Towards the end of the 12th century, the Afghanistan-based Mohammad Ghori faced Prithviraj Chauhan in the first Battle of Tarain. Ghori had dreams off conquering the region ruled by the Rajput king, after having subdued Punjab and Sindh. He was soundly beaten. But Chauhan, in a fit of generosity, allowed Ghori to leave. The invader returned the following year, better prepared and having won allies from Chauhan’s camp. The Second Battle of Tarain was fought, and this Ghori triumphed with the help of his new-found friends and a dose of deceit. There are various accounts of the Indian king’s end, but the fact is that the battle signalled the end of his rule.
In the 1965 war with Pakistan, Indian forces had reached within striking distance of Lahore. They could have put their foot on the Pakistani city after capturing the village of Burki. But the country’s political leadership was clear that India was to in the business of coveting the territory of another country. Besides, negotiations had already begun for a ceasefire, with the involvement of Indian friends such as the then Soviet Union. The United Nations too had become involved. New Delhi ordered its troops to back off, in the hope that the ceasefire terms would result in lasting peace between Indian and Pakistan.
The outcome of the 1971 war with Pakistan was even more emphatic for India. More than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were taken prisoner by the Indian Armed Forces and Pakistani lost its eastern part with the creation of a new nation, Bangladesh. Not just that, Pakistan had to officially admit defeat signing the instrument of Surrender in December 1971. India had come into occupation of vast tracts of Pakistani territory — roughy 6,000 square miles. After the surrender instrument was signed, India withdrew from those territories.
These are three different stories but there is one commonality to them. It is that the victor failed to push its advantage, driven by false notions of generosity and belief that the defeated had learnt lessons and would reform. Had Chauhan not demonstrated mercy to the invader, there would have been no second Battle of Tarain. And who knows, the road for the subsequent invasion by the Mughals could have been more difficult to traverse. Chauhan’s defeat had had spiral impact on other regional rulers, who later seemed less than willing to put a meaningful resistance to invasions thereafter.
Had New Delhi pushed ahead with taking over Lahore, it could have negotiated a better deal for itself, including placing a demand for Pakistan to vacate the part of Kashmir it held. But it was too bothered by international reaction and consumed by its own sense of right and wrong. Perhaps it also believed that Pakistan would henceforth behave. But the last obviously did not happen. India also did not press its advantage in 1971, satisfied with having dismembered Pakistani but having overlooked the potential of Pakistani using Pakistani-occupied Territory to continue with its proxy war against India. The 1971 war was another occasion for New Delhi to have leveraged its superior position to get PoK back
But what has all these above instances got to do with the present? It is said that history repeats itself first as a tragedy and then as a farce, when one fails to learn lessons from it. When the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in 2014, it arrived with a massive majority on its own — a number which only swelled with the addition of the seats won by its allies. Today, four months away from the next Lok Sabha election, it is starring at a grim contest — and while its opponents are already predicting its defeat, that is far from certain. The question, however, is: Has the Modi Government pressed its 2014 advantage to the fullest?
The 282 seats it won five years ago was not an incremental improvement over what the winner (the Congress-led UPA) had got in 2009; it was an emphatic endorsement for change, not just of a regime but of how things had worked in the 2004-14 period. But many would stay today that the changes that the regime has brought about sine taking charge have been largely incremental. This was not the voters had expected and voted for. it’s true that in many areas — rural road, rural housing, highway construction, power generation and supply, direct benefits transfers, insurance cover to the needy, distribution of cooking gas, etc — the Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decidedly outstripped the Congress-led regimes of the past. But in matters of economic policy that ought to have resulted in exponential — and not incremental — change in the job scenario and the lives of the middle class, there has been some shortcoming. The Government had, ideally in its first three years, the chance to press the advantage of the abundant electoral gain it had harvested. But it played safe in most parts, tweaking matters here and there. The voters felt let down by the passivity.
But all is not lost yet. Modi still enjoys a high rating of popularity — which is far ahead of his nearest rivals. He charisma is intact and his credibility remains strong. It is likely, given how things stand today, that the Modi-led NDA will get a second term in office — even if with a reduced majority. If that were to happen, the alliance would do well to shed misplaced incrementalism and demonstrate boldness in economic policy.
Discussion about this post