Within 24 hours after the decision of the Supreme Court that lifted the ban on him from travelling abroad, the former chief of the army staff (COAS), General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf left Pakistan, a journey that most people believe would be one-way. A few years ago, while still in power, Musharraf used to captivate our appreciation with his self-coined slogan: ‘Pakistan first’. Now, he has modified his own motto into something like this: ‘Leave Pakistan first’, or maybe to ‘Get to Dubai first’, or even ‘Me first’. Why? He does not rule the country anymore. The quote thus is left for others to follow. Politically speaking, Musharraf should not have ‘fled’ from the battlefield (the courts), at least not as fast as he did. He may not have succeeded in proving his innocence, true, however, he would have displayed his sincerity to people by letting them know how important it was for Pakistan to work under an amended constitution, a constitution that granted him the power to change it anytime. That he stands by his decision even today because without his interference as the army chief, Pakistan would not have existed on the map. “Could I let the country drown by following the rules or do something extra-constitutional to protect the nation?” He could ask the same rhetorical question as the one he has brought up in many interviews. “I picked the latter option that meant I had to set aside the law of the land temporarily.” That line of argument had its own advantage: it could prompt a discussion in media regarding the constitutional role of army. Even today, a great ambiguity lies in people’s minds about such an interference. Some favour it like a religious belief while others oppose it as if it is sanctioned by the devil. A national discourse hence can help people understand why military should be kept out of civil administration, and how its not-so-constitutional involvement in politics cause more harm than benefit. And instead of doing that Musharraf’s lawyers have adopted a strange line of defence to save him. Playing with technicalities, they claim he did not make the decision to hold the constitution in abeyance alone. He had consulted both the core commanders and his cabinet members before he announced the Emergency. Thus every one of them should also be tried in the case. However, the federal government has singled him out, which shows a malicious intent, a vendetta to settle old scores. I agree with their argument to some extent. However, what saddens people though is when they see him sitting in a luxurious room surrounded by his party members in Dubai, mocking his own motto of Pakistan First. If truth be stated, then we all understand the only person who may have made this trip possible is the current COAS, General Raheel Sharif. Even though Mian Nawaz Sharif for a long time had indicated and attempted to try the former dictator in courts, he could not withstand the pressure from the most powerful institution, it is said. Do you recall how Musharraf’s envoy was redirected towards the military hospital when he was heading to appear before the judicial panel in person and be indicted? The cardiology institute admitted him for a month and thus kept him out of the reach of the law-enforcing agencies. His diagnosis? No medical condition warranted an in-patient stay for more than 72 hours. But if the medical condition said ‘Chest pain to avoid judges,’ a former military leader can spend as long as it is deemed suitable to preserve his personal reputation and thereby the prestige of the institution. During that time, we also learnt that the current federal government is more fragile than a soap bubble. That the PML-N had stolen the mandate from the PTI in the elections that demanded a long march to Islamabad. That it had to face a never-ending sit-in next to federal buildings. That any hard action against protestors would lead to more unrest throughout the country and could cost Sharif his government. That an attack on the state television station and an assault on the parliament building could not be avoided. That the imported clerics can wreak havoc in Pakistan, a country that they had left years ago. Any person, let alone the current prime minister, interested in saving the system or his own position would have bent backwards to get over the crisis. So it surprised no one when the news began to emerge that the PML-N has softened its stance on the trial of General Musharraf. And, it was not the question of ‘if’ any more ; it was a question of ‘when’ the former chief executive of the country would fly out. Along with that, foreign media also indicated that Sharif had been cut down to his size on foreign policy and defence-related decisions. What I have been wondering about since the beginning of that episode is that there is an assumption that by bringing an army officer, either in-service or retired, to civilian courts somehow disgraces the institution even when he has broken the law or defied the constitution. I can see how people can use the example of a single officer and generalise his problem to the whole institution. But isn’t it the same treatment that we hand out to politicians? That we disrespect parliament based on the corruption of a few lawmakers? I understand that the nature of the job of soldiers, unlike civilian administration, demands them to stay above controversies. It keeps them focused on defending their country instead of being confused and disappointed. But don’t you think the message that law must treat everyone equally, is more effective than the current message of “some are more equal than others?” The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com