The people of India have reasserted faith in their democracy. Over 60 per cent of the 714 million registered voters cast their vote last week, which must be some sort of world record, and there were no significant cries of foul play. They have also confounded the pundits. Caste, religion and political ideologies have been diminished. Incumbency was not a negative factor unreasonably. Businessmen are happy that the 9 per cent growth rate will be maintained despite the global recession. India has moved to the centre, which is a vote for performance, moderation and global-interdependence.
From the region’s point of view, there is one significant development. Fear or the psychosis of fear didn’t play a major part in voter behaviour. After the Mumbai episode, the BJP certainly tried to whip up anti-Pakistan outrage and blame the UPA government both for a security lapse and for its inability to strike back in retaliation. But the voter didn’t fall prey to prejudice and passion. Realism and pragmatism was the order of the day. Indeed, the politics of hope seems to have triumphed – hope of a better economic future for Indians regardless of caste, colour or creed; hope of peace in the neighbourhood, especially with Pakistan. Indians seem to understand that if Pakistan has been painted by their nationalist establishment as “a historic culprit”, it is currently a victim too of the most vicious form of terrorism that can easily spill over the border if it is not contained within. In other words, India cannot be sanguine if its neighbour’s house is on fire and the wind can change direction and start to blow India’s way. This is a sort of Obama factor. President Bush used fear to win two elections while President Obama talked of hopeful change. In much the same way, the BJP’s national security paradigm didn’t impress the voters and the UPI’s middle path with 9 per cent annual growth, strategic partnership with America, responsible regional behaviour and trickle down economics seemed a better bet.
This is good news from South Asia’s point of view. Pakistan and India desperately need to get back on the peace track immediately. The terrorists attacked Mumbai precisely in order to derail the peace process. If Dr Singh had ordered retaliatory strikes on any part of Pakistan as demanded by the BJP hardliners, the terrorists would have succeeded beyond their dreams because the region would have been plunged into war and anarchy. Before the elections, Dr Singh was obliged to take the position that Pakistan must crack down on terrorism unequivocally before talks about conflict resolution could restart with India. If he hadn’t done that, the BJP might have succeeded in whipping up nationalism and accusing the Congress of a weak-kneed response. But there is no such compulsion now. The UPA doesn’t need to appease anyone left or right. Indeed, it is heartening to recall that mid-way through the general elections Dr Singh risked a statement acknowledging the fact that back-channel diplomacy between his government and that of General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan had traveled a significant distance in trying to find solutions to old disputes, including Kashmir, until political instability in Pakistan froze the process in 2007.
In the last few days, a couple of significant developments seem to point the way forward. First, there is the MOU signed in Washington with the Pakistan government which talks of a transit trade corridor from Central Asia to South Asia through Afghanistan. Clearly, the idea is to make Afghanistan, Pakistan and India inter-dependent in a meaningful and positive sense as opposed to the sum-zero game that has been played until now in the region. There is bi-partisan support in Pakistan for building enduring peace with India and for opening up the region to one another and becoming interdependent. The proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline is also a step in the same direction.
Second, Washington appears to be seized of the necessity of helping resolve outstanding conflicts between India and Pakistan so that Pakistan can concentrate on confronting the terrorist enemy within Pakistan – which is also the enemy facing America in Afghanistan – instead of being obsessed with India. Indeed, the insistent message from Washington to Pakistan in the last few weeks has been to change its anti-India mindset and replace it with an anti-Taliban-Al Qaeda mindset. To India, America is saying that it must solve outstanding disputes with Pakistan and build trust. Interestingly, the New York Times has, rather unprecedentedly, editorialized that India must take the initiative to resolve the Kashmir dispute, and, failing that, quickly move to settle water and other territorial issues with Pakistan. So the hope is that Dr Singh will move swiftly to reduce India’s troop deployment on the border, thereby facilitating the reduction of Pakistani troops on the other side and their redeployment in FATA.
Dr Manmohan Singh should not stick to the pre-election tactic of insisting firmer action by the Pakistani authorities against its homespun terrorists before reopening the peace dialogue. Indeed, he must do the very opposite so that Pakistan can concentrate on the task at hand. That would be a blow for hope not just in India but also in Pakistan and Afghanistan.