The "Musharraf Period," and why the Gen. Musharraf fell out of power so easily

[Paul2]

I'm continuing my effort to understand Pakistani political landscape, and how Pakistan came to the situation it is in now.

I remember watching news of "yet another" revolution in Pakistan, or that's how it was reported by the media back in 1999.

Even as a 9 years old, I couldn't have not felt that "something was off." Revolutions can't be so peaceful. It felt empty, and choreographed. All I knew it was certainly not a Wuchang Uprising.

Now looking at it 20 years after. The whole period looks very uneventful other than it's ending following tumultuous years after Bhutto's assassination.

How loyal was really the army to Musharraf? From what I researched, he was really a decorated, and connected military man, who could've walked into any barracks, and redone the 1999 with ease.

Why he was so easily deposed? Was he really the top dog at the time, or were somebody else still behind him was the real brains behind his rule? Did his ouster really happen because of popular resistance getting so powerful, or he was given a kick to the back from behind?

 

[omarm]

I'm continuing my effort to understand Pakistani political landscape, and how Pakistan came to the situation it is in now.

I remember watching news of "yet another" revolution in Pakistan, or that's how it was reported by the media back in 1999.

Even as a 9 years old, I couldn't have not felt that "something was off." Revolutions can't be so peaceful. It felt empty, and choreographed. All I knew it was certainly not a Wuchang Uprising.

Now looking at it 20 years after. The whole period looks very uneventful other than it's ending following tumultuous years after Bhutto's assassination.

How loyal was really the army to Musharraf? From what I researched, he was really a decorated, and connected military man, who could've walked into any barracks, and redone the 1999 with ease.

Why he was so easily deposed? Was he really the top dog at the time, or were somebody else still behind him was the real brains behind his rule? Did his ouster really happen because of popular resistance getting so powerful, or he was given a kick to the back from behind?

I wonder if it was the continuation of US pressure, they kept complaining about him and ISI (saying one thing doing another). Zardari or Nawaz would have been he perfect guys for the US, and they were, literally bent over backwards.

 

[313ghazi]

I'm continuing my effort to understand Pakistani political landscape, and how Pakistan came to the situation it is in now.

I remember watching news of "yet another" revolution in Pakistan, or that's how it was reported by the media back in 1999.

Even as a 9 years old, I couldn't have not felt that "something was off." Revolutions can't be so peaceful. It felt empty, and choreographed. All I knew it was certainly not a Wuchang Uprising.

Now looking at it 20 years after. The whole period looks very uneventful other than it's ending following tumultuous years after Bhutto's assassination.

How loyal was really the army to Musharraf? From what I researched, he was really a decorated, and connected military man, who could've walked into any barracks, and redone the 1999 with ease.

Why he was so easily deposed? Was he really the top dog at the time, or were somebody else still behind him was the real brains behind his rule? Did his ouster really happen because of popular resistance getting so powerful, or he was given a kick to the back from behind?

He was unpopular and a selfish man.

1. He was responsible for Kargil which wasn't the armies finest hour. Apparently even the airforce was unaware of the plan.

2. He bent over backwards for the US at a heavy expense for Pakistan. We never really extracted enough value for our services.

3. He caved in to the lawyers movement after suspending the chief justice for corruption.

4. He restored the likes of Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari to power and gave them a clean chit to do politics following his NRO.

He did all this to maintain a grip on power. Ultimately if you stand for nothing you fall for anything. His first mistake was not hanging Nawaz Sharif in 1999.

 

[Xestan]

I'm continuing my effort to understand Pakistani political landscape, and how Pakistan came to the situation it is in now.

I remember watching news of "yet another" revolution in Pakistan, or that's how it was reported by the media back in 1999.

Even as a 9 years old, I couldn't have not felt that "something was off." Revolutions can't be so peaceful. It felt empty, and choreographed. All I knew it was certainly not a Wuchang Uprising.

Now looking at it 20 years after. The whole period looks very uneventful other than it's ending following tumultuous years after Bhutto's assassination.

How loyal was really the army to Musharraf? From what I researched, he was really a decorated, and connected military man, who could've walked into any barracks, and redone the 1999 with ease.

Why he was so easily deposed? Was he really the top dog at the time, or were somebody else still behind him was the real brains behind his rule? Did his ouster really happen because of popular resistance getting so powerful, or he was given a kick to the back from behind?

Musharraf was not a popular choice in the Army itself, and he was not a decorated soldier as you said. In fact, he was 4th in line for the Army Chief.

The reason why he was easily deposed, even after having the constitutional power to dissolve the Parliament, is because he was extremely unpopular by that time. I still remember people on roads celebrating his resignation. When he took off his uniform in the previous year, he lost the power to command the Army, and the new chief was a supporter of democracy in the country.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I'm continuing my effort to understand Pakistani political landscape, and how Pakistan came to the situation it is in now.

I remember watching news of "yet another" revolution in Pakistan, or that's how it was reported by the media back in 1999.

Even as a 9 years old, I couldn't have not felt that "something was off." Revolutions can't be so peaceful. It felt empty, and choreographed. All I knew it was certainly not a Wuchang Uprising.

Now looking at it 20 years after. The whole period looks very uneventful other than it's ending following tumultuous years after Bhutto's assassination.

How loyal was really the army to Musharraf? From what I researched, he was really a decorated, and connected military man, who could've walked into any barracks, and redone the 1999 with ease.

Why he was so easily deposed? Was he really the top dog at the time, or were somebody else still behind him was the real brains behind his rule? Did his ouster really happen because of popular resistance getting so powerful, or he was given a kick to the back from behind?

While I'm impressed at your level of understanding and inquisitiveness, I think you are missing some local context. Calling the coup a 'revolution' is incorrect in my opinion, revolutions as I might categorise them usually come from the masses and proletariat, and they are usually ideologically driven. Whereas in Pakistan, our coups are usually conducted quickly and quietly by a few powerful individuals, as opposed to starving peasants, and they are usually not ideological in nature. In the case of Musharraf's takeover, all it took was some quick internal consolidation within the army, a few arrests and troops deployed, as well as the capture of the national TV station. And it was anything but ideological, it was more about convenience and circumstance. You cannot begin to tackle the nature of the coup without first understanding the above context, and also reading up about the Kargil conflict, without which the coup might not have ever happened.

As for loyalty from the army, although many generals from within its ranks had their differences with Musharraf, the nature of the army is that of rigid hierarchy and strict adherence to order and discipline. I've heard it said elsewhere, but can't remember quite where, but it seems that "if a question arises between rank and reason, they choose rank.". Unfortunately, in these cases it seems that if a question arises also between one's sworn oath and the boss' orders, they also choose the latter regrettably.

 

[Paul2]

Calling the coup a 'revolution' is incorrect in my opinion, revolutions as I might categorise them usually come from the masses and proletariat, and they are usually ideologically driven. Whereas in Pakistan, our coups are usually conducted quickly and quietly

That's what I stated before. While it was clearly attempted to be portrayed by the media as a "revolution," it clearly didn't feel like that.

Out of all things, it was some American, or some other English language satellite channel as I remember.