General Pervez Musharraf has outstripped Salman Rushdie, Vikram Seth, V S Naipaul, Rohinton Mistry and other greats of literature. The first edition of his book, In the Line of Fire, was sold out within a couple of days of its publication. The second print order of thousands will soon be exhausted. No book has had such a wide readership: diplomats, bureaucrats, military analysts, politicians of different hues, historians, intellectuals, lawyers, journalists, spies, terrorists, intelligence agencies, and ordinary folk who enjoy political gossip.

The book expectedly has evoked sharp reactions both in India and in Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif has rubbished it. A retired Indian diplomat has described it as historical fiction.

I enjoyed the James Bond features in the book, especially the part about Nawaz Sharif’s alleged plan of getting rid of Musharraf.

Musharraf wanted to be sure that the person who gave him information about his being stripped of his post and who asked him to return and land in Karachi was really his good friend Major General Malik Iftikhar Ali Khan and that there was no impersonation.

Therefore, he asked the man to mention the names of his two dogs. Dot and Buddy came the prompt answer and Musharraf was convinced about the man’s identity.

I enjoyed the book as a thriller, as Musharraf tells “the stories of just a few of the most significant manhunts.”

Some critics have accused Musharraf of telling lies. Suave and shrewd Musharraf, in his response may well emulate the legendary Louis Armstrong when he told Bille Holiday, “I am not lying baby, I am just careless with the truth.”

Whatever judgment critics and posterity may pronounce, this Chuppa Rustom General comes out as a resourceful and colourful character.

Tearing Veils

Tearing the corporate veil is a familiar concept in company and taxation laws. The purpose is to find out who are the real players behind the veil controlling a company. This doctrine has caused problems, but none so explosive as the recent incident of tearing the veil of a Muslim woman in the United Kingdom.

Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, hit a raw nerve with his comments that women wearing a full face veil or niqab raise a barrier to face-to-face communications, that it is “visible demonstration of separateness” and that other people find it intimidating!

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott disagreed and rightly pointed out that if a woman wants to wear the veil, why shouln’t she? It is her choice. The tactlessness of Straw’s comments and their untimely utterance, at a time when Muslims in Briton feel besieged as victims of racial intolerance, is amazing.

Lord Robin Cooke

One of finest legal minds and a staunch judicial supporter of human rights, Lord Robin Cooke, a New Zealander, passed away last month. Robin Cooke, by his creative judicial interpretation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, imparted substance to its weak provisions. He became controversial for his judicial activism, which reached its zenith in the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, which concerned the rights of the Maori people. As President of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, Cooke ruled that the focus should be on the spirit rather than the letter of the treaty.

Robin Cooke was the only New Zealand judge who was made a British Law Lord, sitting not only in the Privy Council but in the House of Lords. In one of his judgments he thrashed the Wednesbury principles as retrograde because they unduly limited the scope of judicial review. In his judgments he quoted Cato, Mozart and also Samuel Johnson, who incidentally is also a great favourite of Lord Bingham. I knew Robin personally. He had the peculiar habit of wearing a handkerchief in the sleeve of his jacket and in moments of intense concentration he would be chewing on the end of it. During the informal dinners we had in London I noticed his endearing habit of engaging in conversation with his eyes shut. Alas his eyes are now shut forever.