Fall of BJP Government Triggers New Indian Elections; India-Pakistan Relations

By M.M. Ali

There was no principle involved in the toppling of India’s right-wing, Hindu-based Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in late April. It came about as the result of a power play on the part of a temperamental and unpredictable regional leader, Jaya Lalitha, whose AIDMK Party controlled 18 crucial seats in the parliament that had helped Prime Minister Behari Vajpayee form the BJP coalition government only 13 months ago.

Lalitha Amma (mother), as the former film star is known by her followers in the state of Tamil Nadu, was unable to get the BJP to meet her demands, which included withdrawal of court cases against her, removal of her chief political rival from provincial government, reinstatement of the navy’s chief, Admiral Bhagwat, and dismissal of Defense Minister George Fernandez. When Jaya Lalitha walked away with her 18 votes, the BJP government fell by a margin of one vote (269 to 270).

Jaya Lalitha was encouraged to leave the coalition by Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born widow of Rajiv Gandhi who now occupies his place as Congress Party chief. However, the events following Vajpayee’s resignation showed that no one had worked out the details of forming an alternative government. With no political party commanding a majority vote in the parliament, necessitating a resort to more than half a dozen splinter groups to provide a thin majority, each was bound to ask for its share in the bounty. This horse-trading led to a political stalemate in Delhi with a predictable outcome: the president called for fresh elections.

The Westminster model on which the Indian system is based does not allow for an administration that has lost a vote of confidence to be invited back to form the government. President Narayanan could have asked the opposition to bring a no-confidence motion in the parliament against the BJP. Instead, he asked Vajpayee to seek a vote of confidence for his BJP-based coalition as early as possible.

The president thereby precipitated the crisis which Prime Minister Vajpayee had tried to stave off in various ways.

Soon after signing a landmark Lahore Declaration with Pakistani Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif, Vajpayee ordered tests of India’s Agni missiles to try to strengthen his public popularity. Pakistan answered the Indian tests with tests of its own with Ghuari and Shaheen missiles, thereby neutralizing the intended domestic political impact of the Indian tests.

Uncertainty is likely to prevail in the politics of India for some time to come. In the absence of any single party enjoying a clear majority, small regional and even local groups will continue to determine the life of a national government. Another significant phenonomen is the presence of powerful regional leaders who have been playing major roles at the national level, as was evident with the stance of Jaya Lalitha in recent months.

BJP has its stalwarts but has not gained nationwide grass-roots support. On the other hand, in recent years Congress lost both its traditional grass-roots support and its top leadership, particularly since Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. Rival party leaders seldom miss an opportunity to remind Sonia that she is a foreigner (vedeshi) by birth—a slick move that sometimes works.

The call for new elections after only two years in a country with more than 450 million voters is a very costly affair and an administratively stupendous task. What’s worse, there is every likelihood that the next election, like the last one, will produce a hung parliament with no party commanding a clear majority. But this was the only route open for President Narayanan to take.

The Pakistan Scene

The Ehtesab (accountability) bench of the High Court has found former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, guilty of misappropriation of public funds and of money laundering, and has sentenced the pair to five years in prison and a $5 million fine. Describing the Ehtesab bench as “a kangaroo court,” Bhutto plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Ironically, a High Court in London found Bhutto’s arch-rival and successor as prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, and his brother, Shabaz Sharif, guilty of non-payment of loans to a business house in the U.K. and fined them $30 million. It is not clear at this time how the court proposes to collect the funds from the two brothers. Neither of the two court verdicts augers well for the country. Pakistan’s most serious problem has been its succession of unethical leadership in recent years. Both Bhutto and Sharif have been accused of enriching themselves while in office.

This has set a disastrous example for a country already plagued with corruption at virtually every level of public service, regardless of which party has been in power. A German non-profit group, Transparency International, not long ago nominated Pakistan as the second most corrupt (after Nigeria) country in the world.

Pakistan–Russian Relations

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Moscow in the second week of April marked a major change in relations between Pakistan and Russia. It was the first official visit to Russia by a Pakistani prime minister in 25 years. Besides expressing the usual good wishes for each other and for the promotion of better relations between the two countries, Boris Yeltsin has offered to help in the resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan. This is of some significance because, while Moscow has had very close ties with Delhi, its relations have never been very cordial with Islamabad. It is possible that Sharif’s visit will lead to a genuine warming between the two countries.

The Kashmir Dispute

Groups of Indians and Pakistanis have been meeting on and off as part of an unofficial “people to people” program in a bid to find peaceful solutions to the continuing disputes between the two countries. It is well-known that this process has enjoyed the support of the United States. A study just released in Delhi suggests that as part of Conflict Resolution Measures, India may keep the Jammu and Ladakh areas of Kashmir and Pakistan may hold on to Azad Kashmir territory (on the Pakistani side of the “line of control” that left more than two-thirds of Kashmir under Indian domination). Azad Kashmir might then be combined with Dir and Hunza, and the Valley made into a Trust Territory for five years, with its future to be decided by a vote of the people of Kashmir. To date the study report has not received any great amount of attention. Its ideas are not novel and such configurations have been toyed with several times in the past. It is the fact that reactions in both Delhi and Islamabad have been both slow and mild that is new and promising. It is too early to draw any lasting conclusions.

Indian Journalist Speaks

“Partition of the subcontinent was inevitable in 1947. However, its sad aftermath when over 500,000 people were killed could have been avoided,” observed Kuldip Nayar, a senior Indian journalist, India’s former high commissioner (equivalent of an ambassador) to London and now a member of the Indian parliament. He was part of Indian Prime Minister Atal Vehari Vajpayee’s group that recently made the historic bus journey from India to Pakistan, opening the way for regular, commercial service.

Although he accompanied Vajpayee, Nayar’s political views are diametrically different from those of the prime minister. Kuldip Nayar is known for his secular thinking and his advocacy of closer Indian–Pakistani ties. Vajpayee, on the other hand, heads the Bharatiya Janata Party government that works toward the establishment of Hindutva, or the rule of the Hindus.

Kuldip Nayar, in his recent visit to the U.S. national capital, addressed a select group of Indians and Pakistanis at the auditorium of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He took pains to explain his view that “the real ethos of India was secular,” and the present rise to power of the religion-based BJP is only “a passing phase.” He argued that while being a Hindu, Muslim or Christian, one can still be a secular person.

Looking across the border he noted that “Pakistan is an Islamic state, but the Jamaat-e-Islami, a right-wing religious party, has not been able to make any headway in the general elections in the past 50 years.” Alluding to the presence of nuclear weapons in both India and Pakistan, the Indian journalist warned that military conflicts between the two countries would no longer be just border skirmishes, but “would spell disaster for both.”

Nayar has been part of the “people-to-people” process that has been discussing India–Pakistan issues. In a very guarded way he disclosed that a solution has been found even to the Kashmir dispute that may be acceptable to both countries. However, he said, it would be premature to reveal it.

Prof. M.M. Ali is a consultant and a Senior Fellow with the Center for Planning and Policy Studies based in Washington, DC.