General Musharraf wishes to stay on in power, for he views himself as indispensable to the country's survival and well-being.

The people of Pakistan are, however, convinced that the current authoritarian dispensation has outlived its utility and that normality can return to the nation only by a restoration of civilian democratic dispensation.

These conflicting objectives have now reached a stage where there appears to be no room for compromise. The battle lines have been drawn up and both sides appear determined to take this confrontation to its logical conclusion. The general is convinced that without him there will no stability and progress in the country. He also claims that the war on terror will lose steam and even Pakistan's nuclear assets face the threat of falling into the hands of terrorists.

In such a scenario, it is but inevitable that the US would want to protect its massive investments in this country. Earlier this year, it recognised that Musharraf needed to repackage himself if he was to remain one of the West's poster boys - the model that other Muslim leaders were required to emulate. This explains the vigour and urgency with which Washington and London sought to engineer an 'arrangement' in which Musharraf would retain real power, particularly on national security issues, but shed off his uniform, ensure free and fair elections and facilitate Benazir Bhutto's return to power, for she was viewed as the moderate Pakistani politician who could provide this regime the credibility it lacked.

Their effort was instrumental in encouraging Bhutto to walk away from a historic understanding known as the Charter of Democracy with the other major opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, that had generated great hope in Pakistan.

But the general, a firm believer in the 'unity of command' concept, could not contemplate sharing it with anyone. Bhutto too, came under tremendous pressure from her confidants, who feared that her flirtation with the mili-tary ruler threatened to damage irrevocably her track record as a democrat.

But it was the judiciary, with its reputation as a 'team player' that surprised everyone. To the regime's horror, it not only became 'hyperactive', but also appeared to assume the mantle of democratic opposition to the regime. This could not be countenanced; especially when the judiciary's actions could cause irreparable damage to the regime's plans to hang on to power. Not surprisingly, it was accused of becoming a major irritant to the government. But Musharraf's lament about the state of the country sounded more of a self-indictment. After eight years of doing pretty much what he wanted, Musharraf cannot now seek redemption for himself by asking others to share the blame for his failures.

However, it is the reaction of the international community that interests me as a foreign policy analyst. While Islamabad may wish to shrug off criticism from foreign capitals, it must be deeply embarrassing to the general that years after being lauded for 'progressive policies' and described as an indispensable partner of the US, he finds himself at the receiving end of international opprobrium! The Bush administration fears that by his imposition of emergency, the general may have unleashed demons that threaten to devour its creator.

It therefore undertook to accelerate its unprecedented involvement in Pakistan's internal affairs. But Deputy Secretary Negroponte's air dash last week was not simply to resurrect the delicately engineered arrangement between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. It was also to assess the lie of the land. It is not only the Democrats in the US Congress and the East Coast liberal media that have been warning of looming disaster. The White House, too, fears a political 'melt-down' in Pakistan that could permit terrorists to gain control of its non-conventional weapons.

And, of course, the EU is outraged with what has happened in Pakistan and this upsets us. But we forget that when we signed the Third Generation Agreement we agreed to all its provisions, one of which committed us to be being a democracy. Mercifully, New Delhi has refrained from commenting on growing instability in Pakistan, but the Indian media has been far less restrained, expressing alarm that there could be an escalation in cross border terrorist activities. Delhi's Outlook magazine goes to the extent of calling the creation of Pakistan unnatural and artificial, while pointing to the dangers that instability in Pakistan could mean for the country's nuclear weapons.

Russia worries that the current turmoil could encourage terrorists and endanger the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, while the Chinese are both confused and concerned with developments in a country that means so much to them.

These twists and turns in Pakistan are giving Washington anxious moments. With its carefully choreographed 'deal' unravelling, the US is unsure as to what it should do to protect its assets and demonstrate its commitment to democracy and human rights in Pakistan. This is a dilemma that Washington faces often, which is understandable given that nations and especially great powers base their policies on hard headed realities, what Dr Kissinger called 'real politic'.

Therefore, the signals emanating from Washington since Nov 3 have been mixed. One day Musharraf is described as 'indispensable' and the next day Secretary Rice clarifies that the US wants relations with the people of Pakistan and not with any one individual. Then again, Bush says that he has asked Musharraf to take specific measures to undo the damage caused by the imposition of emergency, but then Negroponte, while in Islamabad, appeals to Benazir to eschew brinkmanship and confrontation and opt for engagement and dialogue.

There is however some evidence of the penny finally dropping in where it should. There is growing realisation in Washington that the imposition of emergency has not achieved any of its declared objectives. Internationally, Pakistan's honour and dignity have been tarnished and its standing reduced. Domestically, the polarisation has been deep and intense. It has outraged society and especially those that call themselves 'moderates'. With the crackdown on the legal community and targeting of secular civil society, the country's ability to confront terrorists has been greatly diminished. This will surely benefit the extremists, who must be laughing at our folly and America's discomfiture.

As for the people of Pakistan, they can only pray that the imposition of the state of emergency will finally help remove the blinkers that the Bush Administration opted to place over its eyes. No military dictator can be a democrat. The US should also wake up to the fact that no 'deal', especially one scripted by foreign powers can meet with the aspirations of the people of Pakistan.

It should recognise that the alternative to military dictatorship is not mob rule but governance by moderate political parties. If the US wants to be viewed as a friend of Pakistan, it needs to appreciate that only a genuine civilian elected democratic dispensation, such as Pakistan, can enjoy the legitimacy.