from the truth of a real battle.
Tailpiece: At the end of the follow-up programme on Thapar's interview, the ongoing SMS poll of viewers showed that 84 per cent of them did not trust the Pakistan president. That is the basic trouble with Musharraf -- his credibility.