People in South Asia are angry and anguished. They react in the same way. When they go to the polls, they are reluctant to return those in power. They don’t want to put their faith in one political party. They prefer a coalition. Sri Lanka is the latest example. The electorate has defeated the People’s Alliance, which had been in the saddle for seven years. The reason? Non-performance. Party leader Chandrika Kumaratunga had entered politics with flair some years ago. She promised to lift the economy and make peace with the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). She has achieved neither. Only two years ago did people elect her Sri Lanka’s President till 2005. But nothing has happened ever since.

The opposition, United National Front (UNF), has found favour with the voters. Still they have not given it a majority. With 109 members in a house of 225, the UNF has to look for four more, an exercise the electorate believes is healthy for democracy. Ranil Wickramasinghe, the new Prime Minister, fits into the role. Chandrika described him as soft towards the LTTE so as to placate the Sinhalese chauvinists. But he has stuck to his promise to talk to the Tigers.

Maybe, Ranil’s victory is because of the Sinhalese desire to have a person who could deal with the LTTE, a weaker outfit after the September 11 happenings which has created worldwide abhorrence to terrorism. He has promised to revive the economy and build a bridge between Sri Lanka and India to make it a sort of common market. In fact, Sri Lanka is the only pro-India country in South Asia. Ranil’s performance will be judged on his success on the LTTE front. Bangladesh had elections more than three months ago. But the story was the same. The Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, daughter of the country’s charismatic founder, Mujib-ur Rahman, could not retain power because of her drab performance. People returned the coalition of parties, under the leadership of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), although the Awami League polled the highest votes singly.

Khaleda Zia, defeated five years earlier, is again the Prime Minister. Plagued by economic troubles, the Bangladeshis want to see if she, as head of an alliance, can give them a better deal. Probably realising the enormity of task before her, Khaleda is avoiding the anti- India rhetoric. She did not do so even during the polls. It is ironical that Hasina is stalling the sale of gas to India while Khaleda is favouring it. The roles have changed. Then Khaleda was in the wilderness and Hasina the Prime Minister.

Violence during elections is another recognisable feature in South Asia. Fourteen people died on the polling day in Sri Lanka. At least 50 were killed in Bangladesh. The level of violence goes up during elections. Regular armed groups threaten the voters, stop them from going to polling booths, capture ballot boxes or even kill the candidate. Typical was the remark of a Bihar candidate, who said he would have to first spend on buying arms.

What it conveys is that winning at the polls is crucial for a party because that gives it the reins of government _ and power. South Asia was one region where people outside the system used to matter because of their eminence in the field of teaching, writing, art, science, business or industry. Social reformers and freedom fighters would evoke wide respect.

But over the years, importance has come to be associated with power. It is the chair that matters, not whether you have the competence or merit to occupy it. And the moment you lose it, you are not even noticed. People in South Asia may talk endlessly of spiritual or religious heritage but it is power and materialism - which impresses them. This may be the reason why it has become so important to stay in office by hook or by crook.

Still more senseless is the violence which has become part of ideological or religious movements in South Asia. Take Nepal. People who call themselves Maoists would make more sense if they were to represent nationalism striving for freedom from vested interests. Their violence cannot possibly lead to a solution of any problem because violence has become much too terrible and destructive. If the society we aim at cannot be brought about by a big-scale violence, will small-scale violence help? Surely, it will not _ partly because it may lead to big scale violence and partly because it produces an atmosphere of conflict and of disruption.

It is absurd to imagine that in this situation the socially progressive forces will win. In Germany, both the Communist Party and the social Democratic Party were swept away by Hitler. This may well happen in South Asia, too. Nepal may even lose whatever democracy it has earned.

In India, any appeal to violence is particularly dangerous because of its inherent disruptive character. We have too many fissiparous tendencies for us to take risks. Those who are threatening to build the Ram temple do not realise the violence they are creating in the process. The worst communal riots since partition broke out after the Babri masjid demolition. A settlement between Hindus and Muslims or accepting a verdict by the court is the only option. Wrong means will not lead to right results. It is no longer an ethical doctrine but a practical proposition.

What happened in Bangladesh after the polls was deliberate, blatant violence against the Hindu minority. Whether it was blessed by the BNP alliance is not the point at issue. The fact is that the police, the protector, was a party to the rioting. In fact, this is another malady spreading in South Asia. Communal clashes ultimately develop into a fight between the police and members of minority communities. The basic problem in South Asia is poverty. It gives birth to many ills. Economic well-being will eliminate many evils. But it must be remembered that it is not by adoption of socialist or free economy that poverty suddenly leads to riches like magic. The only way is through hard work, by increasing the productivity of the nation and organising an equitable distribution of its products. It is a lengthy and difficult process. But it is the only way if we want to avoid conflict and confrontation.

In a poorly developed country _ South Asia is the best example _ the capitalist method offers no chance. It is only through planned approach that steady progress can be attained, though even that will take time. As this process continues, the texture of our life and thinking will gradually change.

In fact, the effort in South Asia to defeat the rulers is an expression of people’s exasperation over the lack of development. One government after another is seen busy politicking instead of working for development and effecting economy. The ordinary person’s life in the region is harder than before. The government goes on putting burden after burden on him, without even letting him to protest. Whether it is a municipal office, railway station or a public dispensary, he is treated like a pariah. By defeating one set of rulers and bringing another he merely ventilates his anger. He knows his lot will hardly improve.

And when people tend to favour a coalition to a single party they indicate their preference to consensus. They believe that the problems are so numerous that political parties of different views will tackle them better. The Sri Lankans have welcomed their new Prime Minister Ranil’s invitation to Chandrika to join him in forming a national government. Societies in South Asia are so divided politically, socially and religiously. A give-and-take attitude creates an atmosphere of tolerance and accommodation. The electorate is increasingly giving this message. Are the political parties, in and out of power, getting it?