|
Jul 23rd 2008 | DELHI
From Economist.com
A nuclear co-operation deal between America and India survives too
AFTER a rancorous two-day debate on its most contentious policy, a nuclear co-operation agreement with America, India’s government won a parliamentary vote of confidence on Tuesday July 22nd. This does not guarantee the survival of the vexed agreement struck by America’s George Bush and India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, in 2005. The deal needs approving by several foreign bodies, including the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But the government’s victory, by 275 votes to 256, with 10 abstentions, has probably fireproofed it against opponents in India.
The life of the government has also been prolonged, at least for a bit. The coalition led by Mr Singh’s Congress party was reduced to a parliamentary minority earlier this month, when it was deserted by a group of Communist parties. They had provided vital support to the government while remaining outside it, but they objected to the nuclear deal, which would enable India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology despite its refusal to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
That would be a helpful thing for energy-strapped India. But the Communists are implacably against the idea of closer ties with America and vowed to bring the government down in order to scupper the deal. The government volunteered to face a confidence vote, in an impromptu parliamentary session, to forestall this threat.
The outcome was a particular triumph for Mr Singh, who has waged a lonely campaign on behalf of the nuclear agreement. The indifference exhibited by many in Congress towards it has been almost as problematic as the Communists’ opposition. Free of these trials, the deal—or, more precisely, a safeguards agreement required by it—is now expected to go before the IAEA’s board of directors on August 1st. If the board approves, the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group will be asked to rewrite its rules to accommodate the deal. America’s Congress would then be asked to give a final blessing to the arrangement.
It is uncertain how long Mr Singh’s government will enjoy its reprieve. With inflation at a 13-year high, the government is reluctant to face the voters before its term ends in May 2009. To survive the confidence vote, it cobbled together a fresh parliamentary majority by recruiting a new ally, the Samajwadi Party (SP). In India’s fractious polity, and an election season to boot, the chances of a another split are high.
Much depends on the SP, a party based in northern Uttar Pradesh (UP) state and notorious for the corrupt governments it has led there. It is certainly open to negotiations on any imaginable government initiative: until this month, the SP was fervently against the nuclear deal and America. But its support comes at a price. It is alleged to be contingent, first, upon the government pursuing corruption allegations against UP’s current chief minister, Mayawati. A champion of low-caste Hindus, she leads the Bahujan Samaj Party, which trounced the SP in a state election in UP last year, and threatens to do so in the general one. The SP is also seeking favourable terms in an electoral alliance with Congress in UP.
Reuters
Money talks
Congress could probably live with both demands. A lacklustre police investigation into the source of Mayawati’s impressive wealth has already been resuscitated. And a tie-up with the SP in India’s most populous state, UP, could improve Congress’s own fortunes there—even if it would be an embarrassing admission of how dismal they have recently become.
Its dalliance with the SP carries a wider reputational risk. To shore up its parliamentary majority, the government and its new allies are alleged to have bribed many independents and dissidents for their vote. Shortly before the confidence vote, a Communist’s angry speech was disrupted by three members of the main-opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), exhibiting fat wads of rupees. They claimed that this was the first instalment a 90m-rupee bribe ($2.1m) given by the government’s camp, and that they could prove it. |
|