MID-TERM elections in the United States are usually staid, tension-free affairs that are of little popular interest, especially where think-tanks and the media are concerned. In nine weeks’ time, America will be going for another mid-term election, which has, however, generated unusual excitement and expectation and is being monitored not only by public interest groups, but by senior members of the administration as well.

The other unusual feature of this election, unlike most others, is the major role that foreign policy issues, in particular, the Iraq war, are likely to have on its outcome. So, for the past three weeks that I have been in this country, I have watched with interest this regular unfolding of the great American drama that has intrigued sociologists and political scientists for more than 200 years.

The strong and unyielding commitment to beliefs and practices generally known as democracy is what makes this country the envy of the world. It may be difficult for citizens of a democracy to appreciate its many blessings and advantages. But for those like us, who have had to go through setbacks and disappointments in our effort to establish a democratic polity, the pain and anguish at being denied the ability to elect and reject our rulers at pre-determined intervals is a matter of profound sadness at home and a major embarrassment abroad.

Coming back to the elections, many important and even contentious domestic issues continue to divide the two mainstream political parties. These relate to education, health, the environment, social security and other such issues. On foreign policy, the tradition has been for parties to refrain from emphasising their differences and to project consensus views, primarily because they recognise that the electorate is neither knowledgeable about, nor interested in, most foreign policy issues. As the veteran American politician, the former House speaker Tip O’Neill was fond of saying: “All politics is local politics.”

The American invasion of Iraq has, however, been a totally new experience for this country. It has generated more controversy and bitterness than any earlier American engagement. Had the administration succeeded in pacifying Iraq, most Americans would have forgotten, even forgiven, the administration’s transgressions. Instead, the past three years have proven that not only was the administration wrong on all counts, but more importantly, it has also pursued incompetent and counter-productive policies. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and over 2,600 American lives lost, but Iraq is no closer to peace or stability. In fact, US military commanders are now admitting that the country is sliding inexorably towards civil war.

Not surprisingly, all this has given rise to tremendous unhappiness and disquiet. Influential voices are being raised against the war, with mainstream politicians asking the administration to articulate what its war aims are. The rejection of Senator Joseph Lieberman, a vocal supporter of the Iraq war, by his party in the primaries, is seen as strong evidence of growing anti-war sentiments that have emboldened President George Bush’s opponents to intensify their criticism.

Many well-known Democrats, especially those in Senate races, have begun to demand that the administration set a definite timetable for the troops to return home. There are, however, others who are asking the Democrats to be more cautious, lest the Republicans accuse them of advocating defeatist policies and pursuing “a cut and run strategy”.

There is good reason for this caution for the issue remains highly controversial and emotional. A recent poll carried out by the Pew Research Centre found that the public is evenly split over pulling out US troops, with 48 per cent in favour of

keeping troops in Iraq and 46 per cent in favour of withdrawal. And even among those who favour bringing US troops home, only a third want this to be done immediately.

The result is that most Republican incumbents and challengers in tight races are avoiding any overt expression of support for their president’s policy on Iraq, while remaining supportive of the president on other issues. The White House recognises the dilemma faced by Republicans and has, therefore, decided to allow them to refrain from supporting the Iraq policy, as long as they do not join in the growing chorus to set a troop withdrawal date.

But the president and his neocon supporters are not going to take all this criticism lying down. Bush has decided to launch a major offensive in the coming weeks to strengthen support for the Iraq war, by emphasising the high stakes involved in withdrawal. The strategy is to take advantage of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 to hammer away at the claim that terrorism remains a major threat to the US. Accusing the opposition of aiming to appease the terrorists, he has warned that if the US were to withdraw from Iraq, “the enemy will follow us home”.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in one of the harshest attacks on the opposition, accused them this week of “moral and intellectual dishonesty” and charged proponents of withdrawal with promoting appeasement of “a new type of fascism”, similar to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. In fact, sadly and frighteningly for us, Bush has also sought to link Islam with fascism, by making ‘Islamo-fascism’ the new buzzword of this campaign.

The Democrats are responding by demanding that the administration articulate “an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment that this country is facing in Iraq.” This week, they tried to shift focus to the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the natural disaster that devastated Mississippi and Louisiana last year.

The administration’s slow and halting response to it is now acknowledged even by Bush supporters as a political debacle that “demonstrated callousness towards the poor sections of society, exposed the entrenched poverty that continues to stalk the country and also revealed major flaws in disaster relief and rehabilitation programmes”.

Democratic lawmakers and liberal advocacy groups, hoped to use the occasion to portray the president as elitist and insensitive to the concerns of the minorities. Most observers are of the view that just as Bush’s forceful and determined leadership in the wake of 9/11 cemented his claim to the presidency, the image of the president during Katrina as “aloof, out of touch, even befuddled” will remain etched in the memories of the people. Andrew Kohut of the Pew Centre characterised Katrina as “the event that calcified the criticisms people were having about Bush, made it more personal and had a big impact on how people look at him.”

The administration’s views on immigration have also split their supporters, especially the big business groups. While the White House favours an immigration bill that has an enforcement-focused approach, the Democrats favour an immigration overhaul that recognises that “illegal immigration is filling a gigantic need in the labour market.”

This is a significant development, because ever since the Republicans gained control of the House, they have rarely had differences with business, whether on taxes, regulation, labour or the environment. In turn, businesses have provided Republicans with strong and generous support over the years.

But this year, when the control of Congress is at stake, the spat could cost Republicans critical support in key districts, as evident from the shrinking advantage of the Republicans in fundraising campaigns.

Another interesting development is the sudden interest being shown by Washington lobbying firms in hiring well-connected Democrats, in the expectation that they will be winning control of at least one of the Houses of Congress.

The Washington Post characterised this as “a harbinger of possible upheaval on Capitol Hill”, since “many who make a living influencing government have gone from shunning Democrats to aggressively recruiting them.”

The mid-term elections are turning out to be more uncertain and critical for the Bush administration than had been anticipated. This is clear from the extra bounce that one can discern in Democratic candidates and the confusion and disarray evident among Republicans, even those in safe seats.

It will take a lot of time, effort and money to galvanise the Republican voter base on election day. As The Post commented wryly this week: “These have been tough days politically for Bush, what with his popularity numbers mired in the 30s and Republican candidates distancing themselves as elections near. He can no longer even rely as much on the once friendly conservative media, as columnists and television commentators lose faith in his leadership and lose heart in the war in Iraq.”

There is some truth in this assessment as evident from the shocking change in the attitude of William Buckley, an icon of the conservative movement, who caused a stir earlier this year when he wrote that “our mission has failed” in Iraq — and this only months after Bush had hosted a White House tribute on Buckley’s 80th birthday.

What does all this mean for South Asia? For one, if the Democrats were to win control of one of the two Houses, Bush will truly have entered the lame-duck phase of his presidency. His ability to craft policy and his freedom to enter into foreign policy obligations, especially on appropriations bills, will be sharply reduced.

Since the Bush administration’s policy initiatives on India enjoy bipartisan support, they are not likely to be affected, but relations with Pakistan are a totally different matter. True, the Democrats will remain as committed to the war on terror as the Bush administration, but they will be far less inclined to look at relations with Pakistan through the distorting prism of this war.

Islamabad will soon come to realise how issues such as democracy, human rights, and yes, the nuclear question, that have always been on the American agenda, can be brought back on the radar screens to impact on relations with Pakistan.

The writer is a former ambassador.

I HAD the privilege of meeting Akbar Bugti, the slain Baloch leader, after the birth of Bangladesh and before the Shimla conference. The main purpose of my visit to Pakistan was to interview Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then the country’s president.

I flew from Islamabad to Quetta at the request of Ghous Bux Bizenjo, then a prominent Baloch leader, to meet Bugti at tea. He had so much to say that the tea appointment stretched to coffee after dinner. I was with him for nearly five hours.

What he said then — I have consulted my notes - was not substantively different from his demand for autonomy more recently. The only difference is that then he repeatedly gave me the example of Bangladesh. Some provinces, he said, could go the same way if Islamabad did not realise that they had their own identity and aspirations which could not be suppressed either by using force or invoking the name of Islam. He wanted more powers and more royalties for natural gas in Balochistan. But he never used the word “separation”.

Bugti said that India should learn a lesson from Pakistan and analyse why Bangladesh became an independent country. Unless New Delhi gave full autonomy to the states, he said, it might endanger its integrity. He suggested that the centre should have only foreign affairs, defence and communications, and transfer all other subjects to the states.

I found Bugti to be a proud Pakistani and, at the same time, a proud Baloch. There was no contradiction between the two. He was less of a hardliner than other Baloch leaders. I was sorry to read words like “miscreant” used by some Pakistani newspapers for Bugti. But then, we in the subcontinent use the worst type of language for our opponents. “Miscreant” is comparatively mild.

Bugti expected India to be generous in the post-Bangladesh agreement. He criticised Bhutto for not letting others have their say. When I told Bhutto what Bugti had said, his remark was: ‘Bugti can have no complaint because he talked to you for nearly five hours, mostly against me, and all that is on tape.’ I believe the misgivings expressed by Bugti and some others made Bhutto incorporate the concept of provincial autonomy in Pakistan’s 1973 constitution.

However, the late Wali Khan of the NWFP told me a few years ago that Bhutto did not implement the undertakings he gave. In this respect, New Delhi’s record is also not too good. It is yet to implement the main recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission on centre-state relations. The centre has, in fact, become stronger after the recent Supreme Court judgment that the Rajya Sabha does not have to have a member residing in the state whose assembly elects him.

Coming back to Bugti’s killing, Islamabad has not handled the situation properly. Which of Pakistan’s neighbouring country is not facing an insurgency? India has been in the midst of military operations in the northeast for several decades. It, too, has tried to sort out political questions through military action but has failed miserably. After burning its fingers, New Delhi has initiated talks with the United Liberation Front of Asom in Assam. It has been negotiating with the Nagas for some years now. Unlike Bugti’s Jamhoori Watan party which wants autonomy within Pakistan, the demand of ULFA and the Nagas is for an independent state.

Take Sri Lanka. It has been facing the LTTE rebellion for many years. Despite taking military action against the LTTE, Colombo has approached New Delhi to put pressure on the LTTE to return to the negotiating table. Nepal, even after suffering at the hands of the monarch, is divided over continuing monarchy and converting the country into a republic. Talks are going on.

Pakistan itself did not reject the option for talks with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of Bangladesh. Islamabad held parleys with him for months and even when he was arrested before the military operation he was imprisoned, not killed. (General Yahya Khan, then the martial law administrator, sentenced the Sheikh to death but Bhutto, who took the reins from Yahya Khan, did not allow the sentence to be carried out.)

The common factor in all the situations is dialogue. Why was Bugti refused talks when he said that Islamabad could converse with the Al Qaeda but not with him? Former Pakistani chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah warned the rulers of Pakistan a few days before the killing of Bugti that the situation in Balochistan was getting out of hand and needed a political, not a military solution.

Maybe, a military-led government hates dialogue with its dissidents. It is afraid of sliding into a situation where give-and-take becomes necessary and a political solution inevitable. Islamabad must realise that about five million people of Baloch ethnic origin are located in three places, primarily in Balochistan in southwestern Pakistan, in southeastern Iran and in the southern tip of Afghanistan. They are disturbed at present.

Whether or not the sardari system which Bugti followed is anachronistic is not the point at issue. If feudalism and landlordism can stay as an integral part of Pakistan society, so can the sardari system. The country’s first priority should be how to return to democracy. The abolition of the sardari system and feudalism can follow. Still, most important is Pakistan’s unity and integrity. This cannot be protected by guns, a point that must be driven home in all South Asian countries. It must be realised that force does not solve any problem. There is no option to a dialogue or “an argument” as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen writes in his book, The Argumentative Indian.

The adverse fallout of happenings in Balochistan is the heightening of rhetoric between Delhi and Islamabad. I cannot understand how the sophisticated foreign offices on both sides can use the type of language they are doing to express their indignation. This is an expression of frustration in reaching nowhere during the unending talks. True, it is none of India’s business to interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters. Still, the outrage against human rights violations cannot be confined to the borders of the country which commits them. In this case, it is the killing of a leader who was known even during the freedom struggle against the British.

The Indian foreign office’s statement condemning Bugti’s killing is in order. But I have not been able to understand what point it was trying to score by making out Balochistan and Pakistan as two separate entities. Both Delhi and Islamabad can abuse each other to their heart’s content as long as they allow people on both sides to meet freely. If ever the two countries bury the hatchet, it would be through people-to-people contact.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.