If correctly read, the recent elections in Pakistan offer a big opportunity to India for a change in its Pakistan policy. This is the most opportune time for India to recast its relations with a virtually new Pakistan. It is not that Pakistan has become absolutely new as if by magic. A lot of things will remain the same. But the election results have demolished many myths and imagined demons.

In the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the six religious parties alliance, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), has almost been wiped out. MMA had ruled earlier Frontier and was fairly sympathetic to Taliban and other extremist groups; it pretended to be the only means to resolve the problem of Islamic extremism in tribal areas. Tribal people or extremist groups did not oppose the elections; in fact they quietly voted, even in Swat, the place where the trouble has been centred in recent months.

Importantly, tribesmen’s demands are no different from those of any other people: they want roads, electricity, water and ownership rights over their own areas. Fourthly, they expressed their own opinion by electing those who want to join the mainstream, dominated by secular, democratic Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) or Pakistan Muslim League (N).

Victors in the NWFP tell a story. Awami National Party (ANP), run by the grandson of legendary Frontier Gandhi Abdul Ghaffar Khan; this is a secular non-violent Pushtoon Nationalist party. In its past incarnations, it had inclined towards the left, though it was never a leftist party. The second victor is PPP, again a party that has had a clear left-of-centre and secular past.

Overall, the largest parties are: (a) PPP, (b) PML(N), another traditionalist semi-secular party that has risen in public esteem as a result of championing secular demands of reinstating the superior judiciary to its pre-Emergency level, meeting lawyers demands of releasing all political prisoners; it is distinctive for wanting to end the military’s domination of Pakistan politics for good. It wants to restore democracy primarily. It has swept the Punjab, the heartland, to become second largest party nationally and largest in Punjab.

The other parties are also more or less secular. Balochistan stays dominated by tribal Sardars except that the PPP has emerged as a respectable force for the first time. The King’s party, PML (Q), and MMA survive as a force only in Balochistan. The PPP is number two in Balochistan Assembly after PML (Q) due to tribal nature of the society. But the incursion of PPP shows that secular ideas are growing even in tribal Balochistan. The trend needs to be noted.

The PPP holds near total sway over Sindh and it can run the provincial government alone, though it has prudently opted to take the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) with it. The MQM is again a purely secular party, if also with fascistic tendencies. The MQM is a peculiar political creature. It is quite like the original Shiv Sena that was against outsiders earning too much in Bombay; MQM is against outsiders exploiting Karachi wanting control over Karachi. It combines some features of Bahujan Samaj Party by its emphasis of Mohajir community being exploited and oppressed by others. Six election victories from Sindh cites confirm of its clout, if also controversial.

Pakistan’s problems are not dissimilar to India’s. The growth of capitalism in Pakistan is somewhat different from India’s: it is a new type of crony capitalism combining the vices of feudalism with a socially irresponsible capitalism, spoon-fed by banks and the state. Nevertheless an assertive big business has an influence over governance; its counterfoil is also notable. It is the widening rich-poor divide, with poverty growing despite government propaganda about its reduction. Pakistan may not be as diverse as India, but it has enough ethnic diversity, besides sectarianism and religious prejudice. 

Pakistan faces one particular problem that India does not: it is the army which has an urge to takeover the government whenever it thinks that politicians misgovern. It is too big, too powerful, too rich and too politically intrusive. Something needs to be done. That is Pakistan’s peculiar worry. Also Pakistan’s Constitution has been prostituted frequently. Also Pakistan is a man-made state. There was no great popular desire or consensus over its emergence. It is an outcome of British India’s communal problem.

Moreover, Pakistan’s history has demonstrated that it seems to become stronger when secular parties rule it or when elections bring in winds of secular change. But what the Indians should distinguish between emergent problems – army and Constitution and permanent polarisation over ideology – that saps Pakistan’s strength. But its survival depends on secular politics. Any intrusion religion makes weakens it.

Pakistan’s Islamicists’ politics makes it more unstable and the possible break up of the country discussed adequately and so long issued from the presence of armed Islamic extremist groups in the tribal areas of NWFP. It was the cynicism of Islamicists inside the army that produced jihadists for use in Afghanistan and Kashmir. But Pakistan army is now hoist with its own petard. Anyway, the army cannot be said to have been wholly purged of its anti-India animus. But most parties and much civil society now wants excellent relations with India. Moreover, history establishes that the choice of Pakistani people is always secular and semi-secular parties with secular programmes. This opens a door for a new relationship with India that can strengthen Pakistan as well as India.