I do not rule out rigging in the Pakistan election. My belief is that the seats the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid), the King's party, and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement have won are far more than their hold or stock in the country suggests. The combined strength of the Pakistan People's Party (87) and the Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League (66) is far less than their popularity. The two should have got two-thirds majority in the National Assembly while they have secured 153.
It looks as if the plan to rig the polls on a large scale got stalled when Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari, chief of PPP, warned that their defeat would be considered a manipulation and would force them to urge their cadres and people to come out on the streets. The impression that General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the army chief, gave through distancing his men from politics seems to have influenced the polling machinery not to interfere. Kayani's withdrawal of 160 officers from civilian posts made his efforts look credible.
One positive development is that the religious parties have lost ground. In any case, they were the creatures of President General Parvez Musharraf and the earlier martial law administrator General Zia-ul-Haq. Both used the army to ram fundamentalism in Pakistan to stop the liberals from coming to power. The six-party religious combination, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, which won 59 seats in the last election, has been reduced to a 3-member party. Its chief, Fazl Rehman, retained the seat which his father had cultivated. Civil society in Pakistan is as progressive and democratic as anywhere in the world. It is Musharraf who has tried to destroy it because it is anti-authoritarian in its stance.
The Awami National Party, headed by the grandson of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, "Frontier Gandhi," has swept the NWFP. The victory indicates that the progressive ideas inculcated by Abdul Ghaffar Khan had only a temporary regression in the last 60 years. Those ideas have sprouted again to the dislike of those who had come to consider the state as a bastion of fundamentalists. The victory of PML (Q) in Baluchistan is primarily because the nationalist forces had boycotted the elections. They should be won back. No doubt, both Nawaz Sharif and Zardari have got the people's verdict in their favour. They must not fritter it away by joining hands with Musharraf or the army. Both are unpopular among the people. Nawaz Sharif has been categorical on this and. Regarding the army, he may not persist in his opposition at this time, particularly when Zardari does not want to join issue with the armed forces.
Nawaz Sharif's crucial pronouncement is that the 60 sacked judges would be reinstated. He had made his party candidates swear by the undertaking that the judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, would come back. It is heartening to see that Sharif is plugging the same line.
Musharraf should have resigned by this time. He had said that the PML (Q) was his party. Why should he stay when his party has been routed? Even otherwise, the verdict is against Musharraf. He himself said that he would resign if he found himself unpopular. He should also realise that he would not get a two-thirds vote from the new national assembly for confirmation as president. By sticking to the office he may create a piquant situation which Pakistan, still in the sea of troubles, cannot afford to face. His efforts to keep out Nawaz Sharif is not working because the latter has emerged as the undisputed leader in Punjab, the state which matters the most in Pakistan.
Combinations and permutations of different political parties to find a viable government are bound to pose difficulties. Ambitions are coming in the way. But Nawaz Sharif and Zardari have agreed to form coalition and on the reinstatement of judges, including the chief.
The forces which have won in Pakistan are a plus point for New Delhi. Both Nawaz Sharif and Zardari have said that they want good relations with India. Nawaz Sharif, coming from a business background, can see the advantage. He should moot a common market between Pakistan and India. New Delhi should give concessions in tariffs so that Islamabad does not suffer from any disadvantage. The market can subsequently be extended to include Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Burma.
New Delhi must recognise the opportunity it has got vis-à-vis Pakistan. I know Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is positive on this point. Yet, relations with Pakistan depend on how well we sustain our pluralism. Communal forces can undo what is happening in Pakistan to befriend India, especially at the people's level. What happened in Maharashtra -- the campaign to oust North Indians -- may be purely linguistic chauvinism, but such incidents can scare Pakistan away.
The States' Reorganisation Commission, which had redrawn the country's map on the basis of language, had warned that it was itself concerned over the son-of-the-soil theory, having preference over more deserving candidate from outside. The Commission lay down that the knowledge of the regional language could be acquired after a person had got a job, not before. The states followed the advice for some years, but they are now insistent on competence in the local language before employment.
Zonal councils have been constituted for a better understanding among neighbouring states, but the practice has stayed primarily on paper. An eminent former chief justice of India, Mehar Chand Mahajan, cautioned before the appointment of the Commission that the country would one day go up in flames if linguistic fanaticism was not curbed. His proposal was to divide the country into four zones: northern, southern, eastern and western.
It is understandable that locals would want outsiders to integrate with them, learn the language and adopt local habits and values. Outsiders are expected to do so because otherwise they continue to have their own state within the state. One example in Pakistan is that of the Urdu-speaking population (MQM) at Karachi. I recall that when they took me to their area many years ago, they proudly said that they did not learn Sindhi, nor favoured inter-community marriage. Such an attitude annoys the hosts because it betrays a sectarian attitude on the part of migrants.
The spirit of tolerance is what is sustaining India's pluralistic society. This is the glue that should never be allowed to go dry. I fear regionalism rising in Pakistan. This will weaken the federation, and country itself. The country is going through anxious times. But its leaders should remember what Jawaharlal Nehru said about his own country: "Who dies if India lives and who lives if India dies?"
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.