India's democracy and its people
By Sunanda K. Datta-Ray
LONDON: It was pure coincidence that as Indians anointed another democratically elected prime minister, the Pakistanis next door succumbed once more to military adventurism. But circumstances behind the two events were similar enough to restrain any tendency to gloat that may have surfaced in New Delhi.
The Westminster system works in India, albeit creakily, and not only for a ruling elite. People have faith in it, and that matters almost as much as whether it actually delivers what they want.
The system allows the often conflicting urges of a highly complex society to be expressed through the electoral process. Even the argument over whether a former separatist Sikh MP can wear the kirpan (sword) in parliament speaks of accommodation.
But poverty -- an issue that should be central to all public activity -- did not feature anywhere in a hectic campaign. Such mundane concerns last impinged on the peace of mind of India's leaders in the 1998 election, when the furor over the soaring price of onions confirmed the tolerance of a people who feared that the only flavoring for their poor diet would become unaffordable.
India's constitution lists several lofty rights and a high- sounding set of principles outlining the rudimentary needs of a civilized society. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister, used to claim that there were no orphans because Mother India was the universal parent.
It is unfashionable now even to dwell on jobs, potable water, elementary health care, housing, schools or birth control. Personality dominates parties and programs. Politics is the high arithmetic of the numbers game.
It would still be inconceivable for an Indian equivalent of Pakistan's opposition Grand Democratic Alliance to clamor for the army to overthrow an elected prime minister. Nor would any self- respecting Indian leader emulate former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto who lost no time in courting Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf, "a courageous and bold professional, committed to civilian order" of whom she claims always to have "had a good opinion".
Oct. 12 is not the day that democracy died, she says, "but rather the day it began to be reborn". Perhaps she hopes that the General will do to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif what Gen. Zia-ul Haq did to her father (Zia ousted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 and had him executed in 1979) so that she and her billions can return home safely.
Karachi greeted the coup with jubilation, partly because the city is dominated by people who, like the Musharraf family, migrated from India, but mainly because Pakistanis accept as normal a military solution to civilian problems. So, apparently, does the United States, which cannot have been surprised by the coup.
Even without the rumblings ever since Bill Clinton pressured Sharif to withdraw in Kashmir, the Americans would see nothing untoward in the takeover since they have always regarded Pakistan's military as the ultimate source of power and as being directly responsible for the nuclear program, which interests Washington more than the fate of democracy.
Indians fear that the Americans might do a deal with Gen. Musharraf, as they see him as a secular figure with pro-Western leanings (his son and brother live in the United States). It is thought America might turn a blind eye to mischief in Kashmir in return for concessions over, say, Osama bin Laden, the renegade Saudi tycoon who is accused of funding Islamic terrorism and the Afghan Taleban movement.
Security is New Delhi's primary concern, especially after the veiled warning in Gen. Musharraf's first public speech. But 52 years of independence should have taught Indians that security does not flow from the barrel of a gun. Joy over last year's nuclear explosions was short-lived because Indians felt that daily necessities mattered more than the deterrent of mutually assured destruction.
The emptiness of Indian politics is revealed by giddy excitement over a slip of a girl whose father was thrust into the prime ministership by cruel accident and whose Italian-born mother has just about driven the last nail into the coffin of India's premier political organization. Instead of being allowed to sink into the comfortable obscurity of New Delhi's high society, Priyanka Gandhi Wadhera and her businessman husband are held up as the hope of the future.
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's raucous Hindu nationalism is no better. The indictment is not of any particular label but of how all labels are translated. In consequence, and however gratifying Pakistan's plight might seem to Indians, their own massive electoral upheaval might turn out to be another exercise in futility unless Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee attends to grassroots expectations.
Sharif collapsed for failing to do so, as did Indira Gandhi in 1977. Retribution strikes differently in each case, but strike it does. Democracy, like patriotism, is not enough.
-- Observer News Service