If Atal Behari Vajpayee adopted a relatively lower profile than preceding Indian prime ministers at earlier Commonwealth meets, it could largely be attributed to a tactical retreat while the attack on Pakistan's military regime was deftly fashioned in tandem with African and Carribbean members at the Durban summit last week. Even though developed members of the Commonwealth, Australia, Britain and Canada, understandably declined to get involved in a belligerent critique of the military take-over, the end result was the same: Pakistan was suspended from all councils of the 54-member international body.
With Pakistan absent, the strong Indian diplomatic contingent had the summit all to themselves. Enough groundwork had been done in the weeks before the Commonwealth meet to suggest that the Indian side was keen to emphasise that the issue wasn't just one of Indo-Pak ties but went beyond that. Vajpayee initiated this line when he told reporters that he was "satisfied" by the general direction of the summit and that Indian efforts were not aimed at targeting Pakistan - its basic logic being that "restoration of democracy is in the interests of Pakistan and the region".
By the time the summit ended, Vajpayee who'd started off with just a three-paragraph intervention on Pakistan on day one, upped the ante considerably. Nawaz Sharif, he said, was the duly-elected leader of Pakistan and hoped he would not go the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto way. Restoration of democracy was high on the Commonwealth's priorities, the Indian premier emphasised, saying the summit had considered three possibilities: one, to suspend Pakistan from the councils, two, suspension from the Commonwealth and lastly expulsion from its primary membership. For good measure, Vajpayee replying to a question aboard his special flight, said the United States was going soft on Pakistan and wondered where democracy stood in the US's scheme of things.
Was Vajpayee the peacenik back at playing the hawk? According to a top aide of his, this perception is flawed. "The onus of raising an issue lies with the countries in the region. So, in the case of Nigeria the African countries put forward their point of view. In South Asia, India's leading the charge," he said. The aide said India was well supported by Bangladesh, the other affected country in the area, and Nigeria, which was suspended from the Commonwealth and faced sanctions in '95 after the execution of seven dissenters opposing Gen Sani Abacha's regime. Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina Wajed maintained her country would support any initiative on the question of democracy. Her own speech at the meeting was certainly passionate, where she recounted the days when her father and immediate family were wiped out in '75. To be sure, there was one dissenting note, Ghana's Gen Jerry Rawlings, who first came to power through a military take-over, but has since acquired democratic trappings through an election.
Vajpayee's meeting with Hasina on the sidelines of the summit was described as positive, reflected best in India's late support for Bangladesh's Farooq Sobhan as the next secretary general. Never mind if New Zealand foreign minister Don Mckinnon was clearly miles ahead. Vajpayee's talks with British prime minister Tony Blair were also described as very good. Diplomats said that later at the George retreat - where leaders assembled on the final day - Blair reportedly took a 'hard line' on restoration of democracy in Pakistan. As to whether Vajpayee was 'protecting' Sharif, the aide said the question didn't arise because, if anything, Sharif was personally closer to former Indian prime minister I. K. Gujral. The latter, in fact, called up Vajpayee on his return to congratulate him on his showing.
That the background had been prepared by Indian diplomats is clear. The heads of governments were aware of the report of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), allowing invocation of the Millbrook Action Programme to suspend Pakistan for two years from the councils. In the intervention, described as 'brief but forceful', Vajpayee stressed the need to ensure "that the Commonwealth did not become a participant in the consequences of a military coup". He added, however, that even though the Millbrook programme stipulated a two-year period for restoring democracy in a member-state, it could be reduced to six months as "it is noteworthy that institutions of democracy do exist in Pakistan, including an independent Election Commission which conducted the '97 general elections to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth Electoral Observers group." India's national security advisor and Vajpayee's principal secretary, Brajesh Mishra, said members were "very intense and emotional" about Pakistan.
But after much heat had been raised on the issue, the question remained whether India would have been happier with sanctions imposed on Pakistan, as opposed to the suspension. But diplomats insist it was not a line India was interested in pursuing, as best reflected in the PM's statements. Foreign minister Jaswant Singh said India's approach to the issue was the outcome of the "Commonwealth's collective mind" and the appreciation that all countries are opposed to the nexus between terrorism and narcotics. On the question whether the suspension made any significant material difference to Pakistan, Singh, who uses his words well and with care, said "It would be unwise to write off the Commonwealth".
From the regional point of view, there were other significant developments as well. The CMAG, considered crucial in defining situations of member countries, does not have India as one of its members. But that, said officials, has more to do with India not being keen to take a chair, so that it's not seen as trying to influence the ministerial committee on the Pakistan question.
Another potentially contentious issue expected to come up later this year are the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations in Seattle. While Indian officials didn't read too much into it, the fact remains that the political issues at the Commonwealth may not be the same thing as core economic issues at Seattle. Admitted one official: "On economic issues, the Commonwealth comprises diverse nations. There are different perceptions." While that may be true, clearly the moral ombudsman role of the Commonwealth was best epitomised in Durban last week.
