These correspondents have demanded "complete and authentic democracy." They have recommended moderation and a spirit of conciliation among the politicians and the real rulers. They also want the army to be depoliticised and the offices of the president and chief of army staff separated.

The idea of an apolitical army is not controversial. These writers have recommended a constructive dialogue. No one can quarrel with this. They also want the elections in 2007 to be transparent and credible. That they will not be unless they are held under a neutral government and the Election Commission is empowered to control the administration.

All this is common ground among liberals. Who has said it is new and significant. Some writers have been close associates of General Pervez Musharraf from the time of his takeover. Many of retired generals can only have the army's higher interests at heart. That their saying these things can create better sense in the army's higher echelons is to be welcomed. Some of these gentlemen are still associated with the government in one capacity or other, despite what Javed Jabbar has claimed. Many of them are personal friends of General Pervez Musharraf. A few are among the architects of Musharraf's political architecture.

Several mean questions arise. Didn't this gentry know the need for transparent polls in 2001 and 2002? Why didn't they give the same advice then; they could not have become all wise in these four years. It would be interesting to find out when precisely did it dawn on them that the elections of 2002 were not transparently free and fair and that they would not lead to "complete and authentic" democracy? Many would ask how is it that retired civil servants and generals suddenly become democrats and display good sense. What they did in office is what they now criticise. These are mean questions. But should one skip them?

It is necessary to find out whether this is a major development and into which context it is written. One can briefly mention a list of developments that have recently taken place: President Musharraf has proposed converting Pakistan into an energy corridor for China; he envisages new linkages between China and Pakistan: a railway virtually over the top of the world, oil and gas pipelines and fibre optic links for improving communications. He also envisages linking of Karakoram Highway with Gawadar. China may significantly invest more in Pakistan; it is scheduled to export six nuclear reactors.

Meantime the US has been exhibiting a certain amount of disenchantment with Musharraf and Pakistan for "not doing enough" in fighting the Taliban or helping Afghanistan overcome its difficulties. This is the time when Americans have chosen to disclose that they know that Pakistan is building a big nuclear reactor in Khushab. Pakistan has also been receiving bad press in America and the west in general; gone are the days when Pakistan was enthusiastically lionised for its role in the War on Terror.

This is also the time when India has frozen the composite dialogue with Pakistan. It has adopted a tough tone vis-a-vis this country, talking of "punitive action," including hot pursuit, in fighting terrorism and destroying its infrastructure. Indian media and politicians are accusing Pakistan of some involvement in the 7/11 bombings in Mumbai.

There is also news of informal contacts between Benazir Bhutto and President Musharraf, as also between the latter and Nawaz Sharif. The buzzword in Islamabad appears to be that a certain amount of success has been achieved in the indirect talks between PPP chief and the army chief. This has prompted BB to welcome this letter of retired generals. She has demanded that instead of a neutral government comprising technocrats, it should be a national government that organises the upcoming polls. She has also welcomed the talks idea and seems to be positive, and inclined toward taking a moderate line of preferring conciliation to confrontation.

Not to be ignored is the fact that ARD and MMA are beginning to cooperate in an agitation to be. Many parties have signed a Charter of Democracy indicating convergence between PML(N) and PPP. Whether or not this was a tactic, it is a major development. Should the three major opposition mainstream parties, viz. PPP, PML(N) and the MMA join hands and start an agitation, they can create much turbulence.

It is true that Pakistan is already riven by many divisions. There are polarisations along ideological, political and ethnic as well as sectarian lines; it is being criticised by international financial institutions for bad governance. A conceivably raging and tearing agitation can make the government vulnerable.

The question is whether the letter is meant to ensure that the army remains an apolitical asset of Pakistan which the US has always cultivated; what attracted America was the army that can be useful to it. The army is now being extensively used within the country and is being criticised for its role. That can reduce the army's attractiveness.

Could it be that the recent trend of events in Pakistan has displeased the Americans more than is apparent? The way Musharraf has cultivated the Chinese and is beginning to lean on their growing investments should be worrying to Americans. Writers of the missive are not known to be anti-Americans. Could it be that the Americans were sending a message to Musharraf through this gentry? Since these worthies had not recommended these good things earlier acquires salience, especially in the context. One is not attributing motives; they could have just woken up now.

Alternatively, it can be seen as an effort to facilitate a dialogue with opposition parties. This letter seems to be preparing the ground for Musharraf to graciously permit the two main opposition leaders to participate in the January 2008 elections. They emphasise the upcoming poll's credibility. May be the government may have finally realised the need for flexibility to accept Benazir Bhutto to participate in the election.

Insofar as the policies of Benazir and Nawaz are concerned, they have not been different from Musharraf's. Neither of these two politicians is anti-American, neither is known to favour lines of action unwelcome to Washington. Their economics is the same that Shaukat Aziz is promoting. Either being associated with the government, possibly in a national government, would only strengthen Musharraf. He or she would be seen to have agreed to serve General Musharraf. Could the recommended reconciliation be a ploy inspired from on high?

Insofar as India policy is concerned, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir have followed much the same policy that Musharraf is pursuing. Doubtless there was the Kargil episode that created bad blood between Nawaz and Musharraf. Little need be said now except that both Nawaz and Musharraf favour the same India policy. Insofar as Benazir is concerned, she too wants friendship with India, including PML publicists. Why can't all three adopt a policy of friendly cooperation with India?

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.