The Indian reaction to the history defining speech by General Musharraf has been one of grudging approval, at best. Can one imagine any political leader in the world openly, in front of world television, taking on a domestic fundamentalist fringe minority in the manner Musharraf has done? Vajpayee – can one imagine him taking on the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or the RSS? Why, they are even part of his government. Bill Clinton taking on the loony environmentalists and the anti-globalizers – why, they were part of his government. Or George Bush taking on the fundamental right? There is some reasoned speculation that the anti-abortionists in the US were responsible for the Anthrax murders; it is all quiet on this front in the worldwide anti-terrorist campaign. Or Arafat taking on the terrorists in his midst? Or Shoron taking on the fanatics in his government and his party, if not himself?

No, one cannot, and that should be a solid indication of the path-breaking and paradigm shifting nature of Musharraf's speech. If Musharraf is successful in his goals, then the major beneficiary is India. If he fails, then he, and Pakistan, is the loser. Given these parameters, why the grudging appraisal from the Indian side? It is important that these loose (all puns intended) ends be identified, if Indians, Kashmiris, are to benefit from the revolution across the border.

The Indian response signified weakness; it is shocking that India did not respond from a position of strength. The secular and democratic Indian experiment has been hugely successful for Indians, and as a demonstration, for the world. Now our warring brothers have decided to move in our direction, towards our values, and we cannot even say fantastic? To be sure, no one knows what the future will hold - not Musharraf, and from the looks of it, not the foreign policy establishment, and especially not, the ex-foreign service officers of India. It is worth dwelling upon the actions of these hawks - nay, luddites. In one sense, it is understandable what they are doing and if you and I were in their position, we would do the same. The real (and only) losers from Musharraf's success are these perpetual naysayers. If Pakistan becomes secular and democratic, these people's ideologies and past actions would be proven wrong; worse, nobody would ask them to appear on TV.

Now the nattering foreign service establishment in India is busy worrying about the Pakistani list of Pakistani terrorists residing in India. Surely, if more terrorists get caught, we are all better off. So what is the harm in going through the due process of identifying the nature of the crimes committed by these Pakistanis and then acting in a just manner? It is likely that some on this list did not actually commit the crimes they have been accused of by Pakistan. Equally surely, there will be some on the Indian list who should not be there. Or are we as pure as the Ganga (there is a pun there fighting to come out) and never tell even a diplomatic lie?

Besides providing a list, the Indian establishment contends that words are words and we should only respond to action. This again is hypocrisy garbed in weakness. No leader in the world has yet had the guts to utter even words; further, the boldness of Musharraf's speech made it clear that words were just an instrument towards a larger agenda, an agenda tremendously in India's interest.

What are the implications of a new Pakistan for India? Several. First, cross-border terrorism should stop, or at least significantly decrease. Second, defense expenditures should start plateauing if not declining. There are triple benefits from this stagnation - for starters, less demand for American made caskets, not to mention less scope for grand corruption. Third, Indian Kashmiris should see a possibility for genuine elections, with international observers. Fourth, soon this possibility should emerge on the other side. Finally, the nation state should continue to lose its appeal as citizens in every part of India, and Pakistan, begin to partake in this brave new world of greater individual freedom and more than proportionately less "freedom" of the state.

There is a significant minority at both extremes in all societies and at all times. And as long as these extremes do not turn criminal, or violent, such citizens are welcome. That is in the nature of democracy, of pluralism, and of minority rights. Further, can you imagine how dull life would be if everyone thought the same? So the argument is not against those who are not in the mainstream - only against those who use violent or unethical means to further their ideologies. If one is forced to estimate this fraction, it is unlikely to be more than 10 percent at either end of the spectrum. The rest of us are content to move within the glacial confines of the establishment. If Indira Gandhi imposed an emergency, most of us were revolted by it, but preferred to look the other way and tried to proceed with our daily lives. Ditto with Russians under Stalin, or Chinese under Mao, or the Afghans under the Taliban. Subservience to tyrannical rule does not signify approval.

Equally, the influence of a tyrannical minority has to be opposed, difficult as it might be. Those who opposed the Emergency are the heroes of India and the world. Equally, Musharraf's stand against his own tyrannical minority is the stuff of even greater heroism.