General Pervez Musharraf, who has staged Pakistan's most recent military coup, had the opposite experience. He wanted a motion of no-confidence to be passed against the dislodged Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, in the National Assembly, but could not manage the required votes. Nor did political parties in the opposition agree to join hands with the army to form the government.

However quarrelsome and parochial they may be in their political behaviour, the elected representatives showed that they would not give legitimacy to a military government. Musharraf tried for nearly three days to get collaborators and failed.After usurping power, Musharraf was at pains to give it a legal cover. He had to suspend the Constitution to declare himself above it. President Rafiq Tarar, Nawaz Sharif's appointee, was the only one who caved in to sanctify army rule.

People in Pakistan are generally happy, not because they prefer the military junta but because they have not found civilian rulers any better. There were very few tears shed over Sharif's exit. Despite the two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, he messed up the country economically, politically and otherwise. In truth, every military takeover in Pakistan, right from that of General Ayub Khan, has been followed by celebrations. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, his daughter Benazir, Sharif -- no one has changed the plight of the common man. In 52 years of independence, he has concluded that whoever rules in Islamabad makes little difference to him.

People have a commitment of sorts to democracy. But feudalism and fundamentalism have fashioned in Pakistan a culture whichrationalises dictation and defends obedience. Over the years, they have even stopped differentiating between what is right and what is wrong. High-handed and arbitrary actions have been carried out with impunity. The nation is in such a stupor that it has not realised the full implications of military rule.

The Kashmir problem, which every Pakistani ruler has pushed to the fore, has exaggerated the importance of the armed forces. Musharraf has also harped on it after the takeover. The intrusion in Kargil, part of a larger plan, was an army show. Had Sharif owned up to it, he would not have met the fate he has. The military coup is a cover-up for the humiliation the army suffered over the withdrawal.

Personal animosity among political leaders has also prevented any collective action to save democratic institutions. The leaders have, in fact, destroyed them to settle personal scores. When Bhutto was being tried by the Zia government on a murder charge, I implored Air Marshal Asghar Khan and Khan Abdul WaliKhan to join issue with the army on using such methods against the opponents. Both said that Bhutto could be finished by the army, not by them. No doubt, as Prime Minister, he had done everything to eliminate the two. Yet it did not justify their tacit support to the army.

Indians may criticise the Pakistanis for having accepted military rule without demur. But they did not do better in 1975 when civil dictatorship was imposed through the emergency. More than 100,000 people were detained without trial, but there was no public protest. The credit for sustaining democracy in India should also go to our armed forces. They are apolitical. They scrupulously stayed away from the power games. Even when, during the last days of the emergency (1975-77), the late Sanjay Gandhi sounded Army Chief Raina if he could `help them', the latter said `no'.

In comparison, the armed forces in Pakistan are politicised. They consider themselves a cut above the rest. They believed they are the country's real custodians. That isthe reason that even when there have been elections, it was the army that called the shots. Civilian prime ministers have largely been its stalking horse. Sharif was trying to be independent, an act which Musharraf has characterised as an attempt to divide the armed forces.

Musharraf may have the satisfaction that he has got away with the coup. But given the global situation, military dictators cannot flourish for long. Zia was able to rule for 11 years because those were the days of the Cold War. Pakistan was America's ally against the communist world. But international opinion has changed after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Pakistan's economic vulnerability makes it even more open to pressure from the US and Europe. But as the shock of military rule wears down, Washington looks like diluting its stand. It is going back to its old thesis that Pakistan, if let alone, can be a haven for fundamentalists. Musharraf may not have been owned fully, but poor Sharif has been jettisoned.

The point whichWashington should be pushing is the date for election. It should be held within 90 days, as laid down by the Constitution. Musharraf has conveniently forgotten to mention how long military rule is to last in his message to the nation. The National Security Council, with a few civilian experts, is no substitute for an elected cabinet. It is USA's responsibility to restore civil administration in Pakistan because it is Washington which is trying to sell Musharraf to the world.

From all accounts, it looks as if the armed forces have dug in their heels. This time they may ask for a permanent role in governance. When I met Zia at Islamabad in 1979, he said that the armed forces should have a say in the affairs of Pakistan. Musharraf's predecessor, General Jehangir Karamat, also wanted such participation. All of them have Turkey as their model country. They have argued that the armed forces should have the constitutional right to intervene whenever they find that the country is going off the rails. Strange, evenwithout such constitutional provision, they have walked in whenever they liked.

Musharraf is reportedly a hawk. His regime may pump up the obsession against India further. Cross-border terrorism has not diminished. Pakistani forces have not been withdrawn from the cease-fire line. Clearly, the military rulers will continue to plug the line of confrontation. Delhi needs to be cautious because this time even the countervailing force of a weak democratic government may not be there to stop an adventure like Kargil.