The ‘truth’ in Pervez Musharraf’s autobiography, “In the Line of Fire,” is extremely subjective and ‘appallingly distorted’ in many ways.

Pervez Musharraf, the former president of Pakistan and ex-chief of army staff, has always been synonymous with controversy. Whether it was the Kargil conflict of 1999 or the hijacking drama in the same year or the subsequent shocking coup or Pakistan’s indispensable role in the “War on Terror” or the country’s flimsy stand on nuclear-proliferation, Musharraf’s role in all these episodes has remained shrouded in mystery. In his autobiography, though he passionately claims that he wants the world to know the truth, he seeks to amend his controversial image in world politics by shrewdly ‘distorting the truth’ on the one hand and vehemently justifying his actions on the other. This autobiography according to him “is a window to Pakistan and his role in shaping it.” He continues, “My autobiography is my contribution to the history of our era. It is also of course my own story, expressed in my own way, about an eventful, turbulent life in which both luck and destiny played leading roles.”

Musharraf’s autobiography has taken a lot of flak for his ‘outrageous candour’ that “has angered governments, embarrassed leaders, and even provoked denials.” His ‘fabricated’ account of the Kargil conflict has caused quite a few raised eyebrows, particularly in India. He lambastes India’s accusation of Pakistani intrusions in the Siachen sector and defends his decision to “improve Pakistan’s defensive positions in coordination with the freedom fighters to deny access to the watershed by India” based on a ‘baseless’ evidence that apparently convinced him at that point of time that India was “‘creeping forward’ across the LOC” and it was on the threshold of waging yet another war against his country. In fact, probe findings worldwide have so far disclosed that the Pakistan Army was illegally encroaching on the Indian side of the Line of Control to “provide a fillip to the Kashmiri freedom movement” as Brig. (retd), Shaukat Qadir, the founder and former Vice-President of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, who now works as an independent analyst, wrote in a UK journal. When countries across the globe including Pakistan’s most ‘reliable’ ally, United States of America, ‘longtime’ ally, China, G8 nations and the European Union supported India and condemned Pakistani violation of the LOC, Pakistan continued to remain defiant about its military troops’ alleged intrusion in the Drass-Kargil sector, and instead passed the buck to the Mujahideen, according to Brig. Qadir.

Though the Indian Army faced several initial setbacks primarily because of the harshness of the high altitude terrain, it crushed the Pakistani military force with such belligerence and supremacy that Nawaz Sharif flew to US to garner Bill Clinton’s support who then advised him to pull back the troops from the Indian territory. Musharraf, in his autobiography, makes a mountain of Pakistan’s ‘fighting prowess and professionalism’ and amazingly takes credit of killing 1200 and injuring 3000 Indians. But he trivializes the thrashing that his own army received at the hands of a well-equipped Indian Army to such an extent that he claims of a victory in Kargil. He says, “I would like to state emphatically that whatever movement has taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is due considerably to the Kargil conflict.” Brajesh Mishra, former National Security Advisor, rightly retorts, “According to some estimates, the loss of Pakistani Army personnel was between 1,000 and 2,000....In order to maintain the fiction, these were so called 'freedom fighters' and Pakistan could not even give a decent burial to its soldiers. Is this tactical victory?” In fact, this is a ‘fictitious’ victory acted, directed and produced by Musharraf himself.
Musharraf goes on to deny that India and Pakistan were on the brink of a nuclear war claiming that in 1999, their nuclear capability was not yet ‘operational.’ This version contradicts former senior director of the National Security Council, who took notes during Clinton's one-on-one meeting with Sharif, Bruce Riedel’s version – “There had been some intelligence reporting about the disturbing evidence that the Pakistanis were preparing their nuclear arsenals for possible deployment.” His autobiography is therefore replete with contradictions.
Musharraf bluntly dismisses his critics’ contention that he had taken neither the political leadership nor the military hierarchy into confidence before launching the operation. When Nawaz Sharif finally admitted to the ‘truth’ that he was not informed about the army’s manoeuvres, it was too little too late. It was not only a pre-planned and shoddily-orchestrated infiltration attempt that horribly culminated in a gigantic ‘debacle’ for Pakistan but also brought about the inevitable ouster of Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, as differences between him and Musharraf transmuted from official to personal.

The hijacking drama that initially ‘endangered’ Pervez Musharraf’s life, ended up in yet another military coup in the history of Pakistan and the shameful exit of Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf maintains, “Sharif’s was the coup. You cannot summarily dismiss the army chief without giving him just cause and affording him due process. The army’s response was the countercoup.” Sharif, on the other hand, sticks to his stand that he sacked Musharraf “to head off a coup.” Sharif’s involvement in the hijacking of the plane that carried Musharraf and 197 other passengers on board cannot be ruled out completely. At the same time, Musharraf’s connection to the assassination of Mr. Iqbal Radh, Sharif’s Lawyer and removal of papers relating to the defence of Sharif from his office by his assassins, cannot be overlooked as well.

With regard to ‘A. Q. Khan’s Nuke Walmart,’ Musharraf confidently declares, “Neither the Pakistan Army nor any of the past governments of Pakistan was ever involved or had any knowledge of A. Q.’s proliferation activities.” Critics fairly counter these claims by questioning the credibility as well as competence of the Pakistan military. B. Raman, a critic, quips, “A. Q. Khan just put the centrifuges in his car and took them away, without his car being checked.” It is virtually impossible to surreptitiously export 80 tonnes of equipment from Pakistan to Iran, Libya and North Korea without the overt or covert assistance of the Pakistani military. In his autobiography, he yet again portrays his flip-flops on matters of justice through his decision to “avoid an open trial of A. Q” and “put him under protective custody,” this time fearing public protests. The same person stripped Sharif off all his powers insolently because he committed treason. The truth definitely lies in the fact that he does not want A. Q to drag army’s name into this dirty business.
His outlandish statement – “There is a strong probability that the Indian uranium enrichment program may also have its roots in the Dubai-base network and could be a copy of Pakistani centrifuge design” – has left even the layman on the streets of India bewildered. B. Raman jibes, “There are two categories of liars – intelligent and unintelligent. Intelligent liars take care while lying to prevent their being caught lying. Unintelligent liars are liars by instinct and birth, who lie without worrying that they might be caught. Musharraf is an unintelligent liar and he has never been ashamed of being caught out.” It is an acknowledged fact that India is one of the most responsible nuclear countries in the world and its technology is based on its indigenous research and development.
The “Agra Humiliation” episode also invited a lot of criticism. He blamed the Indian Government, NDA led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, for the failure of the Agra Summit. He says, “I told Prime Minister Vajpayee that today both of us had been humiliated.” India, according to him preposterously backed out of signing the “Agra Declaration.” He dubbed Vajpayee as a weak Prime Minister who “failed to grasp the moment and lost his moment in history.”
Atal Bihari Vajpayee issued a statement just to put the record straight, “At Agra, during our talks he took a stand that the violence that was taking place in Jammu and Kashmir could not be described as ‘terrorism.’ He continued to claim that the bloodshed in the state was nothing but the people's battle for freedom. It was this stand of General Musharraf that India just could not accept. And this was responsible for the failure of the Agra summit.” Musharraf craftily presents only one side of the coin and showcases the then Indian Government in an unacceptably negative light. He continually casts aspersions on the integrity of India and portrays himself as ‘Mr. Dependable.’
As he moves on to the ‘turning point’ in his life, ‘War on Terror,’ he yet again bamboozles one and all by his startling revelations such as Former U. S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage’s notorious threat to Musharraf – “You have to decide whether you are with America or with the terrorists, but if you choose the terrorists, then you should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.” Armitage’s obvious reaction to this – “I was not authorised to tell the Pakistani visitor that I would bomb them; I have never in my life made any threat that I couldn’t carry out” – should not be taken in face value. Owing to military weakness, economic instability, social disparity and most importantly, the fear of America’s acceptance of India’s offer of its bases, drove Musharraf to join the War on Terror with no second thoughts. This conflicts his constant assertion that US and Pakistan are natural allies.

“The common accusation against Pakistan is that most of the terrorist acts inside Afghanistan are emanating from the tribal areas of Pakistan.” Musharraf counters this accusation by recording the ‘enormous sacrifices’ made by Pakistan in the war on terror. He continues, “We have deployed approximately 80,000 troops in anti-terrorist operations, and we occupy nearly 900 posts along the Pakistan-Afghan border.” But the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai reinforces his suspicion that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the leader of Taliban Mullah Omar Shiekh are operating from the Pakistani tribal territory of Waziristan.

Musharraf justifies his step to conclude a peace agreement with the tribal chiefs of North Waziristan and projects this agreement as “actually meant to help the NATO forces in countering the Taliban in Afghan territory.” But the assessment made by the US Army Units in Afghanistan reports that “since then, the Taliban attacks on the NATO forces have increased three-fold.”
The British journalist, Daniel Pearl’s abduction and murder have been discussed in detail in his autobiography. Some of the questions that linger in the minds of the analysts are – Why has Musharraf implicated Omar Sheikh only in the abduction plot and given him a clean chit in the case of murder? Why has Fazal Karim not been named as an accused in the case despite his confession that “he had actually participated in the slaughter by holding one of Pearl’s legs?”
Time and again, it has been proved that Pakistan is a breeding ground of terrorism. All the major terrorist attacks in the world so far, bear crucial links to Pakistan and jihadi groups based in Pakistan. Musharraf takes the credit for single-handedly dismantling the al Qaeda network in the region, “severing its lateral and vertical linkages.” He affirms, “This war against terrorism can, and will, be won.” Unfortunately, Pakistan has plunged into the slimy ditch dug by its intelligentsia and is currently confronting lethal terror attacks across the length and breadth of the country. Very recently, more than 150 people were butchered in a bomb blast in Islamabad.

Pakistan has had a history of harbouring terrorists. The 2005 Earthquake brought the Lashker, Jaish and other terrorist outfits to the forefront of rescue efforts and charity work in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and nobody complained. When former Pakistan Foreign Minister, Khursheed Mahmud Kasuri termed the terrorist organizations as ‘religious charities’, a shrill ran through Indian polity’s spine. Ironically, Jamat-ut-Dawa, a Pakistani charity allegedly financed the UK terror plot of July 2005. India is also a victim of the cross-border terrorism choreographed by Pakistan and implemented by so-called ‘Kashmiri freedom-fighters.’ Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, ex-Minister for Information and Broadcasting was caught napping when Yasin Malik, leader of JKLF, openly “praised” his efforts to arm young Kashmiri boys.


Another ‘truth’ that he has revealed in his autobiography has infuriated US Intelligence Agencies and Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence. CIA paid the government of Pakistan 369 million dollars for handing over 369 Al-Qaeda members. However, he later retracted his statement in an interview and is reported to have stated that these payments were not made to the government but instead an ‘agency.’ This mysterious agency could well be the ISI. Or it could be, as some sources suggest, a private agency formed by retired officers of the ISI and the CIA. But the ‘truth’ remains that Musharraf has voluntarily or involuntarily exposed the dark and sensitive state secrets apart from the callousness and astuteness of the US.

Musharraf says in his autobiography that he always agreed with the views of Abraham Lincoln – “Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation.” So much so that he delayed his retirement as the Chief of Army Staff indefinitely. Also, he imposed martial law in Pakistan in 2007 in contradiction to his statement in his autobiography – “Martial law is never an answer to political malaise.” He always kept himself above the law and whenever he felt endangered by it, took it into his own hands. He justifies his decision to retain two offices, “I listen to my conscience and to the needs of my country.” One classic instance of this is the indecorous impeachment of the Chief Justice of Pakistani Supreme Court, Ifthikar Chowdhary in 2007.

He endorses his coup in the chapters, “The Quest for Democracy” and “Putting the System Right.” He emphasizes that Pakistan was not ready to accept a democratic regime at the helm because of the “nation’s peculiar environment.” He whacks the past democratic governments of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and holds them responsible for the situation Pakistan is in. Yet he puts in all his experience, dynamism and vocabulary to elevate democracy over dictatorship. He argues that “Zulfikar ali Bhutto masqueraded as a democrat but ruled like an autocrat; during his time the press was suppressed was more than ever before or since.” How can one forget the clampdown on mediapersons and journalists during the Emergency declared by Musharraf?
Mr Amir Mir, a critic of Musharraf’s book, says that the people of Pakistan perceive him as a “self-obsessed and power-hungry man, who would go to any extent to remain in power.” He adds, “They say actions speak louder than words. In Musharraf's seven years of power, he has gone back on all the pledges he has ever made. The first thing he said after grabbing power was ‘I have no political ambition’ and the last promise he made was ‘I will leave my uniform.’ He lived up to neither."
Though he had promised to give up his uniform immediately after donning the role of President of Pakistan, he changed his mind and went back on his decision. He insists, “There was a dire need for unity of command in governance. By this I imply a single authority over the three important organs of government – the bureaucracy, the political system, and the military. Much against my habit and character, I decided to go against my word.” Mir’s charge against Musharraf is thus substantiated. Even after Pakistan gained substantial economic and social stability, Musharraf stuck to his guns and continued to hold the reins of power. This in a way ruffled the feathers of the people of Pakistan and gave rise to irrepressible dissent in the country, particularly among lawyers, the most-targeted community, in 2007.

Musharraf labels himself a champion of women’s rights and then uses the derogatory term ‘celebrity’ to describe Mukhtaran Mai, the woman who was raped for her brother’s ‘crime’ and someone who raised her voice against oppression by the society. He seems to suggest that Mukhtaran Mai deliberately tarnished the image of Pakistan by traveling extensively all over the world – Spain, Saudi Arabia, India, The United States and France and giving countless interviews to many television channels and the print media. He tries to camouflage his displeasure at the ‘singling out’ and ‘demonizing’ of Pakistan by providing an account of his efforts to empower women of Pakistan.

In the final chapter, “Reflections,” he lays down the policies that can “sustain Pakistan on a path of progress and prosperity.” He combats each and every accusation leveled against him and his country avidly. This takes everyone back to the thesis of this project whose foundation lies in the ‘subjectivity’ of truth. Pervez Musharraf’s autobiography offers a ‘spanking’ perspective on world affairs, however distorted and objectionable they may be. Therefore, instead of sticking the knife into Musharraf and allowing one’s dislike of him to warp one’s judgment, the reader must closely examine his own words in the autobiography and look at the issues from a different angle. His ‘truth’ may not be the ‘ultimate truth.’ Every reader must verify the truth according to his/her knowledge and reading of the issues and broaden his/her perspective on them. His autobiography is perhaps a ‘pack of lies’ but it certainly grabs the limelight for its content that consists of a scathing attack on India, the West and all of Musharraf’s detractors within and outside Pakistan. It may have gained more criticism than appreciation, however, in the end, it might be concluded that “Musharraf achieved his goal.”