| 25 May 2004 | Tuesday | 05 Rabi-us-Saani 1425 |
A question of balance
Sonia's inner voice
For several weeks before the April-May 2004 Indian elections, pundits and gurus predicted that Atal Behari Vajpayee and the coalition headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party would coast to easy victory.
Some even suggested that the elections would establish the BJP as a truly national party, sending the Congress into a small corner where it would stay, sulk and slowly wither away.
Vajpayee was expected to triumph on the strength of India's booming economy, his personal popularity and rapidly improving relations with Pakistan. That, of course, didn't happen. The results are in and the experts were proven wrong.
What went wrong for Vajpayee and the BJP? What led to Congress's unexpected victory? Why did the Indian electorate choose a foreign-born person over one with such deep roots in the country? In the coming days and weeks many answers will be provided to these and other questions. I will attempt to provide today some suggestions of my own.
As the country went through several rounds of voting, exit polls began to indicate that all was not well with Vajpayee's party. "There was an invisible undercurrent in the Indian electorate against the NDA (the National Democratic Alliance headed by the BJP) that none of us could gauge," Sushama Swaraj, a minister in Vajpayee's government, told reporters soon after the realization dawned upon her and her colleagues that they had been voted out of office.
"The results are totally against our expectations. We will have to sit in the opposition," she continued. Nonetheless, she was not prepared to grant that the election results were "a verdict for Sonia Gandhi to become prime minister.
We should not conclude that the people of India have accepted a foreigner as prime minister. My mind still does not accept Sonia Gandhi as the prime minister."
True to her word, she threatened to resign from parliament as Sonia Gandhi's party unanimously elected her as its leader in the legislature and she inched closer to becoming prime minister.
However, the pressure from the BJP increased suggesting that Vajpayee's party was going back to its Hindu nationalist roots. It forced Ms Gandhi to abandon her quest for premiership, paving the way for Dr Manmohan Singh to take that office.
Not only did the Indian voters sent the BJP packing, they also sent home the highly popular chief minister of the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. Chandrababu Naidu was the best known champion of India's new economy based on knowledge accumulation and information technology.
He had successfully turned his state and Hyderabad, the state's capital, into busy centres of IT and higher education. He had, for instance, attracted a consortium of American institutions to establish a world class business school at Hyderabad. All that did not help Naidu or his political party. The Congress captured two thirds of the seats in the state.
The BJP's campaign was styled on the pattern of American presidential elections. It made an extensive use of television, the Internet and fax machines to get its message across to the electorate.
The party chose "India Shining" as its slogan, hoping that it would resonate with the masses who were expected to credit the party with India's astounding success in bringing hundreds of thousands of jobs to several modern sectors of the economy. But the voters were not impressed.
In fact, the electorate turned the BJP out of office, taking advantage of the revolution in information and communication technology on which Vajpayee and his associates were basing their hopes for victory.
In India, the poor vote. This time, however, they went to the polls fully aware of the fact that they had been left miles behind by the middle classes, the main beneficiaries of the developments in ICT (Information and Communications Technology).
As the penetration of television and mobile phones increased in the country, the poor could see on the television screens or get information from their friends and family members on mobile phones on the many parts of the country that were being successfully transformed.
They could see the workers in Bangalore's, Hyderabad's, Chennai's, and Mumbai's high-tech industries enjoying the fruits of their labour in western style cafes, bars and dance halls. Bollywood, India's large movie industry, also gave the same cheerful message.
But the poor, living lives that had hardly changed since the country gained independence 57 years ago went to the polls to give a clear message to the policymakers: they wanted to be included in the process of economic and social transformation that had brought such benefits to hundreds of millions of the country's large and growing middle class.
The news of the success of this class had come over the airwaves and on to the millions of television screens now watched by the Indian masses. For the first time the much-touted Indian democracy - the largest in the world in terms of the number of people who dutifully troop to the polling stations every few years - produced results the masses really wanted. This was the first time in India's history that the underprivileged really had their say. Among them, was the large Muslim minority.
The BJP, grounded in Hindu fundamentalism, had a narrow political base. It had itself come to that realization, one reason why it chose the country's economic success rather than Hindutva as the means for broadening its support.
That approach had worked in the several state elections held in 2003 in which the BJP triumphed easily over the Congress. But those elections were much more focused on local concerns.
This time round the voters were forced to think about big national issues brought to their attention by the slick campaign launched by the ruling party. That didn't help the party.
By stepping back from the pursuit of Hindutva, the BJP succeeded in de-motivating its normally highly charged workers. These were the people behind the Gujarat massacre of some 2,000 Muslims a couple of years ago.
The memory of that incident was still fresh in the minds of 120 million Muslims who were not prepared to be wooed by the BJP, no matter how loudly it proclaimed some change of heart.
The Muslim vote bank could not be claimed by Vajpayee's party. It appears to have gone to a host of ethnic parties that represented scores of under-privileged people in Indian society.
To its credit, the Congress stood its ground by espousing the secular philosophy that had guided Jawaharlal Nehru, the founder of the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty. Sonia Gandhi campaigned tirelessly along with her two children to remind the Indian voters that the BJP, despite its electoral slogan, was committed to its project of turning India into a Hindu state.
The controversial plan to rewrite textbooks for school children that emphasized the "Hinduness" of the Indian civilization was successfully used by the Congress to drive this message home.
"The outgoing government's politicization of historical scholarship - its determination to impose textbooks peddling a narrow, revisionist, Hindu nationalist vision of India's past on the country's schools and colleges...was one of its most alarming initiatives.
The BJP has often seemed to want to inflame our perceptions of the past in order to inflame the passions of the present," wrote Salman Rushdie in a newspaper article, a day after the Congress upset the BJP.
No matter who becomes India's next prime minister, the important change delivered by the 2004 elections will move the centre of political gravity in the country from the rapidly growing and relatively prosperous states in the west to those in the north and northeast.
It is a combination of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal and Orissa - the poorer states in the Indian union - that will now rule the country and provide the new crop of leadership. What does this radical shift in India's politics mean for its economy and its relations with Pakistan?
One thing that has distinguished economic management in India is that political changes at the top don't bring about dramatic changes in the direction of economic policies.
India's programme of economic reform is less than a decade and a half old. It was begun under the Congress Party in 1991 and was shepherded by Finance Minister Manmohan Singh. The basic thrust of that programme was maintained by the BJP when it came to power.
It is, therefore, safe to predict that economic reform will continue although the role of the public sector may increase somewhat in order to deliver to the poor the services they demand.
The programme of privatization that was pursued aggressively by the BJP government, especially in the last few months, may also slow down as the new government is likely to be more sensitive to putting people out of jobs by handing over worker-laden state enterprises to the private sector.
Where relations with Pakistan are concerned, there is no doubt that Vajpayee was responsible for the thaw that has occurred in the relations between the two countries since April 2003 when the former Indian prime minister offered his hand of friendship to Pakistan.
In spite of the opposition from his own comrades in the BJP, Vajpayee persisted in moving ahead with this initiative. He was prepared to overrule those who put hurdles in the way.
The highly successful tour by the Indian cricket team would not have taken place had Vajpayee not intervened personally to stop those who wished to scuttle it. There is no doubt that the BJP's defeat has removed from office the most resolute exponent of peace between India and Pakistan. But would that halt the process?
Vajpayee served his purpose by initiating the process. He may, however, have found it difficult to make serious concessions the continuation of the process would inevitably require, particularly on Kashmir.
A Congress-led government with a strong Muslim constituency may be more willing to do that. Sonia Gandhi, born in Italy, may be more willing to compromise on Kashmir than was Jawaharlal Nehru and his direct descendants, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.
The Nehru-Gandhi family traced its roots to the pundits of Kashmir. Giving up any bit of Kashmir for them was like giving up their homeland. There are other reasons why the Congress-led government will be required to maintain the momentum built by Vajpayee.
The people who have put it in power will want it to spend more public money on public goods than on defence. Peace with Pakistan would help in that respect. There is one other dividend for Pakistan in the Congress's electoral triumph. India will certainly turn towards a more secular approach in domestic social policy and in foreign affairs than would have been the case under the BJP.
If peace with Pakistan results in an easy movement of people between the two countries, a secular India would help Pakistan to move in the same direction. A Hindu India - the objective the BJP was committed to, no matter the recent change in its rhetoric - would have produced a backlash in Pakistan and strengthened the forces of radical Islam. The liberal and secular elements in the two countries can now begin to reinforce each other.
A question of balance
It is often said that while soldiering is the art of attempting the impossible, politics is the art of getting someone else to do the impossible. Such a truism might help to explain the continuous stalemate in Pakistani politics.
At present, there is uncertainty over the issue of the president's uniform. The fact of the matter is that whether or not President Musharraf remains the army chief come December 31, the role of presidential power in a parliamentary government and the role of the military in civil affairs will remain unresolved.
Considering the direct bearing these issues have on political stability, it is a mystery how President Musharraf's relinquishing his position as chief of army staff can have a salubrious effect on national politics.
It is unclear how General Musharraf concluded that operating as a highly-empowered president through a combine of vulnerable and pliable individuals would enable him to continue with efficient administration.
After all, it cannot be said that the current parliament is an independent one. Moreover, the president's links with a particular party, through which he runs the show, has not had a good effect on governance.
Such arrangements failed to work for the presidential systems of President Ayub Khan and General Ziaul Haq. Their parliamentary creations had no political philosophy other than loyalty to the president, and hence, lacked credibility in the eyes of the people.
If, since 1958, Pakistan has witnessed no constitutional or voluntary transfer of power, the principal reason would appear to be the inability of the political and military establishments to agree on the relative powers of parliament, the prime minister and the president.
Army chiefs have long used extra-constitutional powers to build up governments based on presidential power. Even political leaders, given a mandate by the people for democratic rule, have instead used parliament to accumulate authoritarian powers for themselves, leading to inevitable institutional failures and the collapse of government.
The military defeat in the 1971 war provided a unique opportunity for politicians to consolidate parliamentary power. Unfortunately, this was not to be as Zulfikhar Ali Bhutto, even after the 1973 Constitution came into effect, used the prime ministerial office as a seat of authoritarianism, unwittingly giving the army a chance to move in once more.
General Ziaul Haq used his despotic powers to take society down the path of his own narrow-minded choosing. Later, Ghulam Ishaque Khan was not content to play second fiddle in the president's office.
Former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif had the opportunity and the public support to exercise delegated powers but chose instead despotic powers.
In his latest experiment, General Musharraf is using his powers as chief executive for the promotion of societal and economic reform. But the same extraordinary authority, when exercised as president in a parliamentary set-up, has created a situation that is obstructing the role of parliament as the main repository of power.
The issue of the National Security Council has further compounded the balance of power problem, making a mockery of the wisdom that the military can have no role in the functioning of a successful civilian government, and that attempting to institutionalize the military as part of a lawful civil authority is not a solution to our myriad problems.
But we also have to face the unpleasant truth that in Pakistan the civil establishment, whenever given unfettered powers, has failed to provide an environment conducive to stable governance. Politicians claim, perhaps with some justification, that indirect military interference has instigated these failures.
Whatever the reason, the failure of civil government has resulted in handing the army an important role in the power equation. Indeed, political society has come to depend upon it, and it would be naove to expect that the military's intervening capability, which arises from its power to successfully disregard civil law, can be checked simply by the addition of clauses to the legal code.
While everyone appears to agree that the solution lies in strengthening civil and parliamentary institutions, it is often debated how this can be achieved without military interference as there will be future governance failures.
Any evaluation of the consequences of President Musharraf relinquishing his army command should be based on three assumptions. First, that the army will continue to back him fully in view of external developments and America's interest in our domestic affairs.
Second, that if President Musharraf uses a political party as an alternative power base, his political interests, sooner or later, are likely to come into conflict with the army's institutional interests. Third, that since 1958 no head of state nor government, civilian or military, has been able to stay in power when support is withdrawn by the army high command.
Keeping these factors in mind, as well as the fact that the problems relating to parliamentary power continue to linger, we can deduce that if, as a civilian, President Musharraf continues to exercise his existing executive powers, it will be at best only a short-term solution.
And if the intention is to use such enhanced powers for the promotion of a de facto presidential system, this too will prove futile. Similar systems have been rejected twice already by the Pakistani people.
On the other hand, if President Musharraf's powers as a civilian were reduced to the level normal in a parliamentary system, economic and societal progress achieved under his leadership would take a downturn as he would have the lost his authority and power as chief of army staff.
Such a diminishing of presidential powers could also create a gap in administration that the parliament, in its current state as a fractious and leaderless entity, would not be in a position to fill.
If General Musharraf were to step down as both army chief and president, a sudden weakening of central authority would be witnessed and the situation would be exploited by a multitude of armed, religious and ethnic elements who would create a security situation that the parliament would not be able to control.
Neither would the declaration of martial law be a sensible solution. If another general occupied the president's office this too would invite external pressures and lead to destabilization and rifts in society.
If the president continues as army chief-cum-president using his present support base, the results of such a situation would again be predictable, with only its timing subject to variables.
And if he chose to give up the presidency to return to his army post, he would have more confidence than the rest of the electorate put together in the abilities of the government to conduct itself in a democratic manner and not tear itself apart through infighting within a month.
Quite clearly, the December 31 deadline has led to an impasse that requires a choice between constitutional propriety in the form of an empowered parliament (while knowing that this may invite chaos) or the extension of an expedient extra-constitutional arrangement with better prospects for governance.
The decision is made easier when taking into account General Musharraf's record as chief executive, in which, with some exceptions that appear out of character, he has discharged the responsibilities entrusted to him quite well and has proved himself a competent economic, though not political, manager.
Consequently, it can be argued that since no good will come if the president gives up his uniform on December 31, it might be better if he sheds before then his civilian baggage, if for no other reason than the fact that the incumbent government's attitude is obstructing the path of moderation, and poor governance is preventing the accomplishment of economic reforms that could benefit the electorate.
In an opinion piece written shortly after the 1999 coup, former law minister (now PML-Q senator) S.M. Zafar wondered why the people of Pakistan took to the streets on many issues except when the Constitution was overthrown.
The simple answer is that the people are concerned with good governance, not constitutional dispensation, but the overwhelming electoral response to the dismissal of the presidential governments of Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq indicates clearly that their preference is for a civilian, parliamentary democracy.
The challenge facing President Musharraf is to use his authority to prove that in Pakistan good governance and parliamentary power are not incompatible; perhaps opening channels with major political parties will help him to achieve this objective.
Sonia's inner voice
A Cabinet minister in the late BJP-government threatened to shave her head, wear white and eat only chana (gram) if Sonia Gandhi became India's prime minister. If for no other reason, Sonia Gandhi should have accepted the job.
I am trying to think hard if there is any precedent for what Sonia Gandhi did, some other instance when the crown was refused. The crown was hers by every right. She had the mandate and the numbers to form the government and India's poor had vested their trust in her. She chose, instead, to listen to her inner voice, a guardian angel's warning that all that glitters is not gold.
In the fullness of time, we may learn much more about the compulsions that outweighed her aspirations for it seems a personal decision rather than a political one.
It may well turn out to be a mother's instinct, that by becoming prime minister, she may have endangered the lives of her children, that some member or members of a lunatic fringe may have sought their vengeance not on her but more cruelly on her offspring.
She had lived through the trauma of her mother-in-law and husband assassinated, she too might have been a target. This would not have deterred her but her stubborn refusal to heed to the entreaties, to the imploring pleas of her party workers, suggests some deeper concern.
Sonia Gandhi is an Italian who became an Indian citizen. She speaks Hindi well enough to have addressed huge political rallies in that language. Her children are Hindus.
She was the elected president of the Indian National Congress, the political party of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru and Vallabhai Patel and it was this party that she rejuvenated and led to an election triumph. No one doubts, not even her bitter opponents, that without her leadership, the Congress would have been swept away.
During the elections and immediately after when it looked likely that she would become prime minister, she endured the most vicious diatribes on her foreign origin and an equal measure of abuse for being a Roman Catholic.
This was bigotry at its worst. Sonia Gandhi did not respond which further infuriated her opponents. She carried on campaigning urging India's poor to use the ballot box to make their case for a better life.
India's poor listened to her and believed her. Strange and ironic that they were willing to put their trust in a foreign-born lady and not in swadeshi politicians and even less in the Hindu fundamentalists.
The BJP may claim victory that it has prevented Sonia Gandhi from becoming prime minister but it has been a pyrrhic victory. One of India's most respected newspapers, The Hindu, in an editorial, has added its voice, mincing no words: "Ms Gandhi's stunning act of self-denial and political renunciation cannot be allowed to be seen as an endorsement of the vicious campaign that the Sushma Swarajs, the Uma Bhartis, the Govindacharyas and the rest in the sangh parivar have launched to block and subvert the electoral verdict...In no democracy are losers in an election entitled to overrule the umpire on who won and who lost."
Sonia Gandhi handpicked Dr Manmohan Singh. He becomes India's temporal leader but Sonia Gandhi has emerged stronger. She has become the country's spiritual leader and its conscience. She will be there to ensure that the mandate is not betrayed. She can become a Nelson Mandela type figure, even more powerful, with her hands on the tiller.
She has set an inspiring example but a precedent that will be deeply embarrassing to politicians all over the world including in our own country. Of course, we cannot compare ourselves to other political cultures.
We have tried our hand at different brands of democracy, we have searched for a political system best suited to "the genius of the people". We have had, for want of better phrase, "an interrupted democracy".
A sapling that is uprooted has no chance of survival. It has to be planted again and nurtured and protected. The sapling will grow at its own pace. We should not be seen to be hastening its growth nor stunting it.
The politicians of India are no better or worse than our politicians. They are as power-hungry and in some cases power-greedy. The poor in India are just as poor as the poor in Pakistan, as deprived and dispossessed and desperate.
But both have become impatient with their condition and are no longer reconciled to their kismet or dharma. Given political empowerment, they will show a maturity we have solemnly believed they do not possess.
The BJP as a political party has been shown up to have been out of touch with the people. The Congress too was out of touch and it took a lady of foreign origin to listen carefully to the real voice of India.
I have no doubt that our political leaders would have followed India's elections with interest. It is said that a wise man learns from someone else's experience and absorbs the lessons.
So far, we have only believed that the hungry only dream of bread. Now we know that they have been be able to identify the impostors. Call it a wake-up call or a warning, the meek may not inherit the earth, but they can change a government.
India is in for a rocky ride and whether Manmohan Singh can provide a stable government or not is something only time will tell. But there has been a clear rejection of communalism. A Sikh is now prime minister.
India has come a long way from those stormy days when Sonia Gandhi's mother-in-law sent the army into the sanctuary of the Golden Temple in Amritsar. And she paid a terrible price.
Sonia Gandhi's inner voice may have also told her that politics can be a dangerous business. But she would have needed no reminding. She is, after all, Rajiv's widow.
Sonia Gandhi is not the only lady of foreign origin who connected with India's poor. There was Mother Teresa who may yet be declared a saint once the formalities are completed.
She tended to India's sick. She brought a new meaning to serving the poor, set the bar too high for others to reach it. Sonia Gandhi may have done the same in politics.