Iftekhar A. Khan When General (retd) Pervez Musharraf packed his belongings, and expensive gifts given him by foreign dignitaries, almost everyone thought he was about to embark on a one-way journey. Speculation was only about the destination he was headed. His itinerary suggested Saudi Arabia was his first layover, which gave the impression as if the former strongman had decided to live in the Holy Land to communicate with the Divine Reaper to atone for his past misdeeds. For an enlightened moderate Saudi Arabia was not a place to live. After a short stay there, he took off for London, which is the ultimate abode for runaway leaders. Flying by night, Musharraf, who had once pretended to be Ataturk, followed in the footsteps of General Pinochet. To travel to the Holy Land in the same Saudi plane in which he had despatched Nawaz Sharif and family was a cruel quirk a fate. Events had taken a full circle. Ours is perhaps the only country whose fugitives live in London. And their lifestyle puts many rich Londoners to shame. Although rich absconders of the blighted country have no apparent source of income to support their glitzy living, yet the British government and its media think it impolite to quiz them about it. Brits wouldn't mind as long as investment, however, questionable poured in; they'd raise eyebrows only when it spirited away. However, people disapprove the hospitality and protocol the British government provides to the haves-been. Shauki Bhai scooted out no sooner than he was out of the PM House; he even didn't return to attend his father's-in-law funeral in Karachi. And our home-grown Ataturk is so far the last to join the exclusive runaways' club in London. By honouring them, people reckon UK is complicit in our misfortune. Would the British government, its media and people tolerate if any their politicians wanted by law were to live in another country as celebrity and enjoy security protocol? Why is the reverse true? Why doesn't the British government respect laws of other countries? Supreme Court has asked Musharraf to appear and explain his position on the emergency rule he imposed on November 3, 2007. If the British government had good sense, it would've advised Musharraf to appear before the apex court to get a clean chit. Instead, it despatched one of its fast trotters, a former diplomat, to placate Nawaz Sharif to curry favour for Musharraf. NRO's beneficiaries and Musharraf's loyalists together have mounted a 'Save Musharraf' campaign. The nation should move forward and tackle the problems it faces is what they argue, which is indeed ludicrous. The Parliament before deciding about Musharraf must keep two aspects in mind. First, if Musharraf is not held answerable, CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry's 'NO' and subsequent movement by the lawyers and the people would be meaningless. People would think that no movement, however, massive could achieve desired results as long as politicos didn't support it. Thus they would earn public wrath. Second, the would-be adventurers who thought of galloping in someday would continue to nurture designs. PM Gilani's revelation that the army is disinterested in Musharraf's trial has improved the army's image in public eyes. Who else is interested in protecting Musharraf? US, our overly intrusive and formidable ally, on the face of it claims it would not interfere in his prosecution. Then who prevents the trial? Country's salvation lay in the rule of law. It's crucial therefore to set a precedent of supremacy of law, which is only possible if the government acts according to the court's decision. It would send a clear message that nobody is above the law. And if our government does not respect its own laws, how can we expect the British government to force the fugitives out. PPP leadership's stance that "democracy is the best revenge" doesn't wash. Musharraf would love to be victim of such a sweet revenge. Clearly, the incumbent leadership is beholden to Musharraf for the deal. PM's artful statement that only a unanimous parliamentary decision could try Musharraf in fact means to shield him from trial. Such malarkey refocuses public attention to the NRO, which is a cruel joke, an insult to the nation, an affront to justice because it benefits a privileged clique and deprives 117 million. Why take Hamesh Khan to task for defrauding the bank while sparing the NRO's beneficiaries with their swindle? CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry's unrivalled struggle is the best that happened to the country, which gives hope to the masses that henceforth law is equally applicable to the privileged and the unprivileged. He was the one the goons had roughed up by his hair; he was the one whom Musharraf during his US visit had called "a third rate man, a scum." In what positions are the two men now? One is ensconced in the seat of honour another is on the run. Does it not revive one's faith in Divinity? Thomas Paine's (1737-1809) famous quote: "These are the times that try men's souls" is presently trying our souls, more so of the parliamentarians perched on the seats of decision-making. Exalted men and women, question your minds without prejudice, without blinkers. Can you justify the NRO? Time is trying your souls. The writer is a freelance columnist E-mail: apinecity@gmail.com