A peace of Vajpayee’s mind

That is why this intervention in Parliament must rank among the most statesmanly pleas of the kind ever made by an Indian leader. It is a real pity if you did not hear it live, or if you do not follow Hindi, because so much is lost between the spoken word and printed text and then translation.

It wasn’t just the usual oratorical flourish that you can always expect from Vajpayee, the acknowledged master of the set-piece. It was one of the cleverest statements of India’s position and that of his reasons for risking yet another peace move. He was making a case for this sudden move and yet giving himself enormous room for manoeuvre, over a reasonable period of time. He wasn’t promising a quick summit, a take-it-or-leave-it formula and quick results one way or the other — or “aar ya paar” as he had promised this war against terrorism was going to be in a chilling speech in Kashmir last summer.

A couple of passages call for closer reading. He said he could fail again, but asked if the fear of failure should frighten him into doing nothing. Then he said terrorism had reduced and if you so wished India could remain static, waiting till it ended fully. But is it alright for a country of India’s size and stakes to remain frozen in a policy-trench for ever? It was a stunning message for a foreign policy establishment that makes a living out of confusing high strategy with static trench warfare.

Then he said there were many shades of terrorism, that it was not all controlled in one place by one entity and that terrorism had its politics too. He was creating elbow room for himself, and for Pakistan, and a one-size-fits-all answer for his official spokespersons each time another terrorist strike takes place even while the peace process is on.

On CNN earlier in the week, we heard James Rubin, former state department spokesman in the Clinton administration, who became a familiar presence in our lives during the Kargil war (but is better known as Christiane Amanpour’s husband), give his wisdom on Vajpayee’s latest move.

‘‘I think the prime minister is motivated by legacy issues,’’ he told a very bored Daljit Dhaliwal who seemed to be looking for something she had probably dropped under her desk. He thought Vajpayee had made this one grand move in his keenness to create for himself a place in history.

It may be partly true. But it also shows how little even those who’ve been close to policy understand Vajpayee and his style. He is a poet, alright. All politicians want history to judge them flatteringly. But he is not one to be on a sentimental, self-obsessed ego-trip to be making such a significant policy shift only for a place in history.

Also, what Rubin and so many others who see the same motivation in the Srinagar initiative fail to realise is that Vajpayee, at this juncture, is not particularly waiting to walk into the sunset in 2004. He certainly wants to be around, is more energetic and involved than at any time in the past five years and what drives him is not merely a place in history but another term for the NDA. His political outlook is more complex. He believes in his BJP and his NDA but equally detests

the Modi/Togadia/VHP kind of agenda. He has understood the perils of the BJP going into the next elections with the flag of Moditva as so many of his own partymen, high on the Gujarat success, have been demanding. To sustain that agenda until October 2004, you have to also sustain the hatred for the Muslims and the anger with Pakistan. Vajpayee is not so cynical as not to know what costs that can entail in terms of the national interest.

His latest move, therefore, is directed as much at domestic politics as towards Pakistan. If the peace process goes along, terrorism diminishes, the economy does better, there is harmony between communities, he could lead the NDA into the next elections — irrespective of whether he is in front for prime ministership or L.K. Advani — on an agenda of peace and prosperity. Wouldn’t that work so much better than any negative campaign based on hatred, fear, war-mongering and revenge? On the other hand, how will the Congress counter that? The party was already at a loss for ideas in Parliament this week, its lines having been so deftly stolen by Vajpayee.

Just the other day the BJP was accusing the Mufti government of being soft on the terrorists. Now Vajpayee was praising him, calling his election one of the greatest turning points in our history and all that the Congress, instead of applauding him, could do was interrupt by reminding him the BJP had lost that election.

“Well, we keep losing all the time. That’s why we are here and you there,” Vajpayee said, and he had had the last laugh not merely in terms of repartee but also politics. In some ways, the Mufti government is Sonia Gandhi’s gift to the nation. But so bankrupt is the Congress for ideas, and so inadequately skilled is its leadership, that they had ceded even this gain to Vajpayee.

You can only imagine how this will work in 2004 if Vajpayee is actually able to build an agenda of peace and prosperity. It could be a slogan to rival Indira Gandhi’s garibi hatao and, certainly, would be enormously more potent than a plea for another five years to fight Islamic terror and Pakistan. Then the voter and the Congress could turn around and ask, but what were you doing for seven years, Mr Vajpayee — or Mr Advani? How will the Congress counter a Vajpayee promise of peace?

Several readers have responded, seeking evidence for my argument two weeks ago (National Interest, IE, April 26) that while we have been bled by cross-border terrorism, Pakistan has actually paid a greater price in terms of its economic growth.

I had said that when I first visited Pakistan in 1985 it had looked like a much richer country than ours, so let me use that as the starting point. The World Bank’s World Development Reports will tell you Pakistan’s per capita income then was $380, nearly 40 per cent higher than India’s at $270.

The latest report shows the equation had reversed by 2001, with India at $460 and Pakistan $420. Even conservative estimates for 2003 will put India close to 500, a clear 15 per cent ahead of Pakistan’s $435 or thereabouts (the Karachi Chamber of Commerce puts the 2002 figure at $427 and then you add 4 per cent GDP growth netted against 2.8 per cent population increase).

With our economy still growing faster and the population increase a clear percentage point lower, and falling, this differential will increase. This, when embedded in India’s national average are also large and populous swathes of extreme poverty like Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal.

In fact, according to the figures, in 1990, applying the principle of purchasing power parity, Pakistan’s per capita income was $1862, more than 70 per cent higher than India’s $1072. By 2001, Pakistan per capita income had risen to $1920, but it stood over 25 per cent lower than India’s, which was now $2450.

How has Pakistan lost such a headstart? One, these years have coincided with Indian economic reform and transition from the era of Hindu growth rates to what could be called more secular growth rates. But more importantly, these have also been the years of Pakistan’s most deliberate and cynical use of terrorism against India in Punjab and then Kashmir.

The ISI generals who scripted it always called it a low-cost strategy to bleed India. But they do not understand economics or the marketplace. These years have seen a huge exodus of capital, talent and even social and financial elites from Pakistan. It is true that Pakistan’s economy has improved over the past two years under Musharraf. But for it to break out of this stagnation and also to prevent this gap with its archrival widening, it will have to understand the real costs of the so-called war by a thousand cuts and junk it as a stupid, suicidal idea.

Here is, then, an agenda for peace and prosperity that even Musharraf could offer his people in his next election. I can’t promise it will get him 99 per cent vote again. But you’d bet the people of Pakistan are more likely to believe this than any boast of annexing Kashmir through terror, war, diplomacy, or divine intervention.

Write to sg@expressindia.com