| 03 April 2004 | Saturday | 12 Safar 1425 |
Playing with a straight bat
Another Mogadishu for Americans
With the Indian general elections around the corner, it will be worthwhile to have a close look at the new face the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP ) is presenting to the electorate. Surprisingly, this time the face is not embellished with the saffron colour of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism; on the contrary, it rather reflects the dim glow of modernity and moderation.
From the early 1980s to the 1990s, the BJP's strategy was to capture power by inciting communal feelings and raising emotional controversies. The Rath Yatra, demolition of the Babri mosque and the demand for a common civil code were used to consolidate the Hindu vote bank.
In the last general elections held in 1999, the BJP strategy was more or less the same as in the previous elections - to consolidate the Hindu vote bank and keep it on its side. The communalization of Kargil and Pakistan-baiting were the main features of the BJP election campaign that helped it emerge as the largest single party in the Lower House (Lok Sabha) and form government with the help of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).
In a remarkably short time, the BJP appears to have undergone a quiet transformation. It is a notable achievement of Mr Vajpayee that, despite the burden of his years, he has succeeded in remodelling the party of Trishul-wielding sadhus, mosque-wreckers and Hindutva supporters into one that is being increasingly associated with modernity and moderation. It, however, remains to be seen whether the new ideas will take root in the BJP or fade away after Vajpayee leaves the stage.
Addressing an election rally at Amritsar recently, Mr Vajpayee said he did not believe there would be another war with Pakistan and that the current atmosphere of tentative peace with Islamabad was heading to become a permanent affair. His deputy L. K. Advani, known for his hawkish attitude towards Pakistan, is advocating a policy characterized by flexibility and moderation. Mr Advani has recently said that India was ready "to give and take" in order to make peace with Pakistan over Kashmir.
On the domestic front, the transformation is no less significant. A minority development conference was recently held in Delhi by the BJP to explain its repositioning in relation to minorities. Refuting the charge that the BJP was a communal party, Mr Vajpayee pointed out that if that had been the case, it would have been open only to the Hindus.
He asked the Muslims to assess whether their lives had been better under the supposedly communal BJP than under the so-called secular Congress. Mr Advani has emphasized that it was time for Hindu-Muslim reconciliation. The induction of a high-profile Muslim politician like Arif Mohammed Khan is being used to soften the party's anti-minority image.
Vajpayee's decision to let the Indian cricket team tour Pakistan, despite security concerns and fear of its possible adverse impact on election results, has turned out to be a shrewd one. It has achieved two crucial objectives: it has brought the peoples of India and Pakistan closer to each other and helped rehabilitate the image of demonized Indian Muslims.
The brilliant performance of Indian bowler Irfan Pathan in the current cricket series has done more for his ravaged co-religionists in the Gujarat state, from where he hails, than all the exhortations and repair work done since the horrifying massacre three years ago.
Something unimaginable happened in Gujarat when India won the final one-day match at Lahore. In celebrating India's victory and the match winning performance of Pathan, the boy from Baroda, thousands of Hindus hugged the demonized and so-far-shunned members of the Muslim community in the Mandvi area of the walled city where his family lives in a dingy house next to the Jama Masjid (his father Mehmood Khan being the mosque's caretaker). Most people in Pakistan have no idea of the terrible price the Muslim minority in India has to pay for any deterioration in Indo-Pakistan relations.
The BJP's "Vision Document 2004", issued on March 30, seeks to placate both the extremists and the moderates. Besides being its strong vote base, the BJP relies heavily on the extremely disciplined and organized RSS cadre for election campaigning.
Issued on Lord Rama's birthday, the 48-page document reaffirms its commitment to Hindutva, Ram temple and other emotive issues. But, unlike the agitational tone of the Palampur resolution, the "Vision 2004" emphasizes the importance of resolving the temple issue through dialogue and opening a new chapter in Hindu-Muslim relations.
Interestingly, the document avoids any direct reference to the core issue of the abrogation of Article 370 which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir. It, however, claims the whole of J&K as belonging to India - a stand similar to the one taken in a resolution passed by the Indian parliament during Narasimha Rao's prime ministership. The "Vision 2004" also rules out any solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute on the basis of "redrawing of national boundaries".
Election manifestoes all over the world are meant to win elections and are seldom meant to be implemented in letter and spirit. The fact that Mr Vajpayee has vowed to stay the course and remain faithful to the Islamabad agreement to solve all bilateral problems, including Jammu and Kashmir, should reassure sceptics in Pakistan. At least we should wait till the results of the elections are known and a new government is formed in New Delhi.
The BJP's election manifesto seeks to convince the Muslims that the party has moved away from its Hindu communal roots. Appealing to the minorities to change "their old mindset" in relation to the BJP, the "Vision document" gives a three-point assurance to them - with regard to education, economic uplift and empowerment. It emphasizes that, contrary to the propaganda of Congress and other political opponents, the Vajpayee government has not discriminated against minorities nor curtailed their religious freedoms in any manner.
There is no doubt that since 1993, the BJP, under the guidance of Vajpayee, quietly assisted by Advani, has slowly but surely discarded its Hindu revivalist programme and entered into secular alliances with other political parties. It has ruled India for the last six years with the help of the NDA. The Vision document makes it clear that the BJP will remain faithful to the NDA's common minimum programme and the coalition manifesto will be the guiding document for governance.
While looking at the new face of the BJP, one is struck by the new role it has assumed, - the role of a centrist party, committed to serve not just the Hindus but all the people of India, the role that was once played by Congress in its good old days. The BJP leadership has made determined efforts to move from the extreme right to the centre of more moderate Indian politics. This shrewd move has given it extra strength.
It already had a firm grip on the Hindutva vote bank; by claiming the centrist agenda, it has created a serious dilemma for Congress which has to reposition itself. And the only space left for it is to move to the left which, under the present circumstances, is not a good recipe for winning elections.
It is one of the sublime paradoxes of history that the current BJP election campaign is conspicuously different from the one in 1999. That campaign was primarily based on Pakistan-baiting and the communalization of Kargil. But the 2004 election campaign of the BJP is based on economic progress (India shining), modernity, a pro-minority image and peace and amity with Pakistan.
If these slogans help the BJP win the forthcoming elections, either by retaining its present strength in the Lok Sabha or even increasing its tally by a dozen or so seats, that will be a historic victory for moderation and reasonableness in Indian politics.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Playing with a straight bat
Yasin Malik, a youthful Kashmiri leader, was the first militant in the valley. He raised the gun because he lost faith in the ballot box. The state election in 1987 were "rigged" in his eyes.
In fact, the entire uprising by the Kashmiris is said to have taken shape because of their conviction that they would not come to power through elections. The late Abdul Ghani Lone told me that the youth went across the border to get training and weapons when they came to believe that the bullet was the only alternative to the ballot.
Still, the same Yasin Malik wants the Kashmiris to boycott the polls when the sanctity of the ballot box has been restored considerably. The last election held here two years ago was free and fair. Many foreign observers testified to this in their reports. True, the majority of Kashmiris boycotted it on the call of the Hurriyat but the polls were not manipulated as they had been for the past 50 years, except the ones held in 1977.
The valley may face a piquant situation if Yasin Malik, the Hurriyat's key member, insists on going from door to door asking people to stay away from voting. The Hurriyat has told Deputy Prime Minister L. K. Advani during talks last week that it would not give any call for a boycott. Its reasoning that its hands are full may not convince Yasin Malik. But the Hurriyat's decision not to do anything to disturb the process is correct. The talks, according to the organization, have been "positive and constructive."
Yet, it is a pity that the Hurriyat is not participating in the coming Lok Sabha elections. Had it done so and won at the polls, its representative character would have been established. At present, most of the known Kashmiri leaders have come together to constitute the Hurriyat. They are popular. But they have never proved their popularity in terms of votes.
That shopkeepers go on a "hartal" at their asking suggests more of alienation with New Delhi than support in their favour. Not long ago, the Hurriyat said that it was willing to take part in elections provided they were held under the supervision of the UN. Knowing well that no sovereign country could agree to such a demand, the Hurriyat's was an impossible condition. Probably, it wanted to be everything to everybody lest it should lose its following.
In elections a party has to take a stand on certain issues. The Hurriyat cannot do so because of the disparate forces it represents. Shabir Shah, also a youthful Kashmiri leader who spent many years in detention, had once made a more acceptable proposal. He wanted elections to be held under the aegis of human rights activists from India. Were the Hurriyat to support this and drop its demand for UN supervision, the Indian government would be put in a spot.
However, I find him also talking in terms of boycotting the polls. "Taking part in the polls will tantamount to betraying the blood of the martyrs," he says. In fact, he and others should contest so that they can tell parliament of their sufferings and sacrifices.
Both New Delhi and the Hurriyat will, however, realize sooner than later that the elected representatives, both in the state assembly and the Lok Sabha, want a place at the negotiating table. The demand will become louder as and when "substantive issues" are taken up at the meetings from June onwards.
It is a legitimate demand because those who win at the polls come through a process. They have every right to know what is going on with regard to their state. The Hurriyat may run them down. But they have gone to the people and faced their questions as well as the militants' wrath. Look at the attack by the militants on Mehbooba Mufti's poll convoy.
Yasin Malik, who swears by Gandhi, should have condemned the incident. A boycott does not mean creating an atmosphere of terror where people are afraid of going to the polling booths. The situation will become more bizarre when India and Pakistan begin talks on Kashmir. The next meeting of the Hurriyat with the home minister may well be at a time when Islamabad and New Delhi take up the Kashmir issue. The big challenge will be how to reconcile the discussions taking place at two separate venues.
I hope India has a roadmap. Will Islamabad feel mollified by what New Delhi may concede to the Hurriyat? Is there a concrete formula which can be placed before both the meetings? At present it appears that New Delhi wants to keep the talks going while it gropes for a viable solution. This is clear from the statement by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee asking for some innovative ideas on Kashmir. It means that the think-tank of retired officers of the government is traversing the same beaten path.
President Pervez Musharraf's advice to drop all such proposals that are not acceptable to one side or the other is a sound one. But impetuous as he is in utterances on Kashmir, he can spoil the situation by speaking unnecessarily. His statement that Kashmir was the core issue was not called for. It only stoked the fires of differences. The reaction of foreign offices on both sides showed that.
In his latest statement, Musharraf has made it clear in a threatening tone that there must be what he called 'forward movement' on Kashmir by July or August. A military general does not know that solutions cannot be sought at gunpoint. For the first time, New Delhi has used in the joint statement such words as "to the satisfaction of both countries." It indicates that India wants a settlement to the "satisfaction" of Pakistan as well. Musharraf should not ask for more.
The new government at Delhi will assume office by the end of May. Musharraf wants progress in six to eight weeks. He does not know how a democratic process moves because it is based on consensus. His threat is, however, a challenge to the Pakistani people wanting to normalize relations.
It is understandable that Musharraf wants to show at home something on Kashmir. Yet he cannot push things beyond a point. It will be unproductive and may stir opposition in India. What distresses me is the scenario where the solution of Kashmir is deadlocked. Will India and Pakistan go back to square one because of lack of agreement? At a time when people-to-people contact is increasing and when cricket diplomacy is making a dent in the wall of mistrust, any wrong observation from official quarters can slow down the process of understanding.
True, the solution of Kashmir is not maintaining the status quo. Nor is it the valley's integration with Pakistan. Still New Delhi should give all the guarantees Islamabad wants on river waters. The Indus water treaty has held the undertakings together. One unfortunate fallout from New Delhi's talks with the Hurriyat is that the divide between the valley and the two other parts of the state, Jammu and Ladakh, are getting firmly delineated. Trifurcation of Kashmir is the RSS agenda, not that of the country.
The writer is a leading free-lance columnist based in New Delhi.
Another Mogadishu for Americans
Brigadier-General Mark Kimmit, deputy director of operations for the US occupation forces in Iraq, described the events as a "slight uptick in localised engagements."
Meanwhile, analysts back in the United States compared the pictures from Falluja to footage of dead American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by cheering crowds in 1993 - footage that led directly to the withdrawal of US troops from Somalia. But Americans were shielded from the real ugliness of the killings in Falluja by their television networks; Arab viewers saw it all.
True, the murder and mutilation of four American civilian contractors in Falluja really was just a 'slight uptick' in the violence in Iraq. In the previous forty-eight hours there were two Britons hurt in violence in Basra, an Iraqi shot at a US checkpoint, an attack on an Iraqi paramilitary recruiting station in Baghdad, a soldier killed near Ramadi, a suicide bomb attack on the home of the police chief in Hilleh, a US Marine killed near Fallujah, several American soldiers wounded in Mosul, five more Marines killed by a roadside bomb, and fifteen Iraqis wounded by a car bomb in Baquba.
In other words, the four unfortunate American contractors in Falluja were just another drop in the bucket. It was the manner of their deaths - set on fire, beaten with pipes and mutilated by a cheering crowd who then dragged their charred bodies through the streets and hung them upside down, handless, footless and in one case headless, just above the roadway on the old railway bridge across the Euphrates - that made it so different. That, and the fact that the whole thing was filmed.
If American viewers had seen what Arab viewers saw - the obscene enthusiasm of the crowd, the blithe disregard with which local people were driving under the burned American corpses half an hour later - then President Bush might be having his Mogadishu moment right now.
They never will see it, of course, but the question won't go away: at what point will the American public decide that the price is too high and pull the plug on this foreign adventure? They did it on the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Lebanon intervention in the '80s and the Somalia intervention in the '90s. They will almost certainly do it on Iraq, too, in the end, but when?
In the mid-'90s there used to be something called the 'Mogadishu line' which the US military were never supposed to cross. Rounding up from the eighteen US soldiers who were killed in one day in Mogadishu in 1993, it was a doctrine which stated that the US armed forces should undertake no overseas mission that was likely to cause the deaths of more than twenty American soldiers except when vital national interests were involved.
That was far too simplistic, of course - it was not so much the number of dead Americans as the videotape of their bodies being dragged before cheering crowds that turned the US public against Somalia - but that is why this incident may mark a turning point.
Four hundred and sixty-one American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since Mr Bush flew on to an aircraft carrier last May to declare the 'major combat phase' of the Iraq operation over - almost four times as many as died in the war itself. (Any bets that those shots of the flight-jacketed Mr Bush posing before the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, originally staged to provide footage for his re-election campaign this autumn, will end up being used by the Democrats instead?) So the Mogadishu line has clearly moved a long way, as you would expect after the shock of 9/11. But it's out there somewhere; it has not evaporated.
The unique impact of the Mogadishu footage came not from the indignities inflicted on the American dead, but from the obvious pleasure that the Somali onlookers took in it. There was a whole background story that Americans didn't know - almost a thousand Somalis had been killed by US firepower that day - but the viewers at home took one look and decided that no more Americans should die to help the Somalis. The impact of this videotape from Falluja and of the others that will doubtless follow - for these events will set a new standard for Iraqi resistance fighters to aspire to - could be the same.-Copyright