Peace through understanding

A YOUNG idealist worked for Lord Cromer, the British commissioner in Egypt, towards the close of the nineteenth century. Distraught by the intrigues and rivalries of European powers for influence in North Africa, he said to his boss one day that the powers might become friendly and cooperative if only they understood one another better. Leaning back, scepticism writ large on his face, Lord Cromer responded: “My dear boy, the better they understand one another, the more they will despise one another.” Was he right? Yes and no.

Europe had been a field of slaughter for some three hundred years following the advent of the modern, centralized state not because the kings, who made the decisions of war and peace, did not understand each other. Barring an occasional misperception, they understood each other’s ambitions for hegemony quite well.

While kings brought their armies to fight on the field of battle, their people across borders did not become enemies, or even estranged, until technology made warfare so expensive that governments could not fund their intended wars without substantial popular financial contribution which the people would not willingly make until they had been emotionally aroused to become actively involved as participants.

Conflicts of interest with others are not necessarily inherent in a nation’s situation. They develop, more often, when its rulers begin to covet resources that belong to other nations. The most troublesome conflict between India and Pakistan has related to Kashmir. India conquered the larger part of it during its first war with Pakistan (1947-49), Pakistan wants it, but its attempts to take it by force of arms have failed.

The people of Kashmir have been in revolt against Indian occupation and rule for more than ten years. Suppressing this revolt has been a frustrating experience for Indian political and military leaders. The Kashmiri insurgents, on their part, are also showing signs of fatigue. All parties to the dispute may thus be having second, and more conciliatory, thoughts. Our own current position, as articulated by General Musharraf, is that a solution has to be found that is acceptable not only to Pakistan but also to India and the Kashmiris. It is then more likely than ever before that a modus vivendi between the parties can be found.

Other conflicts of interest between our two countries are considerably less substantial, existing more as trends than as ground realities. India’s political and economic forays into the Middle East and Muslim Central Asia have been received in Pakistan as intrusions meant to diminish our present and future standing in these areas. This may be a misperception. India may be entering this area simply because it can supply things that the people concerned want more adequately and cheaply than, let us say, we can. We should not expect, much less call upon, our Muslim neighbours to choose between Pakistan and India, relate with one to the exclusion of the other. That approach will not work, for these fellow-Muslims will rebuff it.

Not all but many Indians have believed, and still do, that the two-nation theory and the resulting division of India were all wrong. This interpretation of history led many of us in Pakistan to conclude that the Indians intended eventually to right this “wrong.” While the starting premise in this reasoning may be correct, the conclusion is likely a misperception. Pakistan may be disrupted by its ruling elite’s own neglect and recklessness, but it cannot be undone by India’s military means.

The perception of threat from across the border is currently being discounted in certain quarters in both India and Pakistan. Professional people from the two countries have been getting together in “track two diplomacy” forums discussing issues, and talking peace for the last ten years or so. The frequency of these exchanges has risen dramatically during the last year or two. Delegations of parliamentarians (meaning politicians), businessmen, journalists, and peace activists have been exchanging visits. Doors to “peace through understanding” are being opened and the two governments are showing a certain amount of indulgence towards these initiatives.

Bus travel between Lahore and New Delhi has been restored with great fanfare. Indian visitors have gone back home vastly impressed with the lavish hospitality and friendliness the Pakistanis extended to them. Pakistanis returning from India have also been pleased with the warmth and graciousness with which they were received in that country.

Can this people-to-people diplomacy, this exercise in getting to know one another, remove “misunderstandings,” erase long-standing mutual suspicions, and impart friendliness, at least good neighbourliness, to the relationship between our two countries? Possibly, but let us think more about it.

Some misunderstandings can be removed. We may begin to see that India is not bent upon breaking up our country and absorbing it. The Indians may find that we, Muslims, are not all extremist militants, and that each country has its share of such people. The impression on each side that the other’s civilization and cultures belong to an inferior order may also be corrected as we see more of each other.

An Indian delegation, consisting of 59 persons, mostly legislators and journalists, recently visited Pakistan, bearing a message of “love and friendship.” Its leader, Mr Laloo Yadav, and several of his colleagues stressed repeatedly that they and we were the same people. This is true to a degree, but it is also tricky.

Elements of commonality between the two peoples, talk of their “sameness,” should not be carried to the point of denying their distinct identities. That could be interpreted as a call for their political re-unification, that is, a call for the disbanding of Pakistan. (Kill us with love if guns won’t work?) The need for caution in this regard cannot be over-emphasized, considering that balance and measure do not normally form part of the Indian or Pakistani disposition.

The goal of these comings and goings is to create a climate of opinion conducive to peace and amity. The proponents of this campaign will have to contend with opponents. There are fundamentalist militants on both sides: Muslims who have no use for Hindus, and Hindus who despise not only Muslim individuals but hold Muslim civilization and cultures in contempt. Fortunately, persons of this hue are a minority in each country, but they form a very substantial and vocal minority in India.

Assuming that the militants can be held back, that the movement for promoting friendliness endures, and that the desired climate of opinion does emerge, can that climate have a compelling impact upon those who settle the issues of war and peace? The directive role of public opinion should not be exaggerated. As we all know, governments have a good deal of proficiency in the art of manipulating opinion. Their ability in this area increases enormously in times of crisis, and a crisis is never all that difficult to create. It follows that peace and cooperative relations between India and Pakistan will materialize only if both public opinion and the decision-making elites favour that goal.

Everybody wants peace if it can be had on his own terms. That is also true of the elites. The more pertinent question then is whether they are willing to make concessions to the other side in order to achieve peace. Decision- makers relevant to our discussion here are the politicians in power, the diplomatic establishment, and the generals. Fighting is the generals’ business. They and their men are paid to remain ready for war. They may not be itching to have a fight all the time; in fact, they may, on occasion, be quite reluctant to go to war if they fear they will lose it. But they cannot afford to sound and act like “peacemongers.” If and when they advise their political superiors against war as a policy option, they must do so quietly in secret parleys.

Diplomats are trained to have recourse to the “arts of peace” for the purpose of resolving conflicts. They offer an alternative to war as a way of ending an unacceptable situation in their country’s transactions in international relations. Their business is negotiation. They take a back seat when a war is being waged. We may then assume that theirs is a voice for peace, except when war is clearly both winnable and profitable.

Assuming rationality on their part, one should be able to say that while politicians may not mind “nice little wars” that are fairly inexpensive and which their side is likely to win, they are reluctant to go to war if it is going to be costly and yet inconclusive. There can be no such thing as a “nice little war” between Pakistan and India. But the absence of war does not assure peace and friendliness. Decision makers may opt to live in high tension with a neighbour so long as they can stay away from the brink. This is what Pakistan and India have done.

Ruling politicians may feel that the time has come to lower tensions, make mutual concessions to resolve outstanding disputes, and move towards cooperative relationships, but they may be kept from acting accordingly from the fear that their actions will not have the support of their relevant publics. It is precisely in situations like this that the peace activists, the makers of a pro-peace climate of opinion, have a role. The emergence of such a climate, if it becomes widespread, will encourage the politicians to start building bridges to peace, if they are already inclined to do so.

Let the present drive for promoting mutual goodwill at the popular level in both countries continue. It may generate excessive optimism that subsequent developments at the governmental level do not justify. But its potential for the good is surely greater than any hazards it may carry. Moreover, do we have an alternative? If somebody has one, let him please tell us what it is.

Questions hanging over Kashmir

PAKISTAN and India have argued, and fought, over Kashmir for 56 years. The futility of it all has now persuaded them to try to see each other’s point of view and find a mean between the extremes of ‘nothing but the plebiscite’ and ‘denial of the existence of a dispute altogether.’

The BBC’s ‘Question Time India’ screened from Srinagar on August 22 and earlier from Delhi has brought to fore the full range of the Indian public opinion on Kashmir. The ‘Question Time Pakistan’ failed to do that because its duration was brief, all sessions were held in Karachi, none was devoted to Kashmir nor held in Muzaffarabad, no leader of any standing from Azad Kashmir sat on the panel (indeed we hardly have any) and, lastly, though the compere was articulate, she could not get the best out of the panel or the audience for she was impatient and hectoring as her background and lifestyle appeared so different from theirs.

Maybe one day BBC holds a ‘Question Time’ on Kashmir at Muzaffarabad to gauge the public sentiment on Pakistan’s side of Kashmir and thus complete the gamut. The Srinagar ‘Question Time’ was of special value because it bought into focus the divergence in the views and sentiments of the people of India and the people of Kashmir and of various regions and communities within Kashmir.

Though living under the shadow of bayonets, the participants were blunt and fearless in expressing their views even when wholly contrary to the Indian official policy and propaganda. Equally impressive was the note of realism struck to varying degrees by the panel of five on the odium and a number of participants from the floor on the gravity of the problem and the urgency to resolve it.

It was quite the opposite in Delhi though that was some months earlier and well before Vajpayee’s peace initiative when tension between India and Pakistan was at its peak. In Delhi the discussants agreed, and the audience roared approval, that Kashmir itself posed no problem. The only problem needing resolution was the armed infiltration from Pakistan. Particularly painful was the dilemma of the Muslim member of the panel, one Arif Mohammad Khan who thought the basic problem of Kashmir was how to get vacated its part ‘unlawfully occupied by Pakistan.’ Quite obviously he was trying to appear more loyal than the king.

Another marked difference in the thinking of the audience at Delhi and srinagar showed in its vote on the role of Pakistan. In Delhi only a few hands went up in favour of talks with Pakistan, in Srinagar there was hardly any against and just a few held Pakistan responsible for the troubles in Kashmir. The intervening time, no doubt, played a part, but the difference in the perceptions of the people who rule from Delhi and those who suffer its consequences in the tormented territory remains wide.

The views of Mufti Saeed, chief minister of the occupied territory, who has also been a minister in the Indian cabinet, suggested that the gap in the appraisal of the situation between the government and the people of India on the one hand and the people of Kashmir, on the other, was now fast closing.

Mufti Saeed, who has come to power through free and fair elections have earned India’s chief election commissioner the prestigious Raymond Magsayray award, in his statements made a refreshing departure from the position of his more loyalist predecessor, Farooq Abdullah, whose son Omar is now leader of the opposition in the Srinagar assembly and also sat on the BBC’s panel.

The thinking of the people of the state, Mufti said, has undergone a qualitative and enduring change. Their sufferings, they now realize, will not end so long as India and Pakistan confront each other. The solution to the dispute, however, will not come in one go but evolve through a sustained gigantic effort. Mufti, unlike his predecessors, conceded that the backbone of militancy in Kashmir is local, the gunmen from Pakistan and footloose fighters from elsewhere only reinforce it.

A cynical and sullen Omar Abdullah however kept insisting that armed raiders from Pakistan still keep coming and the peace in Srinagar and the areas around it is illusory. Omar, thus, seemed to view the return of the tourists to the Valley as a proof of the incompetence of his father’s administration rather than a new hope kindled among the insurgents and loyalists alike by the prospects of an understanding between India and Pakistan.

Sajjad Lone, son of the assassinated Abdul Ghani Lone (introduced as a spokesman of the people who refuse to recognize the Indian suzerainty over Kashmir) was greeted by loud cheers every time he spoke, eloquently and logically, for the resolution of the dispute through talks between India and Pakistan with which the people of Kashmir must be associated.

Cheers were even louder for a young questioner from the audience who said the right of self-determination would be the only solution. The boos were frequent and longer for Omar Abdullah who thought this right had long since extinguished.

Reacting to that the BJP-RSS member of the panel intoned time and again that the Valley did not constitute all of Kashmir and the contentment and cordiality that prevails in Jammu and Ladakh is being overlooked to make the problem look bigger than it really is. The base of militancy, he said, was shrinking and may vanish one day under good but stern governance and not by making concessions.

Amitabh Mattoo, representing the Valley’s persecuted pundits as well as the academia (he is vice chancellor of Jammu university at a remarkably young age) played the conciliator. He wanted all standpoints to be considered, including that of the secessionists, in bringing about an inter-communal harmony of the kind that prevails in Jammu. That in course of time would itself resolve the problem.

The discussions left a lasting impression that Kashmir is now recognized as a dispute, the solution to it has to be found through goodwill and not by suppression of dissent or by harking back to the 1948-49 UN resolutions or through a third party mediation.

Though it wasn’t said specifically, the theme was that the solution sought was only for the Valley and areas around it. The merger of Jammu and Ladakh with India and of Gilgit and Baltistan with Pakistan conformed to the wishes of the people and need not be reopened.

A solution for the troubled areas at which both Mufti and Omar hinted was autonomy with the line of Control all but easing to exist for the Kashmiris living on both sides. The Indian government cannot differ too violently with what Mufti and Omar say for both have been its ministers.

For Pakistan, it is not a bad starting point for talks, if not the ultimate solution of the dispute. The warning bell to the complacent lot here is that Lone and the audience ask for independence and not for accession to Pakistan. It is difficult to blame them. Azad Kashmir is hardly a model to inspire them either for its self-determination or for its prosperity. Surely they knew that while they were casting votes around that very time an army general was retired to head the Azad Kashmir government.

An independent, or even autonomous, Kashmir to the people there conjures up an Asian Switzerland. Pakistan may not stand in the way of this blissful dream of a tormented people. Pakistan is pressing for early talks. With whom, the Indians must be wondering. And will a parliament in Pakistan be in session or in existence to ratify the agreement as all bilateral or international agreements must be?

The Kashmir dispute would have been more tractable if Pakistan were to be more democratic and tolerant of dissent. But the Indians cannot have it their way either. On the day Vajpayee, Advani and all their 28 chief ministers gathered there, the streets of Srinagar fell silent and guns boomed while it was business as usual in Jammu. The arguments made in the studios of BBC were thus borne out in the bazaars of Srinagar and Jammu.

Tasman Spirit - III

THOSE citizens of the city of Karachi (and they are many) who are worried about further massive degradation to our environment in the wake of the Tasman Spirit oil spill must hope that President General Pervez Musharraf did not do as a PPI report published on August 28 would have us believe :

“Following directives by President Pervez Musharraf, a high-level co-ordination committee has been formed which will meet daily to review the impacts of oil spill into the sea from Greek-registered [Why can no one get it into his head that the vessel is registered in Malta? Or does no one know the difference between Malta and Greece?] grounded oil tanker MT Tasman Spirit on environment and public health.”

Surely Gen. Musharraf could not have issued a directive in respect of the high-level committee on his recent visit to Karachi, at “a high-level meeting” held at the Governor’s House on the 25th, the purpose of which was : “to speed beach cleaning, lighterage, salvage operations and rehabilitation of the environment and affected people.” (The term ‘rehabilitation of the environment is reminiscent of the ‘restoration of democracy’, neither the environment nor democracy having ever been in a particularly healthy condition.)

The ‘high level’ committee is to be chaired by the chief secretary of Sindh, and the chairman of Karachi Port Trust has been appointed committee secretary. The members are the government of Sindh home, information, environment, fisheries and health secretaries, the IGP Sindh, director-general Rangers, COMKAR, administrator defence housing authority, district coordination officer, Brigade IS 5 corps, director-general maritime security agency, director-general ports & shipping, commander marine security agency, managing director Karachi fish harbour authority, and the director-general environment, Sindh. Is it possible that the president believes that these 18 men (no oil spill expert amongst them) can and will meet on a daily basis and, as the notification issued by the department of services, general administration and coordination of the GOS has it, ‘the committee will provide a forum for all stakeholders to take necessary measures to overcome the losses and find ways and means for an early redress of the worsening situation and restoration of the environment, ecology and health conditions in the affected areas.’ Will it?

The government of Sindh is in its own dysfunctional state, so it is unimaginable that any of its departments or agencies can be anything but likewise

The stakeholders obviously have to be assisted in filing their claims. And against whom are these claims to be filed? And where? It is understood that the relevant charter party signed by the charterers of the vessel, the Pakistan national shipping corporation, with the owners and/or operators of the Tasman Spirit covering this disastrous voyage, specifies that general average proceedings and arbitration (if any) will be held in London and will be governed by ‘English law’. The other relevant clause reads:

“Oil pollution insurance clause : Owners Warrant that during the charter party the vessel is covered by their P&I club for oil pollution damages up to USD 1,000,000,000 (USD 1 billion) for all pollution risks, each accident or occurrence.”

When oil is spilled and damage is done, most people in most places try to avoid or lessen whatever they are liable to pay. An excerpt from the August 22 issue of the maritime magazine ‘Fairplay’ states:

“Polembros, the owner of the grounded tanker Tasman Spirit, together with the American P&I Club will effectively be the sole source of compensation for all claims arising from the vessel’s break up, legal sources say. Pakistan is currently not a member of any international compensation regime and in the absence of such international funds, the owner and P&I Club will be subject to national laws governing limits of liability. ‘It is still very early to start talking about compensation. As far as I understand, our P&I Club is spending more than they are obliged to. This is likely to continue,’ Polembros’s operations manager Nikos Karagiannis told Fairplay. In the absence of Civil Liability and International Oil Pollution Compensation funds conventions, both Polembros and the American Club have admitted to Fairplay that they are currently unsure about their exact legal positions. According to Joe Hughes, chief executive of the Shipowners Claims Bureau of the American Club, they are focusing on the immediate task of clean-up operations. ‘We will then have to wait and see how the legal dimension pans out,’ said Hughes.”

The different stakeholders will, of course, read this differently.

As for our preparedness to meet all eventualities arising out of oil spills, I reproduce an email message received on August 21 from Dr Pervez Naim, an environmental impact specialist, who is a regional programme coordinator of the Regional Environment Assessment Programme in Kathmandu and a former director of the Pakistan chapter of the international union for the conservation of nature and natural resources (IUCN) :

“Greetings from the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal!

“Your column on Tasman Spirit prompts me to share with you the following points regarding some ‘official’ efforts towards oil spill control. These points are based on my personal experience and observations as a member of the Technical Committee, Marine Pollution Control Board (MPCB) where I represented IUCN from 1994 to 1998.

“1) In 1994, the DG Ports & Shipping prepared a summary for the Ministry of Communications saying that since no oilspill has ever occurred in Pakistan waters therefore no such event is likely to occur in future.

“2) In December1994, Port Qasim acquired oilspill control equipment including booms and skimmers. All this equipment was kept locked in a warehouse, as no suitable vessel was available to mount these.

“3) The only Pakistani who got a master’s degree in marine pollution control on IMO scholarship worked for PQA in the Environment Section. He prepared the first oilspill contingency plan for PQA. Soon after that the PQA management transferred him to another section.

“4) An oil spill/garbage cleanup demo was presented to Benazir Bhutto at KPT. The Singapore based company representative gave a running commentary as the giant vacuum cleaner type machine roared in an attempt to pick up floating garbage. BB dismissed his claim of the machine’s efficiency and said, “I don’t think it is working”. The man said, “Yes it is working”. BB gave up by saying, “maybe your eyes can see better than mine”.

“5) As Chairman MPCB, Admiral Mansurul Haq brought in a commercial company to demonstrate a cleanup of the Karachi Fish Harbour. The crew came with bamboo poles fitted with wheat flour sifting sieves, and enthralled the select gathering with their futile attempts in scooping out the oil and garbage floating on water surface. The MPCB had real hard time justifying payment to that company.

“6) While Admiral Fasih was in the Chair, [CNS] Aditi Kiran spilled oil about 70 nautical miles off Pasni. I was on board the Naval aircraft along with the DG MSA, DG P&S and DG Sindh EPA that surveyed the oil spewing ship. My recommendation was that no action should be taken on the spilled oil. The oil had spread quite widely. The pre-monsoon winds were breaking up the slick and mixing of suspended particles was reducing oil buoyancy to the point of its submersion. The oil was already emulsified and therefore it was useless to spray any dispersant on it. This is exactly what was done and the spill did not cause any significant damage.

“7) This episode prompted Admiral Fasih to order a joint oil spill control drill by MSA, PQA and KPT. I drafted a routine for the drill. It was based on using a counted number of coloured plastic balls spilled at 2 open locations, estimating the rate and direction of the spill spread, then strategically laying the booms to capture most of the balls. I also gave a briefing to the teams but no one appeared interested in engaging in an exercise where one’s efficiency could be measured. As a result the Admiral got treated to a demonstration as follows:

“On a calm December morning, boats took visitors to a site where oil booms were already in place. Within the confines of the booms, a small amount of oil was carefully ‘spilled’ and then picked up with a skimmer! We prepared well for oil spill control!”

Those who are rushing to the courts and filing meaningless, unsubstantiated claims would be better served were they to read what is posted on the Internet concerning the various oil spills, the ensuing compensation claims, the relevant arbitration or other legal proceedings, and the Tasman Spirit’s grounding and consequent break-up at Karachi, and not be guided and advised by landlubbers.

As for our being ready to meet all eventualities, we may dwell on this aspect after the defence authorities have decided on the upper limits of the shortness of the shorts to be worn by men, walking or jogging in their parks.

(Email address changed, currently arfc@cyber.net.pk )

Congress: a case of split personality

A NO-CONFIDENCE motion only gets serious if there is a serious chance of defeating the government; or if the issue is serious enough to persuade the MPs of a ruling party or alliance to withdraw support to the government on a question of principle. The two propositions are not unrelated: only a very serious crisis can threaten the majority of a government.

The no-confidence motion brought in by Ms Sonia Gandhi fit neither criterion. It was not meant to. The exercise was designed to create confidence in Sonia Gandhi rather than display no-confidence in Atal Behari Vajpayee. It was unsuccessful on the first count; and the second was a no-hoper in any case.

The lack of tension was evident on both sides of the house. When the opposition has nothing new to say it generally says it loudly in the hope of simulating interest. That is what the Congress, led by its reader, or perhaps read by its leader, did. The government was indifferent, since it knew that nothing would make a difference.

It was a blip event, unlikely to be remembered beyond the weekend of obligatory obituary notices in the print media. Perhaps this was why L.K. Advani, a forceful logician when he is at his best, went underboard rather than overboard in his response to the motion. As for the prime minister, he was merely bored. Who can blame him?

Chandra Shekhar, as usual, hit the right key when he abstained from voting on the motion. It was his way of dismissing the proposition as immature. The only time he became exercised was when Sonia Gandhi made the rather unusual charge that Mr Vajpayee had apologized to Indira Gandhi during the Emergency and had begged for his release.

I have no idea who is in charge of Ms Gandhi’s information base, but whoever told her this story clearly kept it a closely guarded secret for 25 years. Ms Gandhi does not quite get the fact that there is supposed to be a certain decorum in the parliament, at least among the senior leaders. The parliament should be different from the mud-slinging that goes on when candidates wrestle on the election field. The culture is cut-and-thrust, not cannon filled with loose shot.

The Congress did have one opportunity to bring a genuine no-confidence motion against the government in the life of this parliament, over the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat. That debate might not have brought down the government, but it would have broken its ranks. Issues that seared the conscience of India were involved. The prime minister himself made his anguish known.

A government victory would have been numerical and technical; the opposition leaders would have ensured a moral defeat for the government, and done so with the nation watching on television. But Sonia Gandhi refused to move a no-confidence motion on the riots. Why? She did not have to consult anyone. She certainly did not consult anyone this time. In any case, no one outside the government would have disagreed, and many inside the government would have been too embarrassed to defend themselves. Sonia Gandhi let that opportunity pass. Were those riots less important than Buta Singh’s unclear accusations?

Why is no one in the Congress asking such questions? The answer is guilt. Sonia Gandhi did not move a no-confidence motion on Gujarat because she had decided that she would fight the Gujarat Assembly elections as a pseudo-BJP party, riding some imagined ‘soft-Hindutva’ wave against Narendra Modi. She did not want to seem ‘secular’ when she was ready to compromise on secularism. She rediscovered secularism only after Narendra Modi devastated the Congress in Gujarat. However the rediscovery remains uncertain, because the party has not totally lost its belief that laudatory references to the cow can woo an electorate that wants more electricity and better roads.

The fact that the Congress has lost its way is only part of the problem; more relevant is that it has lost the route map to any important political destination. The party has become a bit of a split personality. Its realistic half recognizes that it cannot win a majority on its own any longer; its egoistic half prevents it from becoming partner of a working coalition that can hope to come to power through cooperation. The Congress continues to believe that the other non-BJP parties will have no option but to accept Sonia Gandhi as the leader of the coalition and therefore as the person to be projected as the future prime minister.

The purpose of the no-confidence motion was not to challenge the government, but to force the other opposition parties to accept Sonia Gandhi as their leader, implicitly if not explicitly. But this is not a game of dare. And there is nothing personal about the stand taken by political parties which refuse to nominate Sonia Gandhi as their candidate for prime minister: personalized politics is poor politics.

Leaders like Chandra Shekhar, Sharad Pawar, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Deve Gowda are not children who have bought a lottery ticket and are waiting for destiny to send them a prize. They base their assessments on what they read of the Indian mind. A significant portion of the Indian electorate does not want a person of Italian origin to become the country’s prime minister.

When the people of India are offered a choice between Gwalior and Italy, they will not spend too much time in debate. His own personal stature makes Vajpayee add at least 5 per cent to the BJP vote; with Sonia Gandhi as his opponent, he doubles the advantage. To suggest this in Congress circles is an act of treachery, and an act of treachery is an invitation to a beheading. Congress leaders therefore maintain a stoic silence when they cannot find the language to be sufficiently loyal.

Elections are a time when politics turns hard. There is too much at stake for levity. The Congress may have discovered an excellent ally in Laloo Prasad Yadav, but that does not mean that Laloo will give the Congress more than five or six seats out of 40 in Bihar. This too is a measure of the party’s decline. (It might be hard to believe, but when the Congress was the predominant party in Bihar in the 1950s, Bihar was considered the best-administered state in the country.)

Charity is neither offered nor expected among friends. If Mulayam Singh Yadav does negotiate an electoral adjustment with the Congress in Uttar Pradesh, he will not give the party more than 10 seats out of 80. In other words proportions will be the same, irrespective of whether the ally has been friendly or less than friendly.

The Marxists may be the most vociferous supporters of Sonia Gandhi now, but it might be a good idea to check with them if they will offer even a single seat to the Congress in Bengal to honour such allegiance. They will not. So what price friendship? The allies of the Congress are telling Sonia Gandhi that she is not worth more than about a dozen seats in the parliament out of 180 in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal. Her opponents will tell her the same. If the Congress does not accept such a marginal role in the North, it will not have any alliance and get even fewer seats.

The North-east, which delivered for the Congress in the last elections, is out of reach this time. In states like Andhra Pradesh, where the Congress could have hoped to do well, new factors like the Telengana movement will chip away its potential gains. Power has led it into a swamp in a substantial state like Maharashtra. Broadly, the Congress will pick up seats because of the spread factor rather than the strength factor.

These are the facts. They do not encourage Walter Mitty-fantasies. The timing of the next general elections will be decided after the results of the four Assembly elections in November. If the BJP wins three, it will hold the general elections in late January or February (I am assuming that the prime minister will go for the Saarc conference in Pakistan in early January, and the campaign season will start, officially, only after that).

There is therefore not much time. The Congress should use the coming Assembly elections to create the environment for coalition-building by offering a share of the seats to its potential partners in the general election. For some reason I do not see that happening. In all probability, the various parties will go their different ways and then get into intense bargaining when, and only when, an election date is declared.

If the Congress loses in the Assembly elections, a third front could finesse it. That is a tired term, however, and the front might want to consider that one reason why third front sounds appropriate is because it always comes third. How about second front? It has a martial ring to it as well. Cynicism apart, the Second Front may not be such a bad place to be parked in. It is the only parking lot that has roads leading in either direction.

The good thing about every election is that it is always so different from the last one — except for losers.

The writer is editor-in-chief, Asian Age, New Delhi.

Don’t call me

WE were having a cookout in the backyard when the phone rang. I answered it and the man on the other end said he was offering me a free trip to Florida.

I screamed an obscenity and hung up.

Just as I was about to cook the hamburgers, the phone rang again and the man said, “I could have been a robber. You wouldn’t know it unless you had our security system in your house.”

I said, “Do you watch ‘The Sopranos?”’

He said, “I do.”

“Do you know what Tony Soprano calls someone he doesn’t like? Well that’s what I am calling you.”

I turned the hamburgers over. My friend Wolf said, “You don’t fool around when it comes to junk calls.”

“Why shouldn’t I tell them off? They ring me when I’m in the bathtub, when I’m watching a ballgame and when I am having an argument with my kid.”

Wolf said, “You know they passed the ‘Do Not Call’ law. You can get on a list and if a marketer calls you, he could be fined thousands of dollars.”

“How do I get on it?”

“It doesn’t start until October 1.”

The phone rang again. Before the person spoke, I said, “I hope you get Lyme disease.” There was a pause and I heard a voice say, “Is that any way to talk to your mother?”

“Mom, I didn’t know it was you. I thought it was a junk call.”

“Do I sound like a junk caller?”

“Of course you don’t. After all, you’re my mother.”

“Well, if you ever wish me Lyme disease again, I’m going to hang up on you.”

I said to Wolf, “That was my mother. Can I put her on my ‘Don’t Call’ list?”

Wolf said, “I don’t think so — she’s not a telemarketer.”

Someone said, “You burned the frankfurters.”

Wolf said, “The junk phone people are fighting back. They say the ‘Don’t Call’ list is a violation of the Constitution because they are entitled to freedom of speech.”

I said, “What about my freedom of speech?” “They have gone to court and asked for an injunction to stop the list from being enforced.”

“I hope they lose.”

I put baked potatoes on the grill and the phone rang. Wolf said, “Don’t answer it.”

“What if it’s my mother testing me?”

“I never thought of that.”

I picked up the phone. The lady said, “This is your last chance to get 50 percent off on a hot tub.”

Since she was a woman, I was polite. “I don’t need one.”

“If you bought a hot tub, I could come over and we could drink martinis and soak in the hot water.”

I said, “It was nice talking to you.”

Wolf said, “What was that all about?”

I said, “Some junk calls are better than others.” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services