| 27 March 2004 | Saturday | 05 Safar 1425 |
Regional parties hold trumps
The Bush administration's decision to upgrade its relations with Pakistan and designate it as a major non-Nato ally has not caused much surprise. It was expected that sooner or later the United States would offer Islamabad some form of compensation for all that it has been doing for Washington.
Besides the economic aid, something more substantial as well as symbolic was needed to please President Pervez Musharraf 's constituency, the military, to strengthen his hands.
During his last week's visit to Islamabad, secretary of state Colin Powell pledged to maintain a long-term partnership with Pakistan and include it in a fairly exclusive club of non-Nato allies for "future military-to-military relations."
The new status will put Pakistan in the company of such key US allies as Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Japan and South Korea. It will provide Pakistan access to US-owned military stockpiles on its territory, privileged rights to receive military training and priority of delivery for defence articles.
Mr Powell's visit coincided with renewed military action by Pakistan army against Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects and their tribal supporters. The secretary of state conceded that the elevation of relations with the United States was a reward for Pakistan's unstinting efforts to capture Al Qaeda suspects sheltering in Pakistan.
While paying tribute to Pakistan's contribution to the fight against terrorism, Mr. Powell significantly remarked:" We must do together more if your region, and if indeed the whole world, is to live in peace."
India appears to have been somewhat rattled by the US decision to bestow the status of a major non-Nato ally on Pakistan. It expressed its disappointment at US failure to have informed New Delhi about the plan although Mr. Powell had held discussions with Indian leaders before leaving for Pakistan.
A statement issued by Indian external affairs ministry said the US decision would have "significant implications" for India-US relations - strong words from a strategic ally of America.
The real problem is that Mr. Powell's statement about Pakistan's new status has come at a time when India is preparing for general elections in about a month's time.
The opposition Congress party, which has criticized the American decision as " a repudiation of India" is using it against the BJP government in the election campaign. It is particularly embarrassing for Mr. Vajpayee who took pride just a couple of months ago in fostering strategic relations with the United States.
New Delhi, however, appears to be overly concerned. Pakistan's new status implies military co-operation and not mutual defence. By designating Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally, the US is not committing itself to fight on Pakistan side.
It is doubtful if the new status will provide any shield against India's military postures. Also, the carefully nurtured Indo-US strategic partnership goes well-beyond non-Nato ally status. Besides, Washington is quite willing to declare India a non-Nato ally provided that New Delhi ceases to be allergic to the designation.
It is not yet clear what practical gains will accrue to Pakistan after acquiring the status of a major non-Nato ally of the United States. It has been starved of American weapons after sanctions were imposed on it in 1990.
Will the new status enable Islamabad to acquire F-16s and other weaponry from the United States which have so far been denied it under Indian pressure? That will be the real test to determine whether the elevation of relationship carries any tangible benefits for Pakistan or is it largely symbolic in character?
The gnawing anxiety for Pakistanis is: What will be the American expectations after Pakistan enters the fairly exclusive club of major non-Nato allies? During his recent visit to Islamabad, Mr. Powell expressed the hope that as US-Pakistan relationship moved forward, there would be an opportunity for greater participation at political, economic and military levels.
"There is no limit", he significantly remarked, "to what we can do together". Will the US expect Pakistan to send troops to Iraq to bolster peace-keeping efforts by American forces, provided some sort of United Nations support can be found?
Islamabad must be aware that President Bush and his defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have pledged to change the way America's armed forces are distributed around the world and that the biggest restructuring of America's global forces since 1945 is under way.
Of course, the Pentagon is still worried about China, North Korea and the security of the Gulf. But the two new factors driving the review are: the danger of international terrorism and the "arc of post-cold war instability" stretching from the Balkans to the Caucasus and around the Asian shore.
That is the reason for considering new naval arrangements in Asia. With the help of the latest technology, Pentagon intends to develop the futuristic concept of off-shore bases, loosely based on oil platforms, to circumvent diplomatic and "access" problems. After it has joined the club of major non-Nato allies, what role, if any, is Pakistan expected to play in the restructuring of America's global forces and facilities?
The upgrading of Pakistan-US relations has two other important implications: its dark shadow on the ongoing Pakistan-India peace process and its impact on the domestic situation.. We have a history of losing our way whenever we are faced with the prospect or actuality of getting US military aid.
Our special ties with the Americans, beginning in 1954, led ultimately to the 1965 war with India. The enormous economic and military assistance that we obtained from the Americans, being their key partner in the struggle against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, again made us lose our bearings and we embarked on the dangerous adventure of "proxy war" in Kashmir to "bleed India white". But in the end, it were the Kashmiris and the people of Pakistan who have suffered far more than the Indians.
There is nothing wrong with being a major non-Nato ally and get all the benefits that the upgrading of relationship implies. But we must guard against the temptation of indulging in self-deception. Irrespective of our relations with the sole superpower, the ongoing peace process with India must be pursued zealously because there is no alternative to a Pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbours.
One of the great achievements of the Musharraf regime has been that it has harmonized and softened the brutality of a military-dominated government and allowed media freedom to an extent sadly unknown under the civilian "elected" governments. But the main task still remains undone.
Pakistan cannot become "a modern, progressive, and dynamic" nation, as President Musharraf put it in January 2002, unless and until it develops a clear sense of national identity, undertakes wide-ranging educational reform and rebuilds the institutions that have been systematically destroyed during the past 57 years.
The most urgent candidates for institutional re-building include the judiciary, the administrative services and the police. Restoration of the vitality and credibility of the parliament is no less important.
Bringing democracy to the world of Islam is said to be one of the chief policy goals of the Bush administration. It remains to be seen whether the upgrading of Pakistan-US relations will promote or actually hinder the achievement of this laudable objective in this part of the world.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Regional parties hold trumps
That no political party will win a majority at the next polls in the Lok Sabha, the lower house, is pretty certain. Parties themselves know this. What they do not seem to realize is that the one-party era has ended for many years to come. In fact, it ended with the Congress split in 1969. By then, the party's prestige for having won freedom had also been worn out.
True, the Congress won three general elections even after the split. But all of them - two under the leadership of Indira Gandhi and one under Rajiv Gandhi - indicated more of people's wrath against those who were in power than of hope in the party they returned. It was a negative vote. Even then, the Congress did not learn any lesson.
The last few years have been really bad for the party. It has lost its moorings. It seems as if it has no fire left. The old spirit of service and dedication has been taken over by power politics. Even the party's strong point - secularism - has been reduced to a mere slogan, evoking less and less conviction.
Congress president Sonia Gandhi looks personally committed to secularism. But this cannot be said about the other leaders of the party. The tactics some of them adopted during the state elections, especially in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, reflected soft saffronization as if they were trying to ride two horses at the same time.
Fears expressed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) are genuine. It has rightly pointed out that the people had expected from the Congress a firm defence of secularism and democratic values. Instead, they had found the Congress vacillating and compromising. Still the Left parties have announced their support to the Congress if and when it forms the government. This makes up for the party's weakness elsewhere.
The Congress has also lost the grassroots contact which distinguished it from other parties. The RSS appears to have occupied the space which the Congress has vacated. This has been seen during the state elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh.
It looks as if the RSS cadre has spread all over the countryside in the north, particularly in the tribal areas. It has opened schools, hospitals and health centres to offer basic facilities.
This has earned it goodwill. The RSS has, however, poisoned the minds of the tribal population. Gujarat saw how it was used for a pre-planned massacre in the state two years ago.
The BJP may be giving the impression that many Muslims are joining it. But the community, at least in UP, which has 80 Lok Sabha seats has swung towards the Congress. Mulayam Singh Yadav's Samajwadi Party and Mayavati's Bahujan Samaj Party, which the Muslims preferred in the past, may be the losers.
Like UP, Bihar too has a substantial population of Muslims. But they look like staying with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) of Laloo Prasad Yadav who has not allowed any communal riot to break out in the state in the last decade.
The Congress will have the Muslim vote on its side because of its alliance with the RJD. But the Congress has only a few seats in Bihar. Its best bet is still UP. Yet, however big the Congress chunk, it cannot push up its present strength of 112 to the magic figure of 273 in the 545-member Lok Sabha.
The induction of Rahul Gandhi in the Congress may not make much difference. His sister Priyanka may have. But then like any mother in the subcontinent, Sonia Gandhi wants the son to succeed, not the daughter who is considered a part of the husband's family.
Whatever the BJP's claims, it too cannot capture a majority. It was founded on a parochial appeal and built upon that sentiment. Its support is not wide. Unless the majority community gets contaminated between now and the polling day the party will be nowhere near the 273 mark. The BJP may even find it hard to retain its present strength of 182.
In 1977, the party miraculously increased its number from nine to 90. But that was because it had given up its separate entity - the Jana Sangh as it was then called and merged into the Janta Party which enjoyed at that time the spotlight because of the movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan, a Gandhian, against Indira Gandhi's autocratic rule.
Both the Congress and the BJP, the two main parties, should have known by this time that their base is not countrywide. The BJP has very little following outside the Hindi-speaking states and the Congress in the Hindi-speaking states. Both are trying to ride on the shoulders of regional parties.
Both, in fact, admitted their limitations when they sought alliances with different parties of the country. There is hardly any state where they have gone it alone. Combining with local parties big or small, is their compulsion.
The fallout has, however, been positive. Local competent candidates who would be left in the past have got nominated. In the process, some good elements in the region have come to the fore.
What is unfortunate is the personal attack against Sonia Gandhi. The manner in which Advani and other party leaders are concentrating on her foreign origin shows nervousness on the part of the Sangh parivar. Using a BJP-inclined TV network for this purpose gives out all.
I do not see the BJP and the Congress together winning more than 300 seats. Anyone who can command the support of the rest of 245 seats has every chance to become the prime minister.
Atal Behari Vajpayee is not a foregone conclusion as the BJP makes out. In any case both the BJP and the Congress while forming the next government will see to it that real power stayed with them. The example of the BJP is before us. In the ruling NDA, it has practically all the key portfolios - home, external affairs, finance, industry and communications.
Whatever the alliances may cost to the BJP or the Congress, they are good for the strength of Indian democracy. No party can go autocratic. Regional aspirations will get represented at the centre.
Even the BJP which once thrived on its slogan of one culture and one party has changed into a firm believer of the coalition politics. Vajpayee's main point of campaign is that he has successfully run the 24-party government for the full five-year term.
Vote-wise, both the BJP and the Congress manipulate caste and other identities. They find that case factor counts not only in Bihar but also in UP and other Hindi-speaking states. It is, however, the failure of communists and liberals who have not been able to retrieve people from poverty and backwardness that has given rise to narrow considerations.
L.K. Advani's effort to devalue regional parties is understandable because he believes in strong centre. At least the Congress has learnt a lesson in this respect after missing the prime ministership for not having accommodated Mulayam Singh Yadav some years ago.
It is a pity that regional parties are not being respected for the tremendous job they have done to sustain India's pluralism. That is the reason why federalism has not taken roots in the country, something which would have integrated the nation firmly.
The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.