President General Parvez Musharraf is not a popular figure in India. He is associated with the war at Kargil where New Delhi’s loss in terms of men was heavy. His abrupt withdrawal from the Agra summit on being accused of encouraging militant across the border still rankles in the mind of people. Even otherwise, a military dictator in India which has inured people to democracy is considered anachronic. A remark here or there to recall the ‘services’ of Musharraf to Pakistan should not be taken as an expression of Indian opinion.

National Security Adviser M.K.Narayanan’s statement, made one week before Musharraf’s resignation, does not represent government’s position. He had said that the exit of Musharraf resignation would create a vacuum where the radical extremist outfits would be free to do what they liked. Foreign minister Pranab Mukhereji has clarified that Musharraf’s resignation is Pakistan’s internal affair and that it would not affect bilateral ties. The BJP which is hawkish on Pakistan has too said that it is not concerned over Musharraf’s exit which is Pakistan’s domestic politics.

The Manmohan Singh government has very little political input. At times, it looks as if it is influenced by bureaucrats like Narayanan. But when firm policies are framed, the government’s attitude is that of understanding and conciliation towards Islamabad. Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani must have got this message when he met India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at Colombo on the sidelines of the SAARC summit. More assuring is the word from official sources in Delhi that Musharraf’s departure will have no effect on the peace process between the two countries.

What is, however, disconcerting is that New Delhi tends to copy Washington? America likes dictators because it finds them more convenient to deal with. A democratic structure is found cumbersome because it requires the participation of elected representatives who are many in number. India’s officialdom is inclined to prefer one person to the government of people. Yet the support to the authoritarian setup does not have popular acceptance. People defeated at polls even Mrs Indira Gandhi when she turned authoritarian during the emergency (1975-77).

A few Indian newspapers have expressed their apprehension of uncertainty after Musharraf’s exit. But this is because they have come to equate Pakistan with military juntas. The 50-year-rule of the military has changed perceptions about Pakistan in India. It is generally believed that the army would never quit Pakistan and the people there have more or less reconciled themselves to the eventuality.

This makes it all the more necessary that the army’s role in Pakistan is lessened. The real test in the mind of Indians is the control of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). If the original decision to put the agency under the Interior ministry is restored, the space of the army would shrink and that of democratic forces expand.

Never in the history of Pakistan have there been so much suppression, so much terrorism and so much fundamentalism as was in the 8-year-rule of President-cum-army Chief Musharraf. Delhi too suffered from his policies which pushed Talibanism into India. When Washington, Musharraf’s guide and philosopher, asked him to fight the Taliban, he did so half-heartedly, giving them shelter while operating in Afghanistan. The result is the bomb blast every week in one part of Pakistan or the other. Musharraf did not understand the ethos of the democracy. Nor did he care about it.

I recall my meeting with him at Islamabad two years ago. During our discussion on Kashmir, he was arguing how the territorial regrouping of Jammu and Kashmir could make borders irrelevant. He had an interesting point of view. I told him that the Indian parliament might not agree to his proposal. He asked me why parliament should come into the picture when he, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the respective cabinets would have approved the proposal. He honestly believed in what he said. It is good that Musharraf has gone on the mere threat of impeachment. A democratic polity has no place for persons like him. I hope he come to realize this wherever he lives.

As for the post Musharraf era is concerned, many in India believe that Asif Zardari of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif of Muslim League will be at each other’s throat after the departure of their common enemy. Some reports of their wrangling are a cause of worry. Yet the two must realise that they have the best of opportunity to get Pakistan out of authoritarianism, helplessness and the economic backwardness in which the country has been stuck for some time. The public is watching both the leaders. The opponents like pro-Musharraf Muslim League and the MQM are also waiting in the wings. The two should know.

It is but fair that the judges dismissed by Musharraf are restored to their position immediately. In fact, the lawyers’ agitation for their reinstatement prepared the ground for the popular rule to come back. They are the ones who have put the derailed democracy back on the track. In any case, the different agitations have toughened Pakistan. It has come of age. Whatever the differences, people are awakened enough to fight for the democratic polity if it is threatened again.

Some of us, who lighted candles on the Wagah border on the night of August 14-15, could not say firmly whether Musharraf would quit. But it was apparent that democracy had returned to Pakistan. Nearly 50 people, men and women from the other side, came right up to the zero point and held aloft the lighted candles to greet us. The spectacle was charged with emotion because never before, since independence, had anybody come to the border at midnight to join us at the candle light vigil.

In the past, every time we lighted candles on the border, the question asked in India was how many came from Pakistan?  Since none would show up, we replied ‘none’. Our explanation that the military and the fundamentalists had stalled the effort to reciprocate did not convince many, particularly the media. This time when the Pakistanis came, the media was too squeamish to report.

The Border Security Force on our side was so considerate that it even opened the Iron Gate at the zero point. Although the Gate on the other side remained shut, we stepped further to exchange candles. I must admit that the candles from their side were fatter and sturdier. No pun is intended to convey that the feelings of friendship on their side should be sturdier than the ones on our side. Now that democracy has dawned in Pakistan the candles at the Wagah border would burn brighter in the years to come to underline the desire for peace and amity between the peoples in the two countries.