Still, the Charter of Democracy the two have signed leaves no room for doing business with Musharraf. The charter says: "Drawing history's lesson that the military dictatorship and the nation cannot co-exist," the country requires "a new direction different from the militaristic and regimental approach of the Bonapartist regimes, as the current one."

To argue that her main concern is to have cases of corruption against her and her husband dropped is not fair. This may be one of her considerations, and it is yet to be decided whether she can retain all the mansions and villas she has acquired if the cases are withdrawn in Pakistan or compounded in Switzerland and Spain. What is probably nearer the truth is the observation she made in one of her interviews: "If democracy does not return to Pakistan, the Taliban would take over the country." Her inference may be correct, but not her reasoning.

Since the days of General Zia-ul Haq, fundamentalism has been encouraged by the government. Mullah has been injected into the military discipline to counter national awakening. Musharraf, till the other day, was plugging the same line. He changed -- I do not know how far -- when the Frankenstein of terrorism tried to eliminate him. The jehadis are indeed a real danger in Pakistan.

Assuming that Musharraf promises to have a joint front with Benazir against the Taliban, will he (by then there-elected president following the understanding) allow her (by then the prime minister) to eliminate the nearly 35 percent of military personnel which is jehadi? The situation may demand action against religious elements throughout the country. Will she take action when the military looks partly contaminated, and when Musharraf may feel that it is the best time for him to sit back and get the support of religious elements on the rebound?

Politically, she will have the MMA (Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal) against her, apart from Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League and her own party dissidents who are not happy over the prospect of working with Musharraf, even without uniform. True, Benazir will have America on her side and, maybe, the State Department is burning midnight oil to make the understanding possible. But this is precisely the reason why Benazir will be all the more suspect. A touch of America, however remote, can spoil things in Pakistan.

I do not doubt her sincerity to serve Pakistan at a time when the country is besieged by all types of problems. But the way she is seeking to solve them may not be the correct one. The military in Pakistan is unpopular, and any tie-up or an equation with it will be a great liability for her. At times it seems as if she does not realize that Pakistan has changed after the lawyers' agitation over the "separation" of Chief Justice Iftikhar Khan from the Supreme Court.

The protest has ignited the spark to set fire to the haystack of grievances. I feel that the civil society, always keeping itself distant from political or other movements, is so worked up and determined to face the police, or any other force, that it would have the dignity of the Pakistan Supreme Court or, for that matter, of the country restored.

Benazir also does not seem to learn from the past. She had an agreement with the military in 1988. True, President Farooq Lagari, a civilian head, dismissed her. But behind the dismissal was the army chief. What is the guarantee that the military will not dislodge her again once it settles down to better conditions?

When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was at the helm after the only free and fair election in 1971, I asked him how would he ensure that the military would not return. He dismissed the question lightly with the observation that "my men would confront the tanks on the streets." This did not happen when Zia ousted, and even hanged, him. Fear stalked the land.

The military has come to be an integral part of Pakistan's matrix. Maybe Benazir has realized this. After all, Turkey, the most liberal Islamic nation, has an arrangement whereby a Supreme Council, with the three military chiefs as members, supervises the country. The military takes over when it feels that the nation has gone off the tracks of the constitution.

Yet, this is not democracy, which means the rule by the people. Nawaz Sharif is correct in saying that the military has to be apolitical and must stay in the barracks, as is the case in India. But this requires strong institutions and long traditions which Pakistan does not have. When political rulers have had one foot in the military boat and the other in the civil apparatus, no institution could have been consecrated, not even the constitution.

Pakistan's former foreign minister Asif Ali and cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan were in Delhi a few days ago. One question posed to them was: Why, even after the restoration of democracy, the military took over when it wanted to do so? Both blamed India, arguing that its hostility towards Pakistan made the people of the country dependent on the armed forces for their safety and identity.

Probably, there is something in what they said. After all, Mahatma Gandhi had to fast unto death to make Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, the top leaders of the then central government, release Rs 64 crore. This was Pakistan's due from the division of assets at the time of partition. New Delhi was determined not to return it because the two countries were fighting over Kashmir at that time.

Still the main reason for the Pakistan society caving in, I think, is that the country has not gone through the movement which India had during the freedom struggle. The NWFP, and to some extent Sind and Baluchistan, suffered the atrocities that London committed. I do not have to emphasise that they are the ones which have borne the burnt of excesses in Pakistan. Punjab's participation in a movement is a recent phenomenon.

People's assertion to rule themselves is an integral part of democracy, for its health. This is happening in Pakistan, even though belatedly. At this time any short cut, or an attempt to collect whatever benefits are available, will snuff out that effort. What looks like the beginning of the end may turn out to be the end of the beginning.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.