Musharraf's loud-mouthing

Remember how unabashedly Pervez Musharraf described to the Washington Post the Mukhtaran Mai's rape as an 'excuse for getting visa for Canada' and then denied having said this, provoking the newspaper to challenge his denial. We don't know why he or his aides haven't as yet rebutted his interview to Der Spiegel, in which he has made the claim that Pakistan trained underground militant groups to fight in Indian-held Kashmir.
His words: "They (underground militant groups) were indeed formed. The government turned a blind eye because they wanted India to discuss Kashmir". Of course he didn't say 'yes' in so many words to the question 'if Pakistan's security forces trained the militants?' But he did concede it indirectly by asserting that Pakistan had to take this course because the West was ignoring the Kashmir issue. "Does that give Pakistan the right to train underground militants?" he was then asked. And Musharraf's reply was: "Yes, it is the right of any country to promote its own interests... when India is not prepared to discuss Kashmir at the United Nations and is not prepared to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner".
If a former president and army chief of Pakistan is making such a 'confession' the Indians need not be sulking their heads over the ongoing uprising in occupied Kashmir, which by all accounts is absolutely indigenous and home-grown. New Delhi was looking around for 'evidence' to establish that the ongoing intifada is not real but an imported phenomenon. No wonder, Musharraf's loud-mouthing may provide an opportunity to India to tilt the balance of world public opinion in its favour by accusing Pakistan of fomenting trouble in the Muslim-majority Indian-held Kashmir.
Says the Indian information minister Ambika Soni, "India has always believed terrorism was coming to India from across the border". No doubt our Foreign Office has rubbished these "baseless suggestions", but how credible is this rebuttal when juxtaposed against a clear and open confession made by a person who was all-in-all in Pakistan for no less than eight years and master of all that he surveyed. Remember the dangerous Kargil operation that he carried out before removing Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless coup. No doubt, in the words of Bolta Pakistan on Aaj TV 'it's an FIR against Pakistan', filed by none else by the country's own former president.
Why is Pervez Musharraf so restless when he is expected to be quietly riding into the golden sunset of retirement, as all dictators-in-exile do? He is "happy here in London" and is "earning good money". What else he wants? He is planning a political comeback to Pakistan. So why would he be making such highly irresponsible remarks that are embarrassing to his own country. Was he thinking that the defiant tone on using militancy to force India to discuss Kashmir would play well with the domestic audience? No one in Pakistan or elsewhere would think that he has a political future, especially when he is convinced he would be killed and coming back is a risky proposition.
There are not many answers to this question, yet. But the one that has been offered by a former ISI chief, Hamid Gul, is quite interesting and merits mention. Musharraf is doing all this to win political asylum in UK or any other western country which is possible only if he is treated as head of a political party, he says. No one would be opposed to such a move on the part of Musharraf, provided it is not at the cost of Pakistan's security, stability and integrity.
He must know that as a former head of state and army chief whatever he utters, impulsively or otherwise, is taken seriously by the world. If Pakistan, as he says, is seen as the international 'rogue' and 'everybody is interested in strategic deals with India', he should share the guilt. May be he is not the only one to be in such a venture. One may ask who placed full-page ads in foreign press condemning our forces as 'Rogue Army', and who is describing our military as trainer of underground militant groups?