"LET me, however, make this clear, in case there should be any mistake about it in any quarter. We mean to hold our own. I have not become the King's first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. For that task, if ever it were prescribed, someone else would have to be consulted."

That was Winston Spencer Churchill, at his roaring best, when he spoke at the Mansion House in London on November 10, 1942. Four years later, with Churchill out of power, someone else was consulted and the empire was lost.

In 1951, a Wykhemist friend of mine remarked, "Well, the Empire has gone, and with it a lot of chingchongs, oongaboongas and nignogs. The educated and the hardworking amongst them will rise, the rest will end up eating each other." We fell in the last category.

What have our 'educated' leaders done with this nation? Where do we 140 millions find ourselves today? In effect, those who followed Jinnah have spread the belief that the world owes us a living, that we do not have to work for ourselves, that manna will fall, if not from heaven, from the willing open hands of powerful friends. The motley leaders we have had, be they potentates, dictators, autocrats, basic-democrats or pseudo-democrats have all tried to rule by emulating the West but without making any attempt, even the feeblest, to educate the illiterate masses.

Within 25 years half the country was lost. Now, 25 years later, with the way things are going, no one can be sure for how long, or even if, the remaining half will remain intact. When great empires can be lost, so can puny weak countries. What goes in our favour is that there are no serious takers - "We will eat grass if we have to, but we will make the bomb."

How are we regarded? What is the perception the outside world has of us?

The heading of an editorial in 'The Times' of January 8, 1997, when Caretaker Farooq Leghari was supposed to be righting the wrong, was: 'Time for Pakistan - Delaying elections may be better than it appears.' It read " . . . . .A time limited delay of the February elections would not necessarily be as damaging to Pakistani democracy as it seems. The two leading contenders have both been dismissed from office on corruption charges; three months was always too short a time for credible choices to emerge from such polluted political machinery. Time would also allow the interim government to toughen up its accountability law, intended to disqualify politicians guilty of corruption. It was hastily drafted and has allowed too many big fish to slip through its meshes. In particular, there is need to tighten the new rules designed to bar politicians who have damaged the country's banking system by refusing to repay massive personal loans to which nothing but their political influence entitled them. Most of the technocrats filling the political vacuum are doing a respectable job. They have made deep cuts in the size of government, reduced the scope for political patronage, advanced privatization and introduced deep banking and tax reforms. They have also cancelled most 'development' projects, too many of which aim to buy votes with profligate public works schemes."

Leghari disqualified nobody, wangled in Nawaz Sharif, with the aim of sitting in the saddle himself.

Two and a half years later, an editorial in 'The Times' of October 13 1999 was headed 'Distortions of democracy - the military may be a less bad option for Pakistan today.' To quote from it: "In domestic tussles with the presidency, the judiciary, the growing number of political enemies, the press, religious factions, and the military, Mr. Sharif has done little but try to extend his own powers . . . . . . . Mr. Sharif's sorry record may be why Washington, despite its earlier warnings, is taking an unusually softly-softly tack, calling only for the swift restoration of democracy 'if a coup has taken place'. The outside world, like Pakistan's frustrated voters, may feel that a new government, even one brought in by the army, might be less bad for Pakistan than the distorted democracy it has endured until today."

On October 18, came a further editorial headed 'Time and the General', part of which reads: "His [Musharraf's] message yesterday, therefore, was simple; give Pakistan a chance. He deserves to be heard. On virtually all matters, what he said was sensible. But Pakistanis will judge him by what now follows. Many want to see the smack of firm government, especially if it hits those who have corrupted the suffering country . . . . General Musharraf now has the chance and the determination to stamp out graft and bring in the austerity measures from which his predecessors shied away. As a member of a minority, he also made clear that the government will clamp down on religious persecution, ethnic conflict and tribal clashes that have threatened to pull Pakistan apart."

A news report in 'The Economist' of October 16 has it that: "There were spontaneous celebrations at the ousting of Mr. Sharif. The deposed prime minister had systematically undermined every institution capable of challenging or even questioning him, from the courts to the press to parliament."

And, from a column in the 'Asian Wall Street Journal' of October 21: ". . . . . Mr. Sharif became intoxicated with the notion of running what he referred to as 'the most powerful civilian government in Pakistan's history'. To this end he secured the removal of a president, a Supreme Court chief justice . . . . . He appointed judges beholden to him . . . . . His disregard for democratic institutions became obvious when he ordered his party members to storm the supreme court and prevent the hearing of cases of past corruption against him."

On a more frivolous note, the 'Daily Telegraph' on October 21 opined that "Surely the Queen would rather have entertained the new leader of Pakistan . . . . General Pervez Musharraf who seized power last Tuesday seems a more decent fellow than President Zemin. For a start, he could chat to the Queen about his dogs - General Musharraf has two Pekinese called Dot and Buddy. . . . 'The Guardian', which normally puts military dictators in the same category as fat cats, called General Musharraf 'charming, articulate and approachable'. The US ambassador to Pakistan said he was 'a man of rectitude and sincerity'. . . . . A liberal Muslim, he has limited patience with Islamists and has promised to open his own tax returns for inspection."

Also on October 21, Jim Hoagland in the 'Washington Post' wrote "Justifiable homicide is one way to think about the coup Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf staged against the corrupt, inept, democratically elected civilian government in Islamabad last week. Musharraf deserves no applause for what he has done. But thus far he has not earned hanging, either . . . . . 'We have hit rock bottom,' Musharraf said in his first address to a nation that must treat that assessment as unbridled optimism. For three decades Pakistan has been ruled by charlatans, crooks, fanatics and a certifiable war criminal or two. The considerable talents and graces individual Pakistanis manifest have been relentlessly driven out of their national politics . . . . . Throughout the downward spiral - with brief respites when sober-minded technocrats were put in charge - the United States has been there to cheer on the quack of the day as the only hope that things would not get even worse, and to welcome the next quack when things did get even worse . . . .

"I experienced the strength of the US tilt towards Pakistan in covering, from Calcutta and then Islamabad, the 1971 India-Pakistan war, a conflict in which Pakistan's leaders had authorized genocidal campaigns against the population of Bangladesh. That was not what counted in Washington. The United States sought to build up Pakistan as a counterweight to a huge headstrong Indian democracy that Washington had never been able to accommodate easily in its strategic thinking . . . . . If the Pakistanis do not draw lessons from the dead end they have reached - and history and human nature suggest they won't - the United States must nonetheless seize this opportunity to show that it has finally learned where its paramount interests lie. Washington has nothing further to gain by manipulating, cajoling or overestimating Pakistan as a regional ally, or by pretending to treat it on an equal footing with India, or as strategic bridge to China . . . . .

"Pakistan has become a sideshow in geopolitical terms . . . . The Clinton administration does not shed even crocodile tears over Sharif's fate. Washington urges only a return to democracy, not restoration of a prime minister who systematically undermined Pakistan's other institutions."

Every (repeat every) institution of the state necessary for the maintenance of law and order, for the dispensation of justice, and for good governance has allowed itself to be destroyed or has recklessly and selfishly destroyed itself. We go back to 1947 and to what Jinnah said in the creed he enunciated on August 11 of that year: "The first observation I would like to make is this: you will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of all its subjects are fully protected by the state."

To General Musharraf I say : Make haste slowly. Stand firm and excel.