Reform talks again
FINANCE Minister Yashwant Sinha is a robust optimist and this mood has infected his ministry too. The latest figures it has released within a day of the new government assuming office paint a rosy picture — fiscal deficit is within control and revenue collection is well up to the budget target.

Return of the jackboot
THE inevitable, which happened in Pakistan on Tuesday (October 12), was put in black and white on Friday (October 15). Army Chief General Parvez Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and announced that he, as the Chief Executive, has suspended the Constitution and the National Assembly.

Beijing's brutality
THE plight of an Indian maid in Paris is big news for the western media. But China can evidently get away with cold-blooded murder without even a murmur of protest from the champions of human rights.

UNDERSTANDING THE MANDATE
Performance of BJP, Congress
by G.S. Bhargava
DOES the BJP get only two cheers for its electoral performance. This is despite the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by it crossing the 300 mark in the 13th Lok Sabha, ending up perhaps at 306 after the remaining four seats in Bihar go to the polls.

How China got its muscle power
by V. Gangadhar
IT is an interesting coincidence that two of the largest and most thickly populated nations in the world, India and China, celebrated their 50 years of freedom within the space of two years.

No reason to gloat over Pak coup
By Tavleen Singh
IN one of history’s quirkier moments a new, democratically elected government took power in Delhi hours after a military coup in Islamabad brought Pakistan’s fragile experiment in democracy to an end. Soldiers put Pakistan’s Prime Minister under house arrest on the very evening that Atal Behari Vajpayee was putting his new Cabinet together.

Too many side shows, too many anchors
by Amita Malik
SO boring had the prolonged election coverage and the subsequent political manoeuvrings become, that one media veteran I know said he turned for relief to MTV. Only to find that MTV and Channel V were also highlighting the elections. So he decided to switch off the TV altogether.

Of socks and shocks
by K.K. Khullar
OVER the years I have specialised in losing only one sock. The result is that I have with me as many as 21 single socks. Where are other 21 pieces? In my analysis they are either lost, displaced or misplaced although not in that order.

75 Years Ago

India in England
THE extent to which the enemies of Indian freedom are active and vigilant in England is shown by the indecent haste with which Sir Charles Yate recently asked in the House of Commons what course His Majesty’s Government intended to pursue in view of the Assembly repealing the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Reform talks again

FINANCE Minister Yashwant Sinha is a robust optimist and this mood has infected his ministry too. The latest figures it has released within a day of the new government assuming office paint a rosy picture — fiscal deficit is within control and revenue collection is well up to the budget target. It was a different story last month when the same ministry disclosed that during the first four months the government had exhausted nearly half of the borrowing limit, which is the same thing as saying that the fiscal deficit was spinning out of control. Some improvement is due to the slight revival of the economy but that cannot explain all the change. With the new statistics before him the Finance Minister unfolded his immediate agenda with extra elan. The flow of excise and customs duty is right on target as is income tax, although that of corporate tax is sluggish. He is meeting the top brass of the Central Boards of Direct Taxes and Customs and Excise for pep talk and then everything will work out well. Yes, he is also confident of containing non-plan, non-salary expenditure and an overall reduction by 10 per cent is within sight. In this respect too he is organising a meeting of the financial advisers to the various ministries to impress on them not to exceed the budget provisions and rein in their political boss too. Will not the bloated size of the Council of Ministers hurt his plan to cut spending? No, it will not; what is more, it will not even upset his budget speech promise of downsizing the government. (It was as part of the dream that he offered to surrender one post of secretary.) Now he looks at it differently. The Council of Ministers is of the right size, less than 10 per cent of the total number of MPs, as both the Administrative Reforms Commission and the Sarkaria Commission have recommended. It may be the right size, but a bad influence on his immediate tasks..

As Finance Minister, Mr Sinha has no administrative power which lies with others. To go by the interviews the new Ministers have given to newspapers, he will face difficulties in the smooth implementation of his and the NDA’s programme. He is a free man when it comes to financial sector reforms, unless men like Mr Sharad Pawar oppose measures like opening up the insurance sector, virtually scrapping the Foreign Currency Regulation Act and directing the managers of pension and provident funds to pump their money into the stock market in the name of maximising returns. The point is that there are a few unreformed former socialists and it will be interesting to watch their response. But his ambition to bring about dramatic changes in the life of the common man by concentrating on six core areas like roads, energy, water, schools, hospital and housing will need the enthusiastic cooperation of other ministries and the state governments. Also huge funds. This is a problem area, particularly since he has ruled out imposing any new tax in the immediate future. He hopes to raise Rs 10,000 crore in the remaining weeks of the financial year by unloading shares of public sector undertakings in the stock market and the current upswing in the sensex will help him. But that will contain the fiscal deficit at 4 per cent. Optimism is a good thing in a minister, particularly one heading a thankless portfolio as finance. But vision is better.

Return of the jackboot

THE inevitable, which happened in Pakistan on Tuesday (October 12), was put in black and white on Friday (October 15). Army Chief General Parvez Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and announced that he, as the Chief Executive, has suspended the Constitution and the National Assembly. Clause "F" of the proclamation leaves no room for ambiguity: "The whole of Pakistan will come under the control of the Armed Forces of Pakistan". The dispensation is to be "deemed to have taken effect on the 12th day of October, 1999": this means the retrospective validation of all actions effected or orders given by General Musharraf after he "dismissed" the Nawaz Sharif government. There is no minister, adviser, secretary, governor or chief minister. The President shall continue in office but he shall "act on, and in accordance with, the advice of the Chief Executive". What about the courts? It has been made clear that "no judgement, decree, writ, order or process whatsoever shall be made or issued by any court or tribunal against the Chief Executive or any authority designated by the Chief Executive". And the fundamental rights? These rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Pakistani Constitution shall continue to be in force if they are "not in conflict with the proclamation of the Emergency or any order made thereunder from time to time". So, even without mentioning the infamous phrase, "martial law", Pakistan has gone on its destined path of governance with democracy, that periodic, benign but aberrantly farcical relief, lying mute under the jackboot.

There were several indications of the shape of things to come and, therefore, any reaction in the nature of surprise will not be correct. The USA did not have to rely on the proverbial sixth sense when it expressed concern about the rumours of an impending military coup in Pakistan. It referred unmistakably to the "mounting opposition campaign for Sharif to step down". The "opposition" in this case did not point to Ms Benazir Bhutto's party. September 23: The military chiefs had a long session. Officially, they discussed defence, national security and other "professional interests". September 29: The government made an unusually loud and conciliatory announcement "to end General Musharraf's differences with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif". October 3: Navy Chief Admiral Bokhari resigned without giving any reason and Mr Sharif filled the post post-haste with Vice-Admiral Abdul Aziz Mirza in an I-care-too-hoots manner. October 12: Mr Nawaz Sharif sacked General Musharraf as Chief of the Army Staff while he was in Sri Lanka and appointed the ISI mastermind, Lt.-General Ziauddin, in his place—and palace! Later that night, General Musharraf flew into Karachi amidst obstructions and danger, recorded a broadcast there and "dismissed" Mr Nawaz Sharif! The situation now is clearer than before. Pakistan is under military rule. Call it martial law or dictatorship, if you like. Thursday's announcement is called the "Provisional Constitution Order Number I of 1999". Democratic India did not find adequate response from Ms Bhutto's or Mr Nawaz Sharif's "democratic" Pakistan. What should be its hopes from General Musharraf's military rule? His infamy in Kargil gives him a hostile image. His deceptively polite exterior hides a calculating interior. He is filled with maddening arrogance with the atomic button in his hand. His mohajirhood makes him insecure among a vast number of fellow-military men. He is baying for the blood of Mr Nawaz Sharif whom he has already charged with murderous intent and treason, the punishment for which is death. The people are not quiet. They are numb. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and his Defence Minister George Fernandes would do well to monitor the situation closely but quietly. We sympathise with the victims of military and civil India-baiters — from Field Marshal Ayub Khan to Mian Nawaz Sharif. This is yet another Hour of the Devil in Pakistan. Cautious vigil is the mantra of the moment.

Beijing's brutality

THE plight of an Indian maid in Paris is big news for the western media. But China can evidently get away with cold-blooded murder without even a murmur of protest from the champions of human rights. When the students' uprising against state repression was ruthlessly crushed by the Red Army at Tiananmen Square in Beijing there was the routine reference to the event. The blood splattered Square recently witnessed a gala celebration of 50 years of Communist rule in China. It is evident that the whip in Uncle Sam's hand is for making lesser nations in the "global circus" fall in line and not for the "dragon" whose human rights record is getting messier by the day. Ever since the"dragon" started spitting venom and fire in July on members of a seemingly harmless sect called Falun Gong the international community has virtually refused to take note of what has been dubbed as the "internal affair" of China. Not unexpectedly a woman member of the banned sect was reportedly beaten to death last week in police custody in eastern Shandong province. The tale of brutality may not have seen the light of day had a Hong Kong-based human rights monitoring organisation not been alert. The woman, Zhao Jinhua, was detained by the police on September 27 on the charge of performing Falun Gong exercises. Last week her relatives received the report of her death from the police. The authorities refused to explain the bruises on her body. However, the autopsy report indicated that she had been beaten to death. The body was hurriedly cremated and family members were warned against publicising the death of Zhao Jinhua.

The clinical precision with which the followers of the sect are being targeted has shades of the infamous "cultural revolution" in China in the fifties and the sixties. The cultural revolution was meant to destroy all traces of the country's "decadent past" because it was out of tune with the proletariat philosophy of the Communist leadership. Very little has changed since then going by the irrational response of the Chinese government to the activities of Falun Gong which encourages nothing more "subversive" than the prescribed mediation for attaining internal peace. In the eyes of the Chinese authorities the sect was promoting superstition and, therefore, needed to be banned for saving countless people from going astray. In the first flush of action the Falun Gong head along with the top leadership was detained. Their centres of meditation were destroyed. The printing press which produced Falun Gong literature was shut down and copies of books on the art and science of meditation were put through the shredder before being dumped in the gutter. The official paranoia against the activities of the sect may have something to do with striking similarities between the fundamental spiritual philosophy of Falun Gong and Buddhism. The Chinese project of "mandarinisation" of Tibet is not a secret. It is meant to dilute the Dalai Lama's case for some form of autonomy for the Buddhist-dominated territory captured by China in 1959 as part of the "cultural revolution" of Mao. That is, perhaps, why the growing popularity of the form of meditation prescribed by Falun Gong made the Chinese leadership see red. But must the international community allow the blatant suppression of human rights in China while lesser nations are made to pay a heavy price for seemingly trivial violations?

UNDERSTANDING THE MANDATE
Performance of BJP, Congress
by G.S. Bhargava

DOES the BJP get only two cheers for its electoral performance. This is despite the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by it crossing the 300 mark in the 13th Lok Sabha, ending up perhaps at 306 after the remaining four seats in Bihar go to the polls. The assumptions: one, the individual tally of the BJP at 182 is not an improvement on its 1998 score; two, its vote share has declined by two percentage points, as claimed by the Congress party, three, its allies in the NDA have individually fared better than the BJP, finally, the amorphous NDA made up of over 24 parties and groups in different states is a source of instability.

Mr Vishwanath Pratap Singh, a former Prime Minister, who is an indefatigable champion of coalition politics, says: “The NDA may have increased its numbers but its composition is such that any of its major constituents or two of them together can bring the government down.” He should know because he was the first Prime Minister to have tasted the bitter fruits of coalition politics. His Janata Dal government in 1989-90 was formed with the BJP and the communists supporting it from outside. On the surface it appeared viable, with the ruling Janata Dal having 142 seats in the 543-members Lok Sabha. The supporting parties of the BJP and the two communist parties (plus allies) had no more than 86 and 53 seats, respectively. Jointly and even separately they gave the Dal a workable majority in the House.

But the Congress party with 197 members was the nigger in the pile. Since the Congress declined to form the government, apparently tactically, the Janata Dal had a chance. Theoretically it was possible, as long as the Congress remained a recluse (actually, it could not form the government because no other party would support it or form a coalition with it). As long as the Janata Dal remained in one piece, the V.P. Singh government could have continued even after the withdrawal of support by the BJP. What had spelt its doom was Rajiv Gandhi’s action in splitting the Janata Dal and installing a rump Janata Dal government led by Mr Chandra Shekhar.

In other words, the source of threat was the Congress party which then had 197 members, with its MPs arguing against what they called self-abnegation why they should let a smaller party run the government when they had the strength of numbers, they said. That the Congress party with its strength reduced from 400 plus to less than 200 had not been deranged was the problem.

It remained so after the 1996 and 1998 general elections also, although steadily declining in numbers. It would pledge support to the two United Front governments and pull them on the flimsiest grounds, without its secular credentials undimmed. It colluded with Ms Jayalalitha’s AIADMK to send the first Vajpayee government packing and precipitated the present election. Now with 112 members, its capacity for similar mischief is much reduced but its secular rhetoric is more raucous.

Reverting to Mr V.P. Singh’s thesis, if anyone of the major constituents of the present NDA or two of them walk out what will be the upshot, arithmetically? The Telugu Desam (TDP) outside the NDA but a supporter of the government all the same has 30 MPs. The Shiv Sena and the DMK with 15 and 12 members are the next in the order of numerical strength. Of them, the Shiv Sena has to be counted out as one of the major parties in Mr V.P. Singh’s potential wreckers of the NDA. Even if the Telugu Desam and the DMK join hands to withdraw support, the NDA will still be above the half-way mark. But not if they join hands with the Congress party. Is it a likely scenario?

Why not? First, the TDP has a stake in stability both at the Centre and in the state. It should have no reason to pull down the BJP-led government, because it had not hesitated to break ranks with its former United Front allies to bail out the same party government last year and sustain it for 13 months. Most importantly, the Congress is its perennial political adversary in Andhra Pradesh, and joining hands with the same party at the Centre will undermine its position at home. The same is the case with the DMK even if to a lesser extent. Having berated, Ms Jayalalitha for betraying the BJP government that brought about the needless election, the DMK cannot repeat the feat. Above all, it has no record of such politics.

Now about the myth of the Congress share of popular vote having bettered and being higher than that of the BJP. The BJP contested 333 seats on its own and won 182 as against 179 out of 388 seats in 1988, which works out to more than 50 per cent of the seats won. Further, it has also contributed to its allies in different states to notch victories. Even in Andhra Pradesh, the Vajpayee factor helped the TDP to trounce the Congress convincingly.

Interestingly, it also shared the setback of its allies, notably in Punjab and Karnataka. Otherwise, in Karnataka, particularly, it could have fared better. As for popular vote, it is misnomer to claim that the Congress is a net gainer. The Congress contested 451 seats (as against the BJP’s 333) and naturally its total vote will be higher although it has won only 112 seats. In 1998 also its vote share was 25.82 as against 25.59 of the BJP. Last time also the number of seats contested by it was about a hundred more than that of the BJP. If we look at the number of deposits lost the picture will be clearer.

There is another favourite red-herring of the prophets of doom. Namely, the BJP has put aside, at the instance of its allies, (tactically, says Mr V.P. Singh) its “hidden agenda” of building the Ram temple at Ayodhya, scrapping Article 370 of the Constitution and introducing a uniform civil code According to Mr V.P. Singh, “its (BJP’s) success has stemmed from the absence of its agenda”. Even then it is remarkable, because hitherto it was being said that the BJP had been riding on the crest of a Hindutva wave. In other words, with or without the agenda, the BJP has a popular vote base of 25-plus per cent.

As for the abolition of Article 370 of the Constitution, it will require a two-thirds majority in both Houses which even the NDA, much less the BJP, does not have. The Supreme Court itself has commended the adoption of uniform civil code but in the absence of a consensus, with conservative Muslims opposing it bitterly, no government can go ahead with it in spite of its social desirability. Similarly, unless the civil suit in respect of the Ayodhya site is settled, any attempt to build a temple or mosque there will be illegal. The BJP has made it clear repeatedly that these items on its erstwhile agenda can be taken up only when there is an agreement about them among all parties, or if it gains a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha on its own. A consensus would have been perhaps possible if the flame of communal discord was not constantly fuelled. As for the BJP winning a two-thirds majority on its own, at present reckoning, there is no prospect of it, especially with the party bent on winning all-round acceptability, particularly in the eastern and southern parts of the country.

It is not uncommon for parties to drop or modify their policies. The Congress party, for instance, had once sworn, among others by the promotion of the public sector and countrywide introduction of prohibition. Both have been jettisoned. Even if policies and programmes have no relevance to the party which is a mere election machine, nobody would taunt the party about its support to economic liberalisation. The communists, especially, are the adherents of the dogma of dictatorship of the proletariat, which implies doing away with political plurality. Yet they have been contesting elections and forming governments under the Constitution. Should one doubt their bona fides in the matter? Even cadre-based parties evolve themselves in tune with the political and economic environment.

How China got its muscle power
by V. Gangadhar

IT is an interesting coincidence that two of the largest and most thickly populated nations in the world, India and China, celebrated their 50 years of freedom within the space of two years. The Indian Independence, which became a reality on August 15, 1947, and the successful climax of China’s great revolution, which was proclaimed on October 1, 1999, had gone down as major events which changed the history of the world. There is the possibility that either Mahatma Gandhi or Mao Zedong could be voted as the personality of the century.

Looking back into the past, India has had a better deal than its huge neighbour. The British were foreigners, yet they installed a government and bureaucracy which worked, introduced an educational system and set up institutions whose influence is felt to this day. China, during the same period, came under the whimsical rule of emperors who had no contact with people. Authority, very often, rested in the hands of vested interests which included opium dons. The country also was devastated from the Japanese attacks of the 1930’s. Senior Indian citizens even today recall fondly the strict, disciplined British rule which was not swayed by casteist elements and took harsh steps against corruption. China, unfortunately, was the hotbed of corruption. The venerable Chiang and his redoubtable madam, despite massive American backing, finally lost out to the communist armies led by persons who won the trust of the masses. Chiang himself was tainted by corruption charges, while his madam came to be loathed by the people.

The Indian freedom struggle was longer and went through different stages. On the whole peaceful and led by the Congress party, it bore no illwill towards the British rulers. India continues to maintain excellent relations with Britain after Independence. The hatred between the rulers and the ruled was more intense in China. The communists would never negotiate with the Chiang clique which, they believed, was fighting a proxy war stagemanaged by the USA. Unlike India which received grudging cooperation from the West, communist China remained a “pariah” in the international community for nearly 25 years. Successive governments in the USA and the UK labelled communist China as the “yellow peril”, and the bamboo curtain could be left when President Richard Nixon took the momentous decision to open talks with the erstwhile untouchable.

China did not mind such snubs. It was used to living in isolation and grabbed the handshake offered by the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and India. Chinese leaders used the period of isolation to strengthen their local economy and become self-sufficient in agriculture and industry. Thus while India, under Jawaharlal Nehru, played the role of a world leader even while remaining desperately poor, Mao and Chou, strengthened the internal infrastructure of their nation. That crucial step, perhaps, explains the glaring difference in the economic progress of the two nations.

Even in its best moments India was divided. This was because of the diversity of the Indian culture and tradition, and its different languages and religions. The caste-ridden Indian society was very rarely united, the exceptions being while facing external aggression. On the other hand, the one billion Chinese were more nationalistic and determined to work hard towards progress and prosperity. Even Chairman Mao would not have visualised a scenario where his nation was counted as among the strongest and most stable.

Credit should be given to the Chinese communist leadership. They felt and they knew the ways and means to tackle China’s poverty, illiteracy and economic backwardness. Once they found the solutions, they implemented them ruthlessly. Some of their decisions appalled the Western democracies, but China clearly sent out the message that the Western nations could continue with their systems of government while it would carve out its own future. The Chinese leadership established total oneness with the people. Unlike most of our leaders, the Chinese communist leaders did not live in ivory towers. They practised what they preached.

Involvement. That was the crucial issue which united the masses and the leadership. When Chairman Mao went for a swim to stress the need for physical fitness, millions of Chinese also took to the rivers. When the Chairman announced, “Let a hundred flowers bloom”, the statement found instant response from the people. The West scoffed at these actions and labelled them “gimmicks”. While doing so, they totally missed out on the significance of these token gestures. The Chinese leadership had its priorities right. Its citizens would be well fed, clothed and sheltered. No expenses could be spared for the armed forces to protect the future of the nation.

China had certain advantages to implement these policies. It was and continues to be a one-party nation. All kinds of political opposition had been dealt with severely. China is also a diversified society, but somehow religions and languages were not used to divide the nation. The Chinese were more interested in providing a decent living to the citizens rather than flaunt a Western type of democracy, thrust upon people with empty stomachs. This was the basic difference in approach between India and China. China did not want any certificate on these issues from the West. That was why it did not mind being kept out of the United Nations for more than two decades. It was prepared to play the waiting game.

The important transition from state controls to foreign collaboration and investment was reached more smoothly and effectively in China. Chairman Mao would have been dumbfounded at the economic changes initiated by Deng, but the transformation was achieved with remarkable finesse. China put its “Swadeshi Jagran Manch” in its place and wooed Western capital vigorously. The reforms were implemented with a dedicated, enthusiastic bureaucracy, and today every nation in the world, particularly the USA wants a share in China’s huge market. Contrast this with India where economic liberalisation exists only on paper. The slothful bureaucracy and the lack of active encouragement from the government at all levels have nearly killed any economic benefits from liberalisation.

As a world power, China has chosen to play a moderate and modest role. Unlike the USA, it has never tried to impose its will on the region. The only aberration was the “war” against India in October, 1962, though historians point out that it was only a “border dispute”.

Of socks and shocks
by K.K. Khullar

OVER the years I have specialised in losing only one sock. The result is that I have with me as many as 21 single socks.

Where are other 21 pieces? In my analysis they are either lost, displaced or misplaced although not in that order.

“Where is the other sock of the pair?” I shout with a shoe in my hand.

Although my wife listened to my shrieks but ignored me, implying that it was no longer her responsibility to pair the socks. She thought she had enough of it.

Searching for a lost sock is like searching for a lost kingdom. As a matter of fact, it is during these searches that I have assembled these so-called 21 socks. It is like searching a gold coin in the mud.

“But where are the other 21?” I ask in despair.

“Has the earth swallowed them or the sky carried them away?”

Perhaps the rats have eaten them up or the cats have carted them away. It is very difficult to say anything because no analytical search or re-search is possible without any injury to the books, myself or the ants or the rats.

Why? Because my wife treats my room as a dumping ground for all odd things: like old Murphy radio, unused pedestal fan for years, discarded shoes, rejected paintings. To find out a lost pair of shoes in this antique room is like identifying the Koh-i-Noor among a heap of stones. Even Maharaja Dalip Singh would fail in such a rigorous test.

I, therefore, decide to do the second best — to make a pair with the same or similar colour, failing which to do so with the same or similar design. My experience of wearing such a pair was fatal. I was caught in the very first attempt.

“Sir, you are wearing a wrong pair of socks”, said my PA the moment I relaxed on the sofa on reaching office. That is my habit before occupying the chair.

“This is exactly what I told my husband the other day when he wore a wrong pair”, she added.

“But what is the solution?” I asked.

“Sir, very simple. Keep standing throughout the day and nobody will notice”. I stood sunk.

The second time I was caught, it was not my PA but my boss.

That day I had created a very good impression on him. From all intents it appeared he was pleased. But when I was about to leave, he asked me to sit down and told me “to be careful in future”. In government service this meant a “warning”. I was undone. The DPC was in session.

Startled, I asked: “Sir... What... Sir.” Pointing to my two different socks, he started clearing the files.

The third time it was the limit. A little boy told me in the street that I was wearing only one sock. I sank in my shoes. Since then I am wearing Kohlapuris.

No reason to gloat over Pak coup

By Tavleen Singh

IN one of history’s quirkier moments a new, democratically elected government took power in Delhi hours after a military coup in Islamabad brought Pakistan’s fragile experiment in democracy to an end. Soldiers put Pakistan’s Prime Minister under house arrest on the very evening that Atal Behari Vajpayee was putting his new Cabinet together. The following morning, as dignitaries gathered in the sunny forecourt of Rashtrapati Bhawan for the swearing in of the new ministers, Pakistan’s army chief was informing his countrymen that he had been forced to dismiss the Nawaz Sharif Government because it had interfered in the functioning of the army, diminished institutions and destroyed the economy.

Different stories and different facets of history were linked by the Kargil war. In India the war, that we certainly did not want, gave Vajpayee a chance to prove that he was a real leader and brought the country together in an outpouring of nationalism rarely seen before. In Pakistan the war, that nobody was sure was a real war, tore the country apart.

On the one hand were Pakistan’s politicians who realised that the war had damaged the country’s reputation and its economy, and on the other were its Generals who believed that Sharif’s withdrawal of the so-called militants from our side of the Line of Control amounted to an ignominious surrender.

Military coups are always unexpected events, even in countries that have a long record of them, but everyone in Pakistan seemed to know that Nawaz Sharif was in trouble. Pakistani friends who travelled to Delhi from Lahore, days before the coup, said they did not see how Sharif could survive because of the damage he had brought to the economy. Yet they did not anticipate a coup.

Later, with the inevitable wisdom of hindsight, there have been many analysts who have pointed out that he should have avoided a confrontation with the army. He should never have sacked Gen Pervez Musharraf as army chief. Had he not done this the coup, perhaps, would not have happened.

Coups, however, do not happen instantly and this one must have been planned for a while or it would not have been possible for the army to go into action even while the Pakistani army chief was on a trip to Sri Lanka. He returned to Pakistan after troops had already taken custody of airports and television stations and arrested the Prime Minister and several of his close associates.

So, what does Pakistan’s return to military rule mean for India? Delhi’s political pundits believe that we should, for a start, be grateful that the new government was almost in place when it happened. We fought two of our three wars with Pakistan while that country was under martial law, hence another coup is cause for considerable foreboding, especially now that both countries are nuclear states.

When George Fernandes, at the start of the Kargil war, said he believed it was the Pakistan army and not Nawaz Sharif who took the decision to escalate tensions along the Line of Control everyone sneered at him. The Congress Party went so far as to turn his statement into a campaign issue. What an outrage, Congress leaders said, that the Indian Defence Minister should have appeared to be defending the Pakistani Prime Minister. Fernandes, it turns out, was right and there were serious differences between Nawaz Sharif and his army chief over Kargil. It is mainly these differences that led to the coup.

Mr Vajpayee’s first task as Prime Minister has been to summon his national security advisors to an urgent meeting to discuss the situation in Pakistan. He has reason to worry. Pakistan’s Generals have since the days of Zia-ul-Haq been closer to Islamic fundamentalist elements in that country than to more moderate politicians and it is mainly Islamic fundamentalism that has powered Pakistan’s foreign policy in recent times. Hence the involvement with the Taliban in Afghanistan and with the export of terrorism across the Line of Control in Kashmir. There is little doubt that this kind of foreign policy will continue, more forcefully, now that we have a return to martial law in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Mr Vajpayee has just sworn in a ministry so large that the swearing-in ceremony will probably go down as the longest ever. It is accepted that he had no choice. When you try to form a government with the support of 24 political parties it goes without saying that you are going to need to distribute the spoils of power as fairly as possible. With memories of Jayalalitha’s antics still fresh he has probably needed to bend over backwards to ensure that there are no dissatisfied allies. But, we can only hope that the new government can go beyond feasting off the spoils of office and give us governance because from the very moment of its formation it is going to need to deal with not just domestic problems but with a clearly visible threat to national security. It is bad enough that Pakistan should have a nuclear bomb, worse that it is now totally in the hands of Generals.

Mr Vajpayee’s new government is going to need not just to ensure that we do not face another Kargil-type situation but also to try and get international opinion on our side. The country that is most important where this is concerned is, needless to say, the USA. If General Musharraf is persuaded, to return Pakistan to civilian rule it will only be because the economic crisis in his country will worsen immeasurably with the International Monetary Fund’s loans being frozen once more. A fresh tranche is already due. The USA needs to use all its leverage with Pakistan, and it is still considerable, according to most Indian analysts, to ensure that the political process is restored as quickly as possible.

There are those in Delhi who are gloating over the fact that Pakistan has once more shown itself to be little more than a tinpot dictatorship in a democratic garb. They are wrong to gloat. For India to be able to concentrate over the next few years on an economic agenda we desperately need a stable, civilian Pakistan. Another Kargil-type situation would harm us almost as much as it would Pakistan.

So despite the quirk of history that has proved that we are a thriving successful democracy at the same moment that Pakistan has been shown up as a military dictatorship, we have little reason to gloat. No matter how good the news from Delhi the gloom that spreads from Islamabad has cast a pall over the beginning of Atal Behari Vajpayee’s new term as Prime Minister.

Too many side shows, too many anchors

by Amita Malik

SO boring had the prolonged election coverage and the subsequent political manoeuvrings become, that one media veteran I know said he turned for relief to MTV. Only to find that MTV and Channel V were also highlighting the elections. So he decided to switch off the TV altogether. Besides, the events in Pakistan killed all other news from Tuesday night onwards. However, since I had promised last week that this column would cover the final product, here are a few generalisations.

What one really wanted to know were actual election trends and then results, from moment to moment. While appreciating Star’s Battleground, which provided very useful analyses state-wise for those of us who are morons about statistics and political nuances, I think in the final analysis, Star News suffered from an embarrassment of riches. There were too many side-shows, too many anchors and interviewers of varying degrees of authority and experience, too many politicians were also being interviewed and empanelled on other channels, which is why all channels became difficult to identify after a time, with such staged and monotonous cock fights as Arun Jaitley sparring with Kapil Sibal and Mani Shankar Aiyer having amiable arguments with Kumaramangalam. The one noticeable visual difference was that Sushma Swaraj appeared with just a faint streak of sindoor in her final appearances. Someone said she had used up most of it in Bellary.

So, at the end, I award the Oscar to three veterans, Saeed Naqvi Ashok Lahiri and Vinod Dua on Zee. They stuck doggedly to results, analyses and to-the-point instant interviews. The running captions at the bottom of the screen kept the trends and results up-dated. They knew their politics, were concentrated, unfazed, cool and carried on after most of the others had given up, I think up to three mornings after Real marathon men and I salute them. Vinod is always assured and relaxed, Lahiri is a reputed psephologist who is clear and does not make the viewer feel stupid, Saeed’s language, whether Urdu, Hindi or esoteric UP dialects, are a joy and he has an elegant turn of phrase laced with much-needed humour. When asked difficult questions or quoting damning evidence to some squirming politician, he is no Karan Thapar or Rajdeep Sardesai, he is suave and controlled in the same manner as Prannoy Roy and Vir Sanghvi. May their tribe increase, because when events are prolonged over days, hammer and tongs and noisy interruptions can be exhausting as well as irritating.

But, in all this, even the cricket at Mohali (with DD’s faint colour, interruptions for the news and an apology of a sports channel) and the marathon swearing-in ceremony faded into the background as the events in Pakistan burst upon us with startling suddenness on Tuesday night. Here I give full marks to Star News, which wisely handed over its entire night coverage to the army coup, rustled up correspondents such as Javed of The News in Pakistan, The Indian Express correspondent in Islamabad next morning and Benazir Bhutto in London. It was right on the ball and kept pace with the BBC by rounding up Indian experts to match the Beeb’s in London. I tried Zee and DD to be fair, but they seemed completely out of sync and after a time I gave up. CNN certainly proved useful for American reactions, after all, they were on the spot, but their news coverage from this end matched neither the BBC’s nor Star’s, which win every time in a sub-continental crisis. Bravo, Star News for your news sense and overall coverage, a wonderful reflex.

TAIL-PIECE: If Ms Rupali Tiwari has ambitions of being a news anchor in Star’s morning news, she had better give up being such a shy violet. Juxtaposed with the confident Vikram Chandra, she always looks bland and at times one can hardly make out what she is saying, so softly does she speak. Shireen, on the other hand, has taken like a duck to water in Ravivar, and although a cultural specialist, which is why she frequently does better than the veterans of the 10 o’clock bulletin in that sphere, is rapidly brushing up her political sense. Which is the right way to go about it.

75 YEARS AGO

October 16, 1924
India in England

THE extent to which the enemies of Indian freedom are active and vigilant in England is shown by the indecent haste with which Sir Charles Yate recently asked in the House of Commons what course His Majesty’s Government intended to pursue in view of the Assembly repealing the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

It would have been a scandal for the Government to have answered the question in the sense in which the worthy Colonel apparently wanted it to be answered, because it would have been not only an affront to the Assembly which had already passed the repealing Bill but also an insult to the other House which is yet to consider it.

As it is, the Under-Secretary gave the only possible answer. “The Bill” he said, “had passed only one of the two chambers before the Legislature adjourned, and therefore no question of action by the British Government arose at present”.

Nor, we may add, would the British Parliament have been the most appropriate place in which to announce the decision of the Government in this matter, even if the Bill had passed both chambers.