US Elections 2016

For starters, I'm relying upon official figures from the 2008, 2012 election results , taken from Wikipedia. And also projected voter figures for 2016, I have taken from Wiki and other sources.

Some of the premises I am making are of course subjective, regarding voter mood and estimates of how various demographic groups would vote now, compared to 2008 and 2012. I am also taking Pew research data on issues confronting the electorate and how important this election is.

          Right through this analysis, I'm treating the popular vote for all the election years, separately for the 3 states of California, New York and Illinois in one group and the remaining 47 states in another group. I do this for the reason that the Democrats have had a consistently large lead in these 3 states and had won these states very easily by large margins. It is almost certain to happen in 2016 as well, and hence it would be more accurate to analyze the popular vote in the remaining 47 states and see how the electoral college votes look there for the Democrats and Republicans.

2008 Election: Obama vs McCain.

Major factors and background :

1. 8 years of George Bush and Republican White House, very unpopular presidency, war on Iraq.

2 . First Black Presidential candidate, Obama, big national mood for change, younger candidate and running on the theme of " change".

3. Big Voter enthusiasm nationally, especially among Democratic and neutral voters for Obama, and lesser among Republican voters for John McCain.

The Numbers :

Voter turnout : 131 millions , approximately 62%

Pew Research data on electorate enthusiasm :

Thought a lot about elections : 72%

Thought very little : 23%

Matters very much who wins election: 63%

Doesnt matter , things will be same 32%

Popular vote :

Obama  : 69.5 millions ( 52.9% )

McCain : 59.9 millions ( 45.7% )

Difference : 9.6 millions

Obama 365 electoral votes ; McCain 173 electoral votes .

Popular vote in the 3 states of New York, California and Illinois :

Obama : 16.4 millions

McCain : 9.7 millions

Difference in popular vote in CA, NY and IL:

 6.7 millions. ( For Obama )

Popular vote in remaining 47 states :

Obama : 53.1 millions

McCain : 50.2 millions

Difference in remaining 47 states : 

2.9 millions ( for Obama)

As a % of popular vote in 47 states :

 2.7% ( for Obama )

Electoral votes in CA, NY and IL : 107

Obama: 107

McCain : 0

Electoral votes in remaining 47 states: 431

Obama: 258 

McCain: 173

2012 elections : Obama vs Romney:

Major factors and background : 

1. Economic slowdown/ recession 2008-2010 after sub prime crisis and collapse of Wall Street banks.

2. Unemployment higher.

3. Bailout of Wall Street street banks by the Obama govt.

4. Lesser voter enthusiasm than 2008, anti incumbency for Obama. Slightly better voter enthusiasm for Romney/Republicans compared to 2008.

The numbers :

Voter turnout : 129 millions ( 57.5% approximately)

Pew Research data on electorate enthusiasm:

Thought a lot about elections :  67%

Thought very little : 30%

Matters very much who wins elections : 63% 

Doesn't matter , things will be same : 34%

Popular Vote :

Obama : 65.9 millions (51.1%)

Romney 60.9 millions (47.2%)

Difference in Popular vote : 5 millions

Popular Vote in the 3 states of California, New York and Illinois :

Obama : 15.3 millions

Romney : 9.3 millions

Difference in Popular vote in the 3 states of California, NY and IL : 6 millions ( for Obama)

Electoral votes in CA, NY, IL :

Obama: 104 Romney : 0

Popular vote in the remaining 47 states :

Obama : 50.6 millions

Romney: 51.6 millions

Difference in Popular vote in the remaining 47 states : 1 million votes ( for Romney ) 

Between 2008 and 2012, the shift in popular vote from Democrats to Republicans in the 47 states: 

3.9 million votes ( from 2.9 millions plus  for Obama in 2008, to 1 million plus for Romney in 2012)

Electoral votes in remaining 47 states: 434

Obama : 228 ;  Romney: 206

COMPARISON BETWEEN 2008 AND 2012.

1. Reduction in National  popular vote for Democrats in 50 states in 2012:

3.6 million votes ( 69.5 to 65.9 millions)

2. Increase in National popular vote for Republicans in 50 states in 2012 :

1 million votes ( 59.9 to 60.9 millions )

3. Reduction in Popular vote for Democrats in CA, NY and IL in 2012:

1.1 million votes

4 Reduction in popular vote for Republicans in CA, NY, IL in 2012 :

400,000 votes

5. Reduction in Democrat/Republican margin in CA, NY and IL : 500,000 votes.

6 . Reduction in Popular vote for Democrats in remaining 47 states in 2012:

2.5 million votes ( 53.1 to 50.6 millions)

7. Increase in popular vote for Republicans in the remaining 47 states in 2012:

1.4 millions.

8. Difference in popular vote in 47 states in 2012:

1 million votes ( for Republicans,  from down 2.9 millions in 2008 to up 1 million ) a shift of 3.9 millions

9. Shift in Electoral votes between 2008 to 2012: 

Republicans gain 33 , Democrats lose 33 in the 434 electoral votes of 47 states ( the electoral votes of CA/NY/IL reduced from 107 in 2008 to 104 in 2012)

2016 Elections : Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton

Total eligible electorate :

225 millions 

Pew  Research data on electoral enthusiasm:

Thought a lot about the elections : 80% ( 72% in 2008; 67% in 2012)

Thought very little : 15% ( 23% in 2008; 30% in 2012)

Matters very much who wins elections: 74% ( 63℅ in 2008; 63% in 2012)

Doesn't matter, things won't change : 22% ( 32% in 2008; 34% in 2012)

The gap between the numbers on both the questions that indicate electoral enthusiasm, is very high for 2016, higher than the 2008 elections, and very much higher than the 2012 elections. When mapped to the turnout in 2008( 62% approx) and to 2012 ( 58% approx) , there is a very good chance that the 2016 elections would see a much higher turnout . It could exceed 63% and possibly touch 65% as well, which translates to between 141 million voters to 147 million voters , based on the current eligible voters, 225 millions. This would be an increase of 12-18 million voters over the 2012 turnout, and 10-16 million voters over the 2008 turnout.

The key to mapping the Electoral enthusiasm levels ( as measured by Pew Research), and arriving at a voting turnout percentage, is a comparison between 2008 and 2016. In 2008, the electorate was fed up after 2 terms of a Republican White House, with President George Bush being perhaps one of the most unpopular US presidents. This would have contributed to 72% of the people who " thought a lot" about the elections in 2008. Additionally, Obama was the first African American candidate running for the White House as a major party nominee, the Black voter turnout increased to 13% in 2008, up from 11% in 2004, and Obama not surprisingly got 95% of the black vote. And he ran on a platform of " Change we can believe", and 68% of the people thought a change and who does win  matters and things would be better with a change.

Now see the same figures for 2016. 80% of the electorate has " thought a lot" about the elections, and 78% think that a change and who does win matters and the change will make a difference. These are far higher figures than in 2008, and this time it's after 2 terms of a Democratic White House. The new or fresh factor in 2008 was a younger African American candidate running against the incumbent party in power. Now the new or fresh factor is not just one , it's two. There is a  woman running for the White House for the first time in US history. But she is from the incumbent party in power now, Democrats have held the White House for two terms, and Hillary Clinton is essentially running for a 3rd term for Democrats. 

On the other hand, the Republicans have as their candidate, Donald Trump, an anti establishment Billionaire , who seemed to be as much against the traditional Republican politicians as he is against the Democrats. This was reflected in Trump, much against all predictions, trouncing 10 Republican candidates to win the nomination. He is not a career politician , has no political experience, hasn't held any office, his views aren't strictly Republican, he has run an unconventional campaign, and his campaign has been against the "status quo and Washington establishment insiders", both Republicans and Democrats. 

It is in this scenario we need to understand the enthusiasm factor of the electorate, which is at its highest since the past several Presidential elections, higher than even 2008, with voter turnout possibly becoming the highest for more than 30 years in terms of percentage of eligible voters. Is this positive enthusiasm ? Both the candidates, Trump and Clinton have been described as " very disliked"  by more than 50% of the electorate. This seems to be an election between two candidates based on who is disliked more. Trump has made some atrocious comments in course of his campaign past one year, that has made him being labelled " racist and bigoted" , and also " anti women" , and " anti Muslim". His views on Muslims and immigration from some Arab/Asian nations, as well as his views on Latino immigration from Mexico has  drawn sharp criticism from the mainstream media, which is largely left-liberal leaning. Trump has also not chosen to disclose his tax returns till now, which hasn't gone down well with large sections of the electorate. More than half of those who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton say that they are in fact voting against Trump.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, she is almost equally disliked as Trump. Hillary Clinton has been the First lady for 8 years during the Bill Clinton Presidency in the 1990s, was Senator for many years from New York, and after a failed presidential bid in 2008, she became Obama's Secretary of state. She has a string of scandals to her name, beginning from the Whitewater scandal when she was First lady, and the Benghazi scandal when she was Secretary of state between 2008-2012, when a US Ambassador was killed in Libya in a terrorist attack, and she apparently knew more about it. And additionally Hillary has been caught up in a massive Email scandal, where she has used a private email server from the basement of her home for official purposes and is still facing an ongoing enquiry. She is accused of deleting 33,000 emails that could potentially be incriminating for her. Worse still for Hillary Clinton, she is embroiled in another controversy, her Clinton foundation has been accused of accepting millions of dollars in donation from many business interests who were transacting official business with her as Secretary of state. She is accused of making decisions as secretary of state, that favored these donors, an accusation that falls barely short of bribery. Hillary Clinton is seen as extremely untrustworthy, with many people thinking she is a liar who could be tried for felony.

So between these two candidates, what exactly is driving the very high voter enthusiasm in this election ? The obvious answer is voters of both candidates are in fact voting against the opposing candidate and not positively for their own candidate. But is it that simple ? There is a combination of positive and negative voter enthusiasm in this election that is spread between both candidates that could be very hard to break down, the balance between how positive and for whom, and how negative and against whom could be the key to making projections in this extremely unpredictable election. Apart from the extremely committed Democratic and Republican vote for their respective candidates, anyone else, whether Republican leaning, or Democrat leaning, or uncommitted would be weighing the positives and negatives in their own frameworks. It is this that has to be broken down, and the factors that could contribute to such voting decisions.

Let's begin by analysing the Hillary Clinton vote. For this purpose, it's essential to compare the Obama vote of 2008 and 2012 first as this gives us the basis for analysing the Hillary vote of 2016 --- at least the positive Hillary vote. Obama, after his high enthusiasm candidacy of 2008, running as the challenger after 8 years of Republican/Bush White House, and getting 69.5 million votes against John McCain, 10 million votes more, himself slipped to 65.9 million votes in 2012 against Mitt Romney after one term of 4 years. Obama still won , but 2012 was a very low enthusiasm election according to Pew Research data. Obama just secured 65.9 million votes to Romney's 60.9 million votes in 2012, a reduction of 3.6 million votes from 2008. Is Hillary anywhere close to Obama as a candidate ? Certainly not. Obama had no scandal to his name, and was not seen as untrustworthy, even in 2012. Hillary Clinton is seen as untrustworthy, as well as being part of the establishment for 25 years, with a slew of scandals tied to her, and she is running for president after 8 years of a Democratic White House, basically seeking a 3rd term for the Democrats. Can she get the same votes as Obama did , even in 2012 ? Certainly not as a positive vote. As we saw earlier, whatever vote she gets is going to contain a large share of an " anti Trump vote", and a very small share of a positive vote. If 4 years of a Democratic presidency for Obama himself as a candidate cost him almost 5 million votes and 33 less electoral college votes in 2012, how much more would 8 years of a Democratic presidency cost a scandal ridden , untrustworthy and disliked Hillary Clinton in 2016 ? And more than anything else, a vote for Hillary is not a vote for change. She has plenty of baggage, is not the agent of change and has been part of the Washington establishment and power structure far too long.

There is one more very important factor to be considered while analysing the Hillary vote and the enthusiasm factor among Democratic voters. The voter turnout at the Democratic primaries now in 2016 was lesser than it was in 2012, and far lesser than it was in 2008 , Hillary lost the nomination to Obama in 2008, it must be remembered. In 2016, Senator Bernie Sanders ran a very strong campaign for the Democratic nomination. He fired up the Democratic voters and was seen as the agent of change and different politics , especially among younger voters. He polled almost 15 million votes in the primaries, and in an email leak of the Democratic National committee, it was shown that the establishment Democrats had conspired to sabotage Senator Sander's campaign by floating mischievous emails to the delegates and Hillary Clinton was seen to be behind it. Eventually Hilary won the Democratic nomination, but left several millions of Sanders supporters fuming in anger. Sanders himself , although he endorsed Hillary, has hardly been an enthusiastic campaigner for her, and it is anybody's guess how many of his supporters would actually turn up to vote for Hillary Clinton. Even during the Democratic National convention in Philadelphia, Bernie Sanders supporters , "Bernie or bust" as they called themselves, booed and held demonstrations against Hillary Clinton.  All this could mean further loss of the Democratic vote for Hillary Clinton, even a loss of 2-3 million Sanders voters, could prove critical. 

India, Pakistan, America, 538 : Part-1

India has had yet another attack, in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir and at the time of writing this , 18 lives of our Jawans have been lost . This is being called a "terrorist attack" by the media here in India as well as internationally. But let's come to that in a bit, while I answer the question that any reader may be asking, what exactly does the title mean ? Surely it's not rocket science for most people to figure out, almost everyone would be easily able to say that this article is going to deal with the long-standing India Pakistan hostilities, the dozens of " terrorist attacks" on India from across the border and Pakistan, and the role of USA in this and what American governments have been doing in this conflict. Right enough ... but 538 ? Well that's the total number of Electoral college votes in the US Presidential elections. What on earth is the connection, some may ask. Well, let's find out.

                      But before we embark on deciphering the 538 puzzle, let's dwell a little bit on the history of America's role in the India-Pakistan conflict, the Kashmir issue and the " terrorist attacks" that have been carried out on Indian soil by Pakistani nationals from across the border over the past couple of decades. Pakistan, after every such attack, routinely denies any involvement in them and does so in such a manner that it doesn't even seem to mean the denial. The denials are boringly similar in tone and detail, meant to convey to their local audience ... Yes ..it's us, we have attacked yet again ...so that a pathetic, impoverished and a frustrated non nation can draw some mild solace from it, having suffered humiliating defeats in 4 wars with India, and the resultant splitting of their country as well. I said boringly similar denials, but I am honor bound to point out there have been occasional flashes of refreshing humor in Pakistan's denials, as in the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, when they claimed that Ajmal Kasab was actually some Ramlal, a local practitioner involved in some wallet related  business in Mumbai's busy sidewalks.

                              India, on its part had adopted an equally predictable approach of blow hot blow cold towards Pakistan over the past 2 decades. From the Vajpayee administration in 1998, through the Manmohan Singh government from 2004 to 2014, till the Modi government now in 2016, if two words can describe the Indian government's policy in tackling Pakistan, they are "confused and ineffectual".

                       Let's take a close look at the timeline of events from May 1998, when the Vajpayee government conducted Nuclear tests in Pokhran. At that point in time India had total military superiority over Pakistan on land, sea and air. In reality there was no immediate need for any such Nuclear test, and also there hadn't been any significant terror attacks on India in recent years, nor was there any great incursions by Pakistan across the LoC. But what followed the Nuclear tests at Pokhran was that Pakistan panicked, and two weeks later conducted it's own Nuclear tests in Chagai hills. Both countries were slapped with economic sanctions by the "International community", a euphemism for the USA, and of course a few other countries.

                          All of a sudden, in a matter of two weeks, the world was talking about "Nuclear flashpoint Kashmir", and everyone and his uncle in the Western world was talking of a possible Nuclear holocaust and a Third world war waiting to happen. A situation that is still claimed to exist, and the Nuclear bogey trotted out everytime there is escalated tension between India and Pakistan. Whether or not it's true, and whether it's just an unfounded fear is debatable, but it has certainly achieved two purposes: one is that there is a greater Western involvement in all matters concerning India and Pakistan, and secondly , it has crippled India in its ability to use conventional warfare even in circumstances that fully warrant it.

                             This brings us to the larger question of why Vajpayee decided to go Nuclear. If it was perception of any threat from Pakistan, surely all evidence pointed to the contrary. If it was any threat from China, then surely even being Nuclear armed won't effectively shield India from China, as China is a vastly superior military power, and in any case India is hardly likely to use Nuclear weapons against China for some border skirmish in Arunachal Pradesh or a few square km of land occupied by China on and off. So the only answer is the Vajpayee government was trying to make it a political point for its own domestic constituency, which largely thrives on the " nationalist" card. It was also a compelling desire to be "part of history", and a sense of grandeur that propelled Vajpayee to this decision, something that has afflicted and subsequently consumed many a political leader or statesman across the world throughout history.

                              Having flexed the Nuclear arm in a show of machoism to his domestic audience, it was now time for Vajpayee to show his face of friendship and peace to the International community. The Pakistan cricket team was invited to play a test series in India, despite protests by Shiv Sena. Pakistan's team came here and was welcomed in a grand style. Cricket , that ever reliable diplomatic tool was deployed and the two cricket crazy nations were brought together in a close fought series. Pakistan defeated India in a thriller at Chennai , and the Chepauk crowd gave a standing ovation to Wasim Akram and his men. All was well, and the BJP govt was touting it's diplomatic success, and a pleased Vajpayee moved to the next level of diplomacy .

                           He did that by embarking on the famous Lahore bus journey in February 1999, hosted by PM Nawaz Shariff, exchange of sweets, poetry, photo ops, speeches and the entire works. It was all carefully orchestrated to portray the image of a world statesman, one who is the head of a nuclear armed country reaching out to his counterpart of another nuclear armed country, a long time adversary, all in the interest of world peace, and the "International community" loved it, not to forget the TV cameras, it was a great story and a good movie. And it lasted exactly 3 months.

                                India was in for a rude shock in May 1999. Pakistan Rangers and other military battalions across the border, pushed in Pakistani "irregulars" into Kargil and Dras and various other heights, and occupied positions. The operation was planned and guided by Gen Perez Musharraf, and after some initial denials, Pakistan did not even try to pretend they had nothing to do with it. It was a full fledged military incursion into Indian soil by the neighboring enemy country, an act of war. India was caught on the wrong foot, completely unsuspecting, and faced the ignominious situation of having lost territory to the enemy. And the BJP government and PM Vajpayee were made to look utter fools. India and Pakistan were " friendly " just a few days back, but all of a sudden , as India took on Pakistan in Manchester in the 1999 World cup faceoff, the British govt had to rush riot control police to the Manchester cricket ground to keep a baying crowd of Indians and Pakistanis apart. India was at war.

                             There were some anxious speculations in various circles in India, media and also among Indians across the world , if PM Vajpayee in order to maintain his "peace image", might not respond militarily or may be persuaded to adopt a "mature approach" by the "International community", and indeed such efforts were made. But India was different then, an angry nation was demanding action, the armed forces were straining at the leash, and a stung government had to act. And act it did, this time PM Vajpayee was making decisions on the strong recommendations of his trusted deputy and longtime associate Lal Krishna Advani. Advani wasted no time in emphasizing to Vajpayee that the only thing that would salvage the national pride and the Government's self respect was an all-out counter attack on Pakistan and delivery of a crushing defeat to Pakistan's army. The Nuclear bogey was considered for hardly a minute, and cast into the wastepaper basket. Advani did not believe Pakistan would ever dare to use it, and was of the firm conviction that India should openly affirm that India itself would not be averse to using the Nuclear response should Pakistan indulge in any dangerous and misguided adventurism. Pakistan's bluff was called and what ensued was a conventional war for the next 3 months.

                          The defence forces swung into action, and as the Airforce jets pounded Pakistani positions beyond the LoC, and the International border, the army slowly hit back and won all the heights back. The ferocity of the Indian counter attack was unprecedented, and hadn't been seen in earlier wars against Pakistan. They had no answer whatsoever, as they were crushed by the superior might and sophisticated attacks of the Indian Airforce and the Army. A seriously worried USA wanted the conflict to end, and it's intelligence had reports that Pakistan may be foolishly pushed into using the Nuclear option in sheer desperation.

           President Clinton spoke to Vajpayee and warned him about it. India did not relent and insisted that nothing short of a surrender and  complete withdrawal of Pakistani forces back beyond the LoC would stop the Indian counter offensive. Left with no choice, Bill Clinton summoned PM Nawaz Shariff  to Washington and told him Pakistan would have to totally withdraw, or be prepared to face extreme consequences, possibly a Nuclear counter strike too, as India was in no mood to relent. An unhappy Shariff had no choice, and the Pakistan troops withdrew, resulting in yet another humiliating and ignominious defeat for Pakistan at the hands of India.

                  What happened in Pakistan after that would redefine the India Pakistan relationship, as well as the role of the USA in this Indo-Pak conflict, as well as the larger world geopolitical and military balance for the next few years. Gen Pervez Musharraf ousted the Nawaz Shariff govt in a Military coup, in October 1999, 3 months after Pakistan's defeat, and assumed dictatorial leadership of Pakistan and brought it under military rule. A Pakistan Supreme Court ruled that the Coup was legal and military rule was allowed for a period of 3 years till 2002, a period that would change many things for Pakistan, India and the USA .

India, Pakistan, America, 538: Part-2

1999-2004 ; The defining years of the Vajpayee govt.

(This is a very long post, detailing many events, the sequence of the incidents, and their consequences. But it's essential to go through them all to understand why we are today in this kind of a situation regarding attacks from Pakistan)

          Nothing moves a political leader as much to take a particular action or not take a particular action as the opportunity of furthering his own position and power, or a threat to his position and power, as the case may be.  

             I start out by making this rather obvious statement as a prelude for this part of the series, as this is the one defining principle that determined all that happened between India and Pakistan in those 5 years. More so , I must add  that more than the Indian and Pakistani Govts, it was the USA govt and its political leadership that decisively determined how the Indian Govt dealt with Pakistan's undeclared war on India. 3 American Presidents, 1 Pakistani dictator President, and 2 Indian Prime ministers were to become the key players of what unfolded in the next many years till 2016  for all 3 nations, but left India alone as the loser. And in this, the period between 1999-2004, in my opinion, defined the entire discourse on India Pakistan conflict, and continued into the later years.

              With Gen Pervez Musharraf taking over as the Chief of Pakistan after the October 1999 military coup, India's position with regard to Pakistan slowly started weakening. The process was very subtle and it was to become evident only after a couple of years, but the real change that happened was Pakistan strengthening internally , than India weakening. In the aftermath of the Kargil victory in July 1999, India almost assumed that the Pakistan issue was taken care of. India was busy celebrating a victory over its longtime enemy, the Vajpayee govt was thumping its chest and generally the nation was happy; Bharat mata ki Jai chants kept us busy. And it was not just for the Kargil victory, there was another very important event just around the corner, in fact within 2 months of the Kargil victory; The Lok Sabha elections were held in September, and the Vajpayee led BJP coalition NDA won a comfortable victory.

               International politics is largely determined by the domestic politics of the concerned nations and their political leaders. While India was celebrating Kargil victory and BJP preparing for general elections in an upbeat mood in an environment of national fervour, across the border in Pakistan, the situation was in stark contrast. Pakistan had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of its old enemy India, and the people of Pakistan were unhappy, the army and its generals were unhappy, the Intelligence agency , the powerful ISI was also unhappy, and PM Nawaz Shariff was hardly the flavour of the month. Having been forced into a military misadventure by his General Musharraf, and that backfiring, beaten back by Indian forces, and forced to capitulate under US pressure, PM Shariff thought that the USA would stand by him and bail him out domestically , possibly with some US aid to Pakistan or something that Shariff could bandy around to his domestic audience, and hopefully some private aid to Shariff himself that he certainly wouldn't bandy around anywhere. While the former never happened, and it's only our guess whether the latter happened or not, the situation was perfectly set for General Musharraf to make the charge.

             Nawaz Shariff realising the threat, attempted to prevent Musharraf from re-entering Pakistan after a visit to Sri Lanka , and tried to have him arrested. But the wily General had prepared his ground well, and had the army and ISI on his side. He turned the tables on Shariff, and took over the Government in a bloodless coup in a matter of hours, with the entire nation supporting it, possibly with the exception of Nawaz Shariff. Musharraf realised that before he tried to take over PoK or Kashmir, he must first takeover Pakistan, and it was all over by October 1999. America and Clinton stood by and watched, whether or not Clinton sent flowers to Musharraf we would never know, but he was certainly not taking any calls from Shariff.

               Bill Clinton had another 14 months of his Presidency to go, and as he had been impeached by the US Congress just a few months back ( Monica Lewinsky),  he was anxious to redeem the legacy of his Presidency, and Pakistan, Musharraf, Shariff, etc were the last things on his mind. He was certainly not going to muddy his hands in some subcontinental slush. Vajpayee was elected back as PM in Sep/Oct of 1999, and one of the first callers was Bill Clinton, and he was duly invited by Vajpayee to India. Clinton became the first US President in 22 years to visit India in March 2000, addressed Parliament, went Tiger watching at Ranthambore, danced with Rajasthani women, played the saxophone, thrilled the Indian media and the public, and of course kept Vajpayee happy.

               More importantly for Vajpayee and India, Clinton on a brief visit to Islamabad urged Pakistan not to get obsessed by Kashmir, and also not to abandon democracy, much to the chagrin of Gen Musharraf and all Pakistanis. India's cup of joy was full now. It may not have struck many Indians that an election was due in America in another 6 months and there were 2 million Indian American voters, who largely vote Democratic party, and Clinton as part of his legacy would certainly have wanted his Vice President Al Gore to win the election and become the next President. This is the best legacy for an outgoing President, and Clinton the politician was at work, much the same as President Obama is now at work, trying to get Hillary Clinton elected to office, as part of his legacy . Again, read the prelude on top.

              The long and short of the 1999-2001 period is that India was busy celebrating itself, its Kargil victory, Vajpayee re-election, Clinton visit etc and completely ignored that across the border , a defeated and humiliated country, was licking it's wounds under a military dictator, who was far tougher than Nawaz Shariff. As India celebrated Vajpayee's birthday on Dec 25, 1999, the first signs of trouble were born. Indian Airlines IC 814, on a trip from Kathmandu to Delhi was hijacked by 5 terrorists, and a week long drama ensued. The Vajpayee govt was once again completely  taken aback and had no clue  how to deal with the situation. The plane was landed at Amritsar , and security forces were ready to freeze it, but no orders came from Delhi. It was taken to Lahore and refuelled, and Musharraf didn't want anything happening on his soil, sent it off, of course after duly refuelling the plane, that's the least you do for your brothers in arms. He certainly didn't try to stop it and India was in no position to call him. Then through Dubai, the plane was taken to Kandahar , and the Taliban regime was in power, again the Indian govt couldn't talk to anyone.

              The hijackers made a demand of release of 3 terrorists in Indian jails, and a helpless Indian govt was clueless how to deal with it. Advani was strongly against giving in, he wanted the aircraft to be stormed, and argued that even if there would be some loss of civilian lives, it was worth it in the long run, as India cannot afford to be seen as weak. Jaswant Singh was against this, and so was Vajpayee, in the end, after a week Jaswant Singh personally escorted the 3 terrorists to Kandahar to their freedom, in exchange for the IC 814 passengers. It included Maulana Masoor Azar who would form the Jaish-e-Mohammed within a few months, and later attack the Indian Parliament in Dec 2001. India's capitulation to terror had begun, and barely months after the Kargil victory.

             America went to the polls in November 2000, with Republican Texas Governor George Bush fighting sitting Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the race for the White House. It was generally believed to be a close election , but no one realised just how close it would turn out to be. Here in India the public and the political establishment were generally of the view that an  Al Gore Presidency would be better for India, in view of Clinton's visit earlier in the year. On election day in America, the results start coming in after around 7pm on polling day, from most states, and usually the networks call the election by 10pm, and it never changes after that. On this occasion too it seemed Al Gore was set to take the election as he was winning Florida, which had 25 electoral college votes, and CNN called the election for All Gore. George Bush called Al Gore and conceded the election. Then a few minutes later as Gore was going to accept the victory, Bush called him back again and said he was retracting the concession as he believed Florida was too close to call and he wanted to await the final results. Shortly, CNN and other networks also retracted their calling the election and said the race was open as Florida weaved back and forth between Gore and Bush. It was well past midnight , went into the next morning and America awoke to find they hadn't elected a President yet as the vote count couldn't be completed, and was disputed by both candidates.

              In Dec 2000 after weeks of counting ballot papers, recounting, dozens of lawsuits, and millions of dollars spent in courts, finally the US Supreme court declared George Bush to have won Florida state by 537 votes. Gore and Bush had polled more than 100 million votes between themselves, 50.99 million to Gore, and 49.46 million to Bush. In Florida alone 6 million votes were cast, and in the end a mere 537 votes decided Florida's 25 electoral college votes ( it's winner takes all system in most states) , and the election for Bush, making him the President. I'm detailing all this for a reason, we need to understand that 537 votes can swing an election with a national electoral college count of 538. But more on the US electoral system later.

             With George Bush assuming the Presidential office in January 2001, India had to redefine its relationship with the White House. For his first few months , Bush showed no particular interest in India or Pakistan or for that matter their conflict or Kashmir or terrorism. The joke used to be that Bush didn't even know where India and Pakistan were, on the map, and more importantly didn't want to know. In some ways this may have been good for India as India could have dealt with the problem of terrorism from Pakistan with no interference from America. It was always Pakistan who relied upon US involvement to keep India off its back while it continued its terror activities in India.

            All those equations changed by the sudden events later that year, to be precise at 8.46 AM on September 11th, a Tuesday morning when Mohammed Atta slammed a hijacked American Airlines 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade center in New York. In a few minutes United Airlines 75 slammed into the South tower of the WTC, and the entire world was tuned into their television sets watching two towers burning, and eventually crashing down in a pile of rubble. A stunned America could hardly comprehend, let alone react to what was happening. The word on everyone's mind and on all TV channels was "Terror" and followed by the name Osama Bin Laden.

                          The narrative quickly started getting shape by the same evening. The Pentagon, the military HQ of the USA in Washington had been hit too, and the total loss of lives was then expected to be in the thousands. Bush addressed the nation that night, and made 3 significant points. Although it was a terrorist attack technically, he called it as an act of war against America, especially as a Military HQ had been attacked. This is a very important point that India must note. And then the second point Bush made was that it was a " War on terror" that America was launching, a global war on terror. Thirdly, Bush bluntly informed nations around the world that America doesn't make any distinction between terrorists/their organizations and those countries who host or support them. He said "you are either with us or against us". It was all black and white, no grey areas and America expected every nation to make a choice. America seized the moment, did not waste time or mince words, nor did they consult anyone or ask for support, they just informed all countries, make a choice .. if you are not with us on this, we consider you as being with the terrorists.

                  15 years after that event, and India hasn't still learnt a thing from America on how to deal with your own battles. The US President spoke to the American people, direct on TV, within hours, gave them reassurance that the attack would be avenged, he didn't send an email or give a press notification. All Indian Prime Ministers routinely do just that, issue a press release, depute some minister to speak and generally don't appear on air direct to the people. Also, Democrats and Republicans were not blaming each other, and stood as one together with the American people, something that rarely happens in India. Indian political parties would be at each other's throats within minutes of any terror attack in India.

               What was the reason Bush acted like that ? Read the prelude on top again. Americans wanted that, they were angry, and Bush the President was also a politician basically, those Americans were votes and he had to get re-elected anyway in a couple of years, so he acted. In 2 days time, FBI had identified Al Qaeda as the terrorist group and that Osama Bin Laden had masterminded the attacks. In 4 days time an action plan was ready to attack the Al Qaeda in Taliban held Afghanistan, and the same day Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf got a call from Bush who informed him bluntly he needed Pakistan space and air to launch his attacks on Al Qaeda. He did not give Musharraf any choice, and Musharraf knew he didn't have any. If he didn't accede to the American need, Pakistan would have been taken over anyway by America.

                What happened between Sep 11 and this call to Musharraf by Bush was to become one of the biggest definers of India's conflict against Pakistan. India rushed to offer it's help to America , by the very next day of the attacks. Vajpayee hoped that if America can make India the base of its war against the Al Qaeda and Taliban, geographically it would mean across Pakistan, and essentially clubbing Pakistan with Al Qaeda in America's war, with India being on America's side. But America had other ideas. It wanted to be based in Pakistan ,on its Western front, right across Taliban territory, it wanted the intelligence inputs on Al Qaeda that Pakistan no doubt had, there were several Pakistanis in Al Qaeda, Pakistan shared several things common with the Taliban, language, religion, culture etc and America wanted to use them all. In short America's " global war on terror" was just a war on those who attacked America, and they cared very little about India or its terror problems caused by Pakistan. America had an ally now, and it was Pakistan, and not India, and America was least concerned about what Pakistan did to India, as long as their own purpose in crushing Al Qaeda was served.

                       Given the fact Indians have been seeing TV headlines of terrorism every month for as long as we can remember, it may be a surprise to many that from 1984 to 1999 there was not a single incident of terrorism on Indian soil by Pakistan backed militants. Post Kargil, and around the time of Musharraf ascending to the Pakistan leadership in October 1999, it all started. In fact it was the IC 814 hijack and India releasing terrorists that set the tone for what was to follow in the millennium decade. Lashkar e Toiba terrorists attacked the Red fort on Dec 22, 2000, Jammu and Kashmir Assembly was attacked by LeT on October 1, 2001, and then the Indian Parliament was attacked by LeT and JeM terrorists on December 13, 2001. Within one year 3 major attacks had taken place on seats of Indian Government, 2 of them in the heart of Delhi.

                   The Parliament attack was particularly audacious and significant as Pakistan showed they can strike at the very core of the Indian Democratic system, with all its lawmakers inside, a dictator General from across the border was sending a message, and our Democratically elected PM had no answers. There was a huge force buildup by India on its border, around 500,000 troops, and Pakistan lined up 300,000 troops in what was described as a belligerent position. Many said that this is what is symbolised at the Wagah border, aggressive confrontation. The cynical like me would say, in fact it's the other way around, this force mobilization in fact symbolizes Wagah, it's just a show, a drama, for the TV and the public, nothing ever would happen, and all will go home with a smile, after having yelled Bharat Mata ki Jai all day, or munch Frito Lays potato chips with a can of Pepsi, as they watch the show on TV. The Americans gain something out of everything, at least a few dollars.

                          And America was now seriously concerned about what was happening on the Indian Pakistan border. It was barely 3 months after 9/11, and the American war on terror was going full swing on the the Pakistan Afghanistan border. George Bush, after having learnt that Pakistan shared its Western border with Afghanistan just 3 months back, was informed that Pakistan had to move it's troops to its Eastern border as a result of Indian reaction to the attack on its Parliament. Bush was very upset and even surprised that Pakistan even had an Eastern border, and India even had a Parliament. As his advisors assured him both were facts, Bush was forced to look at a map " of the region" , 3 months after he looked at the " region" on the map. Bush did what he does best, he picked up the phone and called Musharraf again saying "what the hell is happening, there is a war on terror going on, my war, and your boys haven't shown up for work". When Musharraf explained he only had so much staff, and had to send them for duty on the Indian border, and they would be able to return to work on the " war on terror" only after India withdrew its forces, President Bush started to work on ensuring his war on terror faced no such irritating obstacles like an Indian force buildup.

                         In January 2002, 3 events happened that proved to be significant. Vajpayee went to the SAARC summit in Kathmandu on January 5th. LK Advani went to Washington to meet with Bush and Condaleesa Rice, Secretary of State, on January 7th. John McCain led a US Senate group to meet with Musharraf in Islamabad to discuss Pakistan's role in the war on terror, as well as make Pakistan address Indian concerns on terrorism from Pakistan. In Kathmandu, Musharraf performed a theatrical act, what is now known as the "Handshake of friendship". After speaking , Musharraf addressed Vajpayee directly saying Pakistan wanted to extend its hand of friendship and peace, and in full view of the SAARC members, strode across to Vajpayee and held out his hand, apparently unscripted, but clearly coached by American counsel. Vajpayee had no choice but to shake his hand, but did manage to say something about Pakistan clamping down on terror camps in its country.

              Back in Islamabad, Musharraf met with the McCain Senate group from USA, and they insisted with Musharraf that Pakistan must do more to prevent its soil being used for terror against India. Note that the argument " if you assist terror in any way you are part of the terrorists" that America trotted out to the world was glaringly and predictably absent. The American mechanism was at work, India needed a couple of headlines that Vajpayee could take back to his domestic audience, before he pulled his forces back from the border. And Vajpayee always could never say No to any show of friendship and peace; especially to an enemy, and more so if the world stage was involved , TV cameras were on, and he was allowed to make a statesman speech. Mohandas Gandhi would have been envious of such remarkable stretching of the hand forward, while bending backwards for the cause of world peace. At least it showed the world that Vajpayee did have a spine, albeit a different kind of spine that could bend fully backwards on demand for World peace, especially if the call for it came from Washington.

(I write this part with some direct personal experience, as I was in Washington on those two days of January 8th and 9th, 2002, to meet with Mr LK Advani on his invitation)

             While in Chicago, I had been active with the Overseas friends of the BJP, knew a few American Senators and Congressmen and sections of the US media . I was acquainted with Dy PM Advani as well and used to speak to him on the phone on and off about Indian politics as well as India's relationship with America. As most Indians there were concerned about the prevailing situation in India as well as America, Advani was keen to know what the Indian community felt as well as what could be done to shape America's role in all this. As he was visiting Washington on invitation from Attorney general John Ashcroft, to meet with George Bush, he asked me to come to Washington and I went. At the Omni Shoreham hotel where Advani met a group of NRIs, I was having a chat with him, and present alongside were Ambassador Lalit Mansingh and Home Secretary Kamal Pandey. Many NRIs were asking about the troop buildup and the question was " yudh hoga?" ( Would there be war ? ) . Advani replied it has been going on for years, but not declared. Later that evening, when I met him at the Willard intercontinental where he was staying, among other things we spoke about the scheduled meeting he had with George Bush the next day. I did mention to him that the paradox of Pakistan's role in terror on both its borders must be told to the President in a forceful manner, as India did not have any other forceful voice to do so. Next day when Advani met with Condaleesa Rice and George Bush, he said " Mr President, I have not come here to ask you anything, I have come to tell you something. Pakistan cannot be fighting against terror on its Western border while it's the perpetrator of terror on its Eastern border. I am as concerned about India's interest as you are about America's" . George Bush was a bit taken aback apparently, American presidents are used to Indian leadership asking things timidly and do not expect any leader to tell them things. He replied " Mr Advani , I am a tough person, back home they call me Toxic Texan, I have heard about you, but now I see why they call you the Indian ironman" . The Washington Times reported the next day with headlines " Toxic Texan meets Indian Ironman" 

                     Meanwhile, Senator McCain's  team was returning from Islamabad and I had been in touch with Daniel Twining , Foreign policy advisor to John McCain. He had been with McCain during the Musharraf meeting, and was updating me on what was happening. We both were trying to see if we could arrange a meeting between Advani and McCain in Washington the next day. Senator McCain was a powerful US senator, head of the Senate foreign relations committee and had run a close presidential primary race against George Bush for the Republican nomination, and had plenty of Americans who listened to him. With the White House taking a pro Pakistan position, and India's concern and its terror situation not getting enough attention in America, I felt that if someone of McCain's stature were to give a voice to this, along with the Indian Dy PM in a press conference, it would highlight to the American public the real nature of Pakistan, especially as McCain was just returning from Islamabad. They had stopped over in Muscat, and Twining called me to say that Sen McCain had agreed. This was a huge difference to India, and Advani was happy, but as a private citizen I could not arrange it. Advani asked me to work it with Ambassador Lalit Mansingh, who pleaded inability to do anything as he needed authorization from the Indian foreign ministry. But the Indian foreign ministry did not want to ruffle any White House feathers, and did not respond with any enthusiasm. Twining called me again from Muscat, saying that they were leaving and was the Dy PM meeting the Senator ? I requested time till the morning, while I worked the phones. Twining said he would call me one last time next morning from Andrews Airforce base , and if I didn't have any answer, the Senator flies on to Phoenix, Arizona. 

                 This was the report in CNN on the McCain Musharraf meeting. We really could have and should have used this opportunity, but it fell through, due to lack of political will. Next morning Daniel Twining called me from Andrews and I gave him the thumbs down and he said " you guys would never get down to it, good luck " , words that keep ringing in my ears all these years, especially when there are attacks by Pakistan on India. India's anti terror and foreign policy was summed up by Daniel Twining in that one sentence.
 
                       India withdrew its troops from its border, Pakistan too withdrew its troops and Musharraf's boys went to work for George Bush and his global war on terror on Pakistan's western front, and India was back to square one. From May 2002 to March 2003, there were 7 terrorist attacks in India in a space of 10 months, including the Akshardhan temple in Gujarat, and 3 bombings on Mumbai trains. Now the LeT was acting by itself on major attacks, but outsourcing many smaller attacks to their Indian brothers, like SIMI ( Students Islamic movement of India) and the IM ( Indian Mujahedeen). The war by Pakistan has gone to the next level, not only were they coming across the border and striking deep within India, now they actually had local offices here in India, like multinational companies do when their business has grown quite big and they need local staffing and offices to keep up with expanding business. Apart from banning IM, SIMI , and LeT, there was very little Indian govt could do. The Gujarat riots of 2002 that followed Godhra train incident helped the terrorist organizations to recruit more disillusioned Indians. And India was hit by waves of terrorist attacks. And banning LeT, JeM, SIMI and IM was hardly the solution. What exactly did the Govt expect ? Are these organizations that write to the Home ministry asking " Dear sir, as our licence to practice has been revoked, can you please restore it so that we can carry on our business lawfully ? " It's a joke. In any case, the attacks continued till 2004, when Vajpayee govt's term ended and India went to the polls.

                Pervez Musharraf, in accordance with the Pakistan SC ruling, sought a national referendum for extending his Presidency by 5 years. Riding on the events of past 3 years , getting US aid for Pakistan, befriending USA, attacking India dozens of times , but still upstaging Vajpayee and keeping India off Pakistan's back with US help, and keeping the Kashmir issue alive, Musharraf rode to a victory, claiming 97% of the votes cast. Some reports suggest that he got around 110% of the votes cast, an enviable feat, one that can only be matched or surpassed here in our own Tamil Nadu and Bihar, by Jayalalitha and Laloo Prasad Yadav, at least in some things we are unbeatable.

                George Bush went for re-election in November, 2004 , thumping his chest about the war on terror, asking for 4 more years to keep America safe, and was already learning there was a place called Iraq, and a man called Saddam Hussain, and was looking up Iraq on the Map, Bush was getting better at map reading. He didn't need vote recounts or lawsuits this time, and won by a comfortable margin as the Americans felt he had done his job for them.

           Vajpayee went to the polls in May 2004, claiming India was shining, but Indians didn't quite think so after dozens of terror attacks and a weak Govt doing nothing for 5 years. Vajpayee was voted out and a Congress led UPA formed the Govt at the centre, and many more years of decisive indecisiveness was following, Dr Manmohan Singh being the PM.

International relations are decided by Domestic politics of Political leaders, their actions and inactions. Bush won, Musharraf won, America and Pakistan furthered their own interests, India did not, Vajpayee lost. Kargil victory had won the 1999 elections for Vajpayee, and the next 5 years cost him the elections in 2004, and Vajpayee hasn't been heard of since.

Nothing moves a political leader as much to take a particular action or not take a particular action as the opportunity of furthering his own position and power, or a threat to his position and power, as the case may be.