Online edition of Daily News

Veteran politician Mufti Mohammed Sayeed (R) listens to the national anthem during his sworning ceremony as chief minister of Indian Kashmir in Srinagar, 02 November 2002 as Leader of India’s main opposition Congress party Sonia Gandhi (2nd from L), Kashmir Congress Chief Ghulam Nabi Azad (L) and People’s Democratic Party (PDP) vice-chairwoman Mahbooba Mufti (3rd fromL) stand by. Sayeed was sworn in as the chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir, hours after he escaped unharmed from a grenade attack by suspected Islamic militants on his home. AFP

The current trading of accusations between India and Pakistan, coupled with the electoral-verdicts in the recent Pakistani general election and in the state elections in the Indian ruled segment of Kashmir, tend to reflect the degree to which hardline nationalist sentiment is, essentially, a preoccupation of sections of the ruling and social elites of South Asian states.

In one of the most recent acrimonious exchanges between India and Pakistan, the former's Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani has accused Pakistan of being an "epicentre of terrorism", while a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman was quoted saying that accusations of this kind by Indian ministers were aimed at covering up "the reign of terror let loose by its army in the Indian-occupied Kashmir and to divert attention from the freedom struggle of the Kashmir people".

All this is coming at a time when concerted efforts are being made to end the tense Indo-Pakistani military standoff in Kashmir which brought the two countries to the brink of war. This points to a tendency on the part of the political elites of both countries to engage in a policy of "double-speak" in relation to each other.

Conciliatory practical measures are accompanied by hot, angry words which tend to undo the good which is achieved by the former course of action. And so, to use a popular cliche, the regional rivals only place one step forward together before they hastily backtrack by two steps. Need we be surprised that contentious bilateral issues are continuing to simmer? Need we wonder at the slow improvement of bilateral relations?

The temptation is apparently great to keep Indo-Pakistani relations at a low ebb. The political elites of both countries may be finding it in their interests to follow this Janus-faced policy in relation to each other. For, a reduction in bilateral tensions could in all probability, prevent the protagonists from making what are considered populist appeals, which could garner for them badly needed electoral backing.

This has been one of the commonest strategies of regime survival on both sides of the Indo-Pakistani border.

However, this time round, the ground realities could be more complex than what a cursory glance at them could reveal. For instance, the centre-aligned National Conference Party in Indian ruled Kashmir, which ruled the state for decades, lost power at the recent state elections to a Congress-dominated coalition. All this in spite of the anti-Pakistani rhetoric emanating from the centre and India's backing for the US-led "War on global terror". The constant refrain in New Delhi now is that "cross-border terror" is thriving in Kashmir.

Next, the Pakistani People's Party has come a close second in the Pakistani general election. Here, too, except for the North Western Frontier Province, the appeal to militant religious fundamentalism has not had many takers. Rather, there has been a sizeable preference for a secular party with its comparatively liberal agenda.

These electoral developments are proof of the waning popularity of militant nationalist sentiment on the subcontinent, although ruling elites may be falling over each other to keep them alive. There seems to be a growing discernment among the people of the adverse implications of these potentially explosive policy positions. There are obvious parallels between these developments and the December 5th, 2001, electoral verdict in Sri Lanka which was a vote against ethnic chauvinism.