The surprise verdict

The comprehensive defeat of the BJP-led NDA in the Indian elections is being variously described as 'shocking', 'stunning', 'surprising' and 'unexpected'.
The BJP had felt so convinced of its popularity that it had called elections six months ahead of the schedule. Its optimism was based on two erroneous assumptions: One, that since the economy is growing at a fast rate it should have created a "feel good factor", hence the slogan "India is shining". And two, that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's peace initiative towards Pakistan would inspire Muslims to vote for it en bloc. But this formulation missed the important reality that India is shining only for the upper and middle sections of the population.
The impressive economic growth figures have brought little relief to nearly 650 million of India's poor, residing mostly in the rural areas. Andhra Pradesh, the showcase of India's burgeoning IT industry, presented an interesting example of how things were for the poor.
The just ousted Chief Minister, Chandrababu Naidu, a powerful regional ally of the BJP, had been happy to earn the World Bank's plaudits for withdrawing food and power subsidies for the rural poor. It did not seem to matter if the policy had driven the drought-affected state's farmers to extreme despair, leading many to commit suicide. When the elections to the Andhra state assembly were held in tandem with the elections to the national parliament, Naidu's party suffered a thoroughly humiliating defeat.
The Congress party, which had campaigned on a promise to provide electricity at subsidised rates plus other benefits for the poor, won two-thirds majority along with its regional allies. The Left parties also raised their seats tally from two to fifteen.
Almost the same pattern has been repeated on the national level. The Congress (145) and its allies, who campaigned on a pro-poor plank, have won 217 as against the BJP and allies' 185.
The 137 seats bagged by others include 62 for the Left Front led by the two communist parties whose support to the Congress gives them six more than needed for majority.
The left-wing Samajwadi Party has made substantial gains in the UP at the cost of BJP. This leftward swing clearly shows that in developing countries such as India and Pakistan, it is not enough for governments to improve the macro-economic picture that consists of foreign investments and praises from the international financial institutions.
They must balance their free market policies with strategies that reduce poverty, increase employment and improve the quality of life for the common man.
Aside from the issues of bread and butter, the other thing that appears to have worked against the BJP is the Muslims 'feel bad factor' vis-à-vis the party's Hindutva agenda that has created an acute sense of insecurity in the community.
Vajpayee's policy of making peace with Pakistan may have played well with them but even more important for the Muslims would be the need to secure their own physical safety in the aftermath of the government-sponsored massacre of their co-religionists in the BJP-ruled Gujarat state. During the last elections, it may be recalled, the Congress had lost the traditional Muslim support after having adopted dilly-dallying tactics at the time of the demolition of the Babri mosque.
Many had voted for BJP in the hope that once it is in power it would act more responsibly toward the Muslim minority. But that was not to be. Not only Gujarat Chief Minister Narinder Modi was found to have actively encouraged the anti-Muslim pogrom in his state, Vajpayee refused to hold Modi accountable for it. If Vajpayee thought the Muslims would forget the massacre and vote for him for trying to make peace with Pakistan that was unrealistic on his part.
The majority of Muslims saw their well-being in supporting the Congress and the other secular parties.
The big question in Pakistan is whether the Congress led government in New Delhi will pick up the peace process from where Vajpayee has left it. Addressing a press conference after the announcement of her party's victory, the Congress leader, Sonia Gandhi, said that she would "most certainly" continue that process.
"From the very beginning", she averred, "we supported Vajpayee's initiative with Pakistan." The process indeed has a consensual backing, and is expected to move on irrespective of the leadership change. However, in case Sonia Gandhi decides to assume the office of prime minister herself - which is strongly indicated - rather than nominate one of her party colleagues for it, she will need to act boldly. Her Italian origin having been a big issue in the election campaign, she may find it difficult to act with the kind of confidence that Vajpayee had as the leader of the right-wing nationalist BJP, but then she will be expected to take major decisions sometimes and own them if she wants to create a place for herself in the history of the sub-continent.
Of course, her statesmanship skills are yet to be tested. Repeated successes, over a time period, allow one's stature to grow to a point where one is recognised as a political giant on the national scene. But it is the ability to translate vision into reality that differentiates a statesman from a leader. Many people think of vision as a grandiose view of future; leaving then aside, there can be no vision, for a rational statesman, which does not take into account realities. Now the primordial reality is that India and Pakistan have to exist together, and they have to swim together or sink. For enduring amity, Kashmir issue has to be peacefully settled through negotiations, India has to move forward from its unrealistic position of the territory being its integral part.
General Musharraf has already indicated Pakistan's flexibility on the score. However, we feel Sonia Gandhi or her nominee would need time to settle down, and Pakistani leadership must show understanding and be accommodative so that there is no reversal in the peace process between India and Pakistan.