A televised breakfast with Parvez

By M J Akbar

If we but knew we were making television history some of us would have come better dressed, and others prepared.

The invitation to meet President Musharraf over breakfast at Amar Vilas in Agra on the last day of his visit to India came during the preparations, when goodwill and effort were still the main motivations. Slots were being filled on both sides. The Prime Minister of India gave a lunch on the first day, an ice-breaker in the company of assorted celebrities. Later that day was the formal banquet by the President of India, an occasion for speeches in font of a protocol list. Sunday was marked out as the day of unrest: hard work on the language of agreement, interspersed with an afternoon at the Taj for the guests and niether peace not serenity before or after. As it happened, the two delegations finally went to bed at four, just a little before dawn on Monday. But they had the satisfaction of having made substantial progress on the critical paragraph on the structure of the dialogue between India and Pakistan on Kashmir.

The controversy over whether India and Pakistan would discuss Kashmir at Agra was artificial. This decision was made by the Government of India many weeks before, when Prime Minister Vajpayee sent his invitation to President Musharraf. That brief but well-drafted note had no ambiguity: "We have to pick up the threads again, including renewing the Composite Dialogue, so that we can put in place a stable structure of cooperation and address all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir." Mr Vajpayee signed this invitation but it was made with the complete concurrence of his Home Minister Mr L K Advani. There was no hard line and soft line; there was only one line. Delhi knew that this was a prerequisite for any resumption of a dialogue, and accepted this reality with commendable lack of fuss. President Musharrafs subsequent insistence on Kashmir as some kind of "central" or "main" subject was a public relations exercise designed to calm nerves at home and increase his personal space in domestic politics. (If you learn next year that President Musharraf has become a candidate in a general election for the designation he holds now by compulsion, remember you read it here first.) India had agreed to talk about Kashmir, and where the clause appeared in the text was of less consequence than the fact of its presence. Similarly, the professed concern to fight the common enemy, poverty, together was code for a series of joint initiative on other issues, from drugs to the economy (with a gas pipeline thrown but not mentioned).

But harmony in Indo-Pak affairs can never come with a flap. It came over a word: "dispute". It was not semantics. Pakistan wanted the Kashmir problem to called a dispute. India rejected "dispute" to avoid any future interpretation that might prejudice over position on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. We offered "issue" as the alternative. Pakistan conceded. We did a little bow ourselves and permitted Kashmir to be described as the "main issue" between the two countries. So far, so good. Indeed, so far so very good. With the Kashmir clause out of the way Monday morning seemed to promise nothing but optimism.

But there is always a night before to the morning after.

The luxury lepers of the Summit --- the media --- were isolated in the push surroundings of the Mughal Sheraton and fed solitary confinement rations (driblets of information) by dignitaries visiting from the elite stretch between Jaypee Palace and Amar Vilas, where the Upper Classes were closeted. The first serious morsel came a little before sunset on Sunday, when General Raashid Qureshi dropped by to display a large smile. The words did not matter. The beam was positive. From Japyee Palace a little later, or perhaps simultaneously, arrived Mrs Sushma Swaraj, friendly, courteous and concerned about the well -being of seven hundred journalists with nothing to do except exchange gossip and theory. But soor Mrs Swaraj also had a message to convey. The talks had covered a wide range of subjects, making them precisely what we wanted: a "composite" dialogue. Kashmir? Oh, a few things had also been said about Kashmir, to the best of her knowledge.

A nuclear power should not go ballistic, but that is what the Pakistan delegation became. The politics of briefing follow their own logic. Sushma Swaraj was addressing her own constituency, which was as apprehensive about Peacenik Vajpayee as the Pakistan Army was likely to be about Muhajir Musharraf. However televison does not choose its audience; an audience -- chooses its television station. There were probably as many people watching Doordarshan in Pakistan on Sunday as in India. The reaction was immediate and intense. Gossip swirled through the Mughal Sheraton that there had been phone calls from Islamabad that asked President Musharraf a simple question: what are you doing? He had to answer that question.

He made his unhappiness clear to the Prime Minister immediately, who in turn transferred a piece of his mind to his Minister for some information and lots of broadcasting. Before midnight Pakistan issued a press release that Kashmir had been the talking point of the day, and that nothing else would be resolved if Kashmir was not. Was it entirely accidental that most newspapers had gone to bed and could not be roused from their printing machines by the time this statement was released? Was this deliberate? Was there some agreement between the two delegations that they should try and minimise the preceived damage from the briefs? Perhaps. It is an inference. Fact: Television does not sleep. Hawks declared the summit dead.

The breakfast at Amar Vilas took place at swivel-point, when the Summit could turn in whichever direction the principals wanted.

The breakast was on record. Placed beside the elegant Noritake China at each setting lay a scratchpad and a pencil for notes. A television camera pointed at the President from midpoint between the two wings of the straight-line U formation in which we were seated. I thought that, rather sensibly, the Pakistanis were keeping a record, because 18 editors can easily manage 19 different versions of any answer. I was not aware that this repast was being relayed into millions of homes through a Pakistan TV feed that would be picked up by Star, but what of that? The President wanted to be quoted; that was part of his purpose. As a journalist, I wanted a story: that was my reason for being there. My question would not change, whether it was on the record or off it. I would have done a story for my newspaper if the President had not pre-empted all of us with his camera.

President Pervez Musharraf offered us a Barmecide's Feast. You could eat whichever dish you believed was there. You could leave the room with evidence for whatever was your wish. On Kashmir he took a hard line for Pakistani breakers of the fast, but also indicated that the dispute over dispute had been resolved by a Pakistani concession. He outlined the way he would like to take a Kashmir dialogue forward, through a series of steps instead of placing the answer before the discussion. Tidbits were dropped, gently or abruptly, between the Eggs Benedictine and uthappam. The President suggested that the return visit by the Prime Minister could take place as in September, or if not that perhaps by November. It was obvious that behind the fireworks at breakfast lay another face of a growing level of understanding in the one-to-one meetings. By the time the Summit was over the President and the Prime Minister had spent more time with each other, over substantive issues, than had ever been done by two leaders of India and Pakistan.

The drama of the last day of the Summit, the two high points when a nine-point declaration was almost signed, is well known by now; repetition would be a waste of space. There was agreement at the foreign ministers' level on the draft before it was stopped, cold, in its tracks at the proverbial last minute. Whose nerve surrendered to caution? The aftermath is crowded with questions, and President Musharraf has opted to tell his version of the answers through what has become a favourite methodology, a press conference. The point to note is that President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee have spent the days since the summit in risk management, and both done with some skill, using their personal strengths and public image to their fast advantage.

Which of the two is more dangerous to the enemy? A general with a gun, or a general with a microphone.?

President-General Musharraf's infatuation with the media is understandable, given the long years of restraint under the discipline of the Pakistan Army, unable to say his piece when he must have felt like kicking his political masters for dribbling with the truth on matters of the greatest controversy and highest importance. If he clearly he is natural with media, articulate and unfazed, and protected by the brilliantly effective armour of candour. Some day President Musharraf will also discover that media is a difficult mistress, prone to punish the slightest human error without mercy, but that day has not come yet. With such a man we must learn to find out not what he is willing to tell us, candidly, but what he is not willing to tell us.

His press conference in Islamabad was his breakfast meeting on a larger stage; at neither venue has he disclosed the substance of his one-to-one conversations with Mr Vajpayee, particularly during the last meeting on Monday night when the two met for more than a hour and a half to say goodbye. I do not have the magical properties of a fly, and I was not sitting on a Jaypee Palace wall, so I cannot inform our readers about what went on. But when words are unavailable we might want to let facts speak for themselves. Within some forty eight hours of "failure", for instance, an invitation came from Pakistan's foreign minister, Mr Abdul Sattar, to our foreign minister, Mr Jaswant Singh --- and was promptly accepted. That did not have the look and feel of failure. It is evident that Mr Vajpayee and Mr Musharraf have agreed to keep the momentum of the talks alive. It was reiterated that Mr Vajpayee would travel to Pakistan; that invitation and its acceptance stood. The time between Agra and Islamabad will be used by both sides to find the missing links that prevented an agreement. The pressure cooker atmosphere at a Summit, with its inbuilt time limitations, often leads to a Pyrrhic victory. Lahore is an excellent example. If there are solutions then they are best cooked over a slow fire, rather than a two-day conflagaration.

It is dangerous to underestimate the virtues of silence. Mr Vajpayee is a highprofile orator but a low-profile individual; his natural style is accommodative rather than aggressive; and he understands that in a democracy too much candour can be injurious to one's health. Some things are best internalised. The temptation to confuse silence with weakness is a mistake. The Prime Minister, doubtless absorbing a lifetime of lessons from the Mahabharata, is a charioteer on this battlefield, letting the horses of his own side (including a mare or two) race and let off their enormous emotional steam till they could be retargeted towards a defined destination. There must have been those who argued that he should have used the authority of his position and his personal stature in his party to overcome objections and sign the declaration in Agra. Lahore has shown him that a brittle agreement does not last; to last, it must have consensus of all concerned. If that takes time, so be it. Paradoxically, Mr Vajpayee has been strengthened by his flexibility. Since he did not insist on his own inclinations, he proved to his party that he would not place himself above it. Mr Vajpayee knows that if any long term peace has to be reached with Pakistan then its process must have the support of the BJP. He is not worried about parties like the Shiv Sena; but he needs the consent of Mr Advani and of the majority of his party. He will get it before his visit to Pakistan; indeed he will not go without it. The one thing that Mr Vajpayee has ensured, and this is critical, is that the dialogue continues. His step-by-step risk management obeyed the democratic process: ministers, allies and all political parties over the three days. He will speak to the nation through Parliament. But the one message that came through clearly was that baat cheet to chalni chahiye. There was no serious objection. The process continues. The key to the India-Pakistan relationship lies in another paradox: success will only come when there is no victory. But it takes times to appreciate and achieve that.

Decaying electoral process

S Venkatesh

India prides itself on being the largest democracy but independent observers have pointed out how each successive election shows an alarming downward slide in the observance of free and fair elections which the hall mark of a vibrant democracy.

Criminals serving a jail sentence for heinous crimes get elected making a mockery of the electoral process. Political parties hardly think twice before handing out tickets to candidates with a criminal background - suffice it if they can get elected.

The Election Commission can pat itself on the back for trying to enforce inner democracy by insisting on parties holding periodic elections. For the record in 1996, the Commission put the political parties on notice and insisted that they follow their constitution and hold regular party elections. The major national and regional partis duly heeded the directive.

But what is the truth? Elections are generally recognised to be farcical. The roll of membership of most parties is suspect. The parties are highly centralised; the "High Command" or the so-called "Central leadershp" will take a decision is a common enough refrain.

Mostly, it is the wish of a single individual which dictates the course of the most important decision. "Consensus" is a ploy used by the leader to gauge the so-called multiplicity of views where as the decision is usually already made and is known to those who are being consulted too. It is no surprise that several political parties have become tools for political manoeuvre and gaining influence for self-serving individuals and cliques.

A citizen's initiative for democratic reforms called the Lok Sabha had made some studies recently on the ground realities covering four leading political parties in Andhra Pradesh, also known these days as the Cyber Pradesh. The exercise has shown the hollowness of the tall claims made by these parties.

The root of the matter is the way the political parties function and conduct themselves. For, unless the parties act in the highest democratic spirit, any other attempt to improve the democratic system could do little to improve the situation.

In this context, the consultation paper on th working of political parties especially in relation to elections and reform options prepard by the Constitution Review Panel is important. The document speaks of the need for a comprehensive legislation to regular the functioning of the political parties in India. The legislation, it suggests, should provide conditions for constitution of a political party and for recognition, registration and de-registration.

The present practice is that political parties are registered and recognised only for the limited purpose of allocation of poll symbols. What the paper suggests is that political parties should be asked compulsorily to register themselves, by law. Also, the law should prescribe not only the conditions for establishment of a political party but also Provision for regulating the functioning of political parties.

A party thus registered should declare its allegiance to the constitution and the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. This is intended to keep out parties, which overtly or covertly try to dismember the nation.

The legislation that the working paper envisages would enjoin on political parties to abide by the spirit of democracy in teir internal management and operation. They (parties) should also observe inner party democracy in their decision-making process and hold elections to various levels of the party organs at least once in three years.

Another salient feature of the proposal is that it seeks to guarantee seats in legislature for women. How? By making political parties give representation to women in at least 30 per cent of the organisation positions at every level!

Another key element dwelt by the consultation paper relates to political funding. It is proposed that there should be a compulsory declaration by political parties about their receipts of funds and expenditure in a systematic and regular way. An impendent body may prescribe the form of accounts of receipts and expenditure and declaration about the source of funds. This body should also be entrusted with the job I scrutinising the accounts of political parties. Candidates should be legally bound to declare their assets and liabilities before the returning offices at the time of filing nomination for any elected post.

Interestingly, another suggestion relates to holding demonstrations and rallies a favourite tool of all parties to "Ventilate their anger or celebrate happiness". The working paper holds the view that holding huge rallies and demonstrations hardly serves any purpose - an opinion, political parties of all hues are likely to reject outright. The paper says that in this age of high-tech it is far more effective to use the electronic media than public rallies to convey any set of demands. Such a practice, it is said, would also obviate the need for political parties to raise funds by questionable means for meeting expenditure on such huge demonstrations.

The Constitution Review Panel's position paper goes on to say that the money thus saved could be utilised for more fruitful things like educating the voters through door-to-door contacts and sensitising their own party-members in regard to various controversial issues facing the nation.

It has set out the criteria for registration of a national party - at least 10% valid votes polled by all candidates in at least one half of the states. If the parties secure the required percentage of ten per cent of total votes cast in any of the states, that party can be designated as a state party. Other condition is that only parties or a pre-poll alliance of political parties registered an national parties with the Election Commission be allowed to contest for the Lok Sabha. State parties may contest the State legislature and the Council of States, that is, the Rajya Sabha.

The Paper wants the criteria and conditions for de-registration of political parties shoudl be defined and that the decision of the Election Commission in this respect should be final, subject to judicial appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court.

The other suggestions include certain pre-conditions for parties seeking registration like declaration that they would shun violence for political gains not resort to casteism and communalsim for political mobilisation. There are also does and don'ts to improve the democratic system, curbing criminalisation in politics, checking proliferation of political parties etc.

It is a moot point whether all these suggestions no doubt immensely laudable as also the stipulation that candidates should declare their assets and background in advance (strengthened by a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court) would be faithfully followed by political parties assuming that they make up their collective mind to make them legal.

Of course, there is the question how seriously the recommendations of the Constitution Review Panel will be taken by the parties in power and out of power.

... Syndicate Features