This may or may not happen. But successive opinion polls conducted by various agencies and newspapers have been showing the narrowing down of the margin between the alliance headed by the BJP and the one led by the Congress. The BJP one is still ahead, though the difference of over 100 predicted by the first opinion poll two months ago has drastically come down. In the last Lok Sabha, the BJP combination had 304 seats. The average of exit polls carried out now is between 260 and 280. Whatever else it may indicate, it projects a closer contest than anticipated. Such a scenario has its own problems. Instability is only one of them.

The Prime Minister probably had that in mind when he appealed to people at an election rally to make up their mind and return one party because "there may be an international crisis." He may be right but his deputy L.K. Advani, sticks to the coalition politics. Both want to have the cake and eat it too. It is too early to say that the minorities have voted for the BJP, as the party claims. All exit polls put together do not touch more than 0.06 per cent of India's 165 million voters. If the minorities have voted for the BJP, it should get more than 250 seats on its own. But it seems that the party may not cross the present tally of 182.

My feeling is that the slogan, 'India Shining', undoubtedly an advertisement coup, has worked against the BJP, although the party has gone to town with it. The other side seems to have come up with facts and figures to prove that the sheen did not go beyond some cities and the upper middle class. Unemployment and the rising cost of living have affected the voters more than what was the BJP's estimate.

The BJP slogan of 'development' does not appear to have evoked much response. It is not so much the lack of NDA's credibility as of the traditional hold of caste which continues to influence the electorate. Atal Behari Vajpayee's positive statements on India-Pakistan relations have not given him any extra advantage because every political party is saying that India should have better relations with its neighbours. Pakistan is not an issue, nor Kashmir.

It is, however, a coincidence but a telling one. India has deepened its democratic polity by holding the 14th free election. Pakistan, on the other hand, has institutionalised the military rule. Pakistan's National Assembly has passed the bill which has given legal entity to the National Security Council, an apex body, to decide on matters of national importance. The chiefs of staff of the army, navy and the air force and the joint chiefs of the staff committee are its members, apart from the President, the Prime Minister and chief ministers of Punjab, Sind, the NWFP and Baluchistan, the opposition leader in the National Assembly as well as the Senate.

I recall my discussion on the Security Council proposal with the late Martial Law Administrator General Zia-ul Haq who was its father. He said that unlike India which had 'developed' democratic traditions, Pakistan required 'guided democracy' -- something which his predecessor General Ayub Khan had also advocated -- to ensure that the country "does not go off the track."

My reply was: The armed forces in Pakistan had walked in whenever they had felt like. Nothing had stopped them. Then why have the Council? He argued that the armed forces had to have some legal authority to associate themselves with the governance. He cited the example of Turkey that had the national Security Council at the top.

In Pakistan it may be different. Parliament at Istanbul opposed its Security Council's decision to let the American forces to travel through Turkey to reach Iraq quickly. Ultimately, they had to take the sea route. Somehow, I do not see Pakistan's parliament acting in a similar manner if a comparable situation arose. After Washington's recent punitive action in northwestern Pakistan on its own initiative, it is difficult to say that Islamabad can follow Istanbul's example.

America has used Pakistan in the manner it has wanted to in the name of punishing the Al-Qaeda or tracing the terrorists who it believes were behind the 9/11 attacks. Protests in Pakistan's tribal areas against the interference have been of no avail. The government, although embarrassed, seems to have no other option.

After four decades of military rule, Islamabad has come to develop a culture where America, although hated, is feared and followed. Whichever the government, whether Benazir Bhutto's or Nawaz Sharif's, it has not been able to resist the pressure which the State Department or the Pentagon has exerted.

Nonetheless, there is some truth in the assessment that Pakistan had no go except to side with America when the latter decided to attack Afghanistan. The alternative could have been Pakistan's own destruction. But it did not have to go to the extent of accepting the NATO-like status, a relic of the cold war. There was no threat from the Indian side, particularly after the joint statement by Vajpayee and President General Pervez Musharraf.

Can all this have a silver lining? Now that the National Security Council is in its place to safeguard the interest of the armed forces, can the levers of democracy be allowed to operate? Musharraf should have no hesitation in holding fresh elections, allowing the participation of both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. The present National Assembly, it is an open secret, does not represent the free will of people.

India, however, engrossed in elections, cannot feel happy over the constitution of the National Security Council. It strengthens the hold of the armed forces and gives legal status to the service chiefs in the governance of Pakistan. It may make the journey towards democratic change in the country still more difficult.

Some people in Pakistan or, for that matter, in India have often wondered how democratic India is. One thing sure is that the armed forces are apolitical. But to the dismay of many, caste and communal considerations have come into play to affect free and fair voting. Money too has an important role. The death of 21 women for free saris in Lucknow after the Prime Minister's rally says it all.

What is increasingly disturbing is the insensitivity of political parties to the country's real problems: poverty, unemployment and increasing cost of living. These have been either glossed over or buried beneath slogans like 'India Shining' or 'feel good' factor. The voters need to be motivated, not enticed. Mahatma Gandhi, much less his message of simplicity and self-sufficiency, has hardly mattered to political parties in India. In contrast, the parties like the African National Congress in South Africa profusely displayed posters with his photo and the slogan: 'Whom would Gandhi have voted for?' It has a message which the Congress, much less the BJP, has not understood.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.