“HOW did Gen de Gaulle continue in uniform all through his period as president of France, and France is a democratic country?” Thus Gen Musharraf to the New York Times, justifying his desire to remain army chief even as he wears his other mantle of president of Pakistan.

Since he was at it, why did he have to stop at de Gaulle? He could as easily have invoked the memory of Winston Churchill who was fond of putting on the RAF uniform (I forget which rank) during the Second World War. Or Stalin for that matter who had a special uniform stitched for himself, and which he wore at the Tehran conference of the Big Three, when he made himself Generalissimo, senior in military rank to all the marshals of the Red Army.

But Stalin was no democrat and Gen Musharraf, ardent votary of democracy, is talking of democracy. So let’s leave Stalin out of the reckoning and also Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro, another non-democrat, who is fond of wearing his green fatigues.

You could say that Castro is entitled to this honour because of his brilliant military record, his revolutionary exploits: leading the Cuban revolution, fighting himself and courting danger, marching on Havana and ousting the corrupt dictatorship of the American stooge, Batista, foiling the CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion and defying the United States, which hatched several plots to kill him, for over 40 years.

You could say the same about Stalin, that he was entitled to his uniform, because he led his country’s fight against Hitler’s armies. Whatever Hollywood’s version of history — with its ability to distort reality it is a powerful one — the major, indeed overwhelming, burden of fighting Hitler’s all too brilliant armies fell to the Soviet Union.

But these are uncomfortable analogies and deserve to be left to one side. Let’s stick to de Gaulle, since Gen Musharraf has been pleased to mention his name.

Gen Charles de Gaulle stayed in uniform through his tenure as French president? Come again. Is Gen Musharraf saying that de Gaulle as president was also army chief? That at least is the sense his words convey. If so, he is either touching up history to prove a weak point or, less flatteringly, he simply has his facts wrong.

De Gaulle wore his general’s uniform on special occasions: I suppose Bastille Day, the anniversary of VE Day, etc. But to suggest that as president he also wore his uniform as head of the French army is to be guilty of ignorance or deception. Take your pick as to which of the two is the more serious offence.

In fact, General de Gaulle never commanded the French army. When the “German army broke through at Sedan...” I quote from an article on the Web, “he was given command of the recently formed 4th Armoured Division. With 200 tanks, de Gaulle attacked the German panzers at Montcornet on 17th May, 1940. Lacking air support, de Gaulle made little impact on halting the German advance. (He) was more successful at Caumont (28th May) when he became the only French commanding officer to force the Germans to retreat during the German invasion of France.”

On June 5 he was made war minister in Paul Reynaud’s cabinet before heading for England to head the “Free French” and call upon his nation to resist the Germans. With the Germans finally defeated in 1945, he was elected French president by the constituent assembly in November that year. But he resigned a few months later and remained in the wilderness for 12 years before becoming French president again in 1958. He never commanded the French army.

If he wore his general’s uniform on ceremonial occasions, his military record entitled him to do that. But he never wore his uniform to impress his generals or keep them in line. He had no need to do that. Nor did he wear his uniform to shore up his position for again there was no need for that. So what fig-leaf, cover or justification are we hunting for?

Indeed, instead of using de Gaulle as a decoy, he should serve as an inspiration for other reasons. As president of France he followed an independent foreign policy, often to the great annoyance of the US. He established relations with Communist China when it was not fashionable amongst the western powers to do so. He opposed the Vietnam War and took France out of Nato’s integrated military command. French honour and dignity were things he was very prickly about.

Jacques Chirac’s opposition to America’s ill-conceived misadventure in Iraq can be traced to the legacy of Gaullism which still influences French foreign policy. If we are to take a leaf out of de Gaulle’s book, it would pay our leaders to look at this aspect of his life instead of seeking justification for their conduct where none exists.

The example of de Gaulle indeed, we who find ourselves bracketed with Hamid Karzai and Iyyad Alawi, America’s sub- consuls in Afghanistan and Iraq. Every General Assembly session since Sep 11, 2001, has seen Gen Musharraf get star treatment in New York, President Bush going out of his way to see him. Who are the other leaders getting similar importance this year? Karzai and Allawi. Distinguished company.

Nothing matters more to the embattled and increasingly beleaguered Bush administration than to show some striking success in Afghanistan or Iraq, early triumphs which have long since gone sour. We are part of America’s team in this part of the world, working for America, or rather for the Bush White House, above and beyond the call of duty. That’s our importance and the reason why Gen Musharraf ranks so high in current American estimation.

We talk of having forged a long-term relationship with the US. We always do when caught in similar circumstances. But when circumstances shift and our importance passes, it doesn’t take us long to become the world’s biggest moaners.

Do we never learn or is it that our leaders are so insecure that they are forever grateful for whatever crumbs of comfort they get from Washington’s table?

Every Pakistani leader who mounts the podium of the General Assembly thinks his task unfinished if he (she in Ms Bhutto’s case) doesn’t dwell on the wonderful things being done at home. Gen Musharraf has gone so far this year as to talk of a veritable revolution in the nation’s affairs. The word revolution has never been used as lightly or cheaply as in Pakistan.

Secure or self-assured nations, confident about themselves, do not feel the need to talk about their domestic situations before international audiences. Their leaders paint a broader canvas instead of blowing their trumpets about real or imaginary home achievements. Ever heard a British, Canadian, Australian, French, Dutch, German leader address the General Assembly and talk about the establishment of democracy or the empowerment of women?

Why do our leaders talk in this vein? Perhaps because who would know better than them about the skeletons rattling in our national cupboard? If we were really to achieve democracy and our house was in order, we wouldn’t feel the need to talk about democracy.

This wretched uniform issue is becoming a drag. Keep wearing it if you must or if that is what a sense of insecurity dictates. The nation is reconciled to its fate. Even on the holy fathers of the MMA the realization has slowly dawned that they were taken for a ride when they bargained with the government on this subject last year.

The uniform thing is a small issue. If tomorrow someone were to declare a monarchy in this country, the people of Pakistan, tired of these games, would take even that in their stride.

But spare history and leave de Gaulle alone. What harm have they done anyone?