<b>Dinner diplomacy: The flavour of the season</b>
July 18, 2008 23:07 IST
Dinner diplomacy seems to be the flavour of the season with the July 22 trust vote turning into a tighter race.
Congress chief Sonia Gandhi [Images] would be hosting a dinner for party MPs as also those of the United Progressive Alliance constituents on Saturdaym and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] will be doing the same the day after.
Main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party will host a dinner party at the leader of the opposition Lal Kishenchand Advani's residence for all the constituents of the National Democratic Alliance. Independent MPs who have pledged their support to it are also slated to join in.
The Communist Party of India-Marxist, the party leading the Left flock, has called its central committee on Saturday for two days to decide future strategies.
NDA ally Janata Dal-United has also timed its national executive for Saturday and Sunday amid talks of party leader and Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar trying to bring in more lawmakers to the NDA side from other parties in the state.
Several smaller parties have also organised get-togethers of their MPs to ensure keeping their flock together amid growing indications that the confidence motion could see walking on the razor's edge.
Former Andra Pradesh chief minister and Telugu Desam Party supremo N Chandrababu Naidu [Images] has also convened an informal meet of his party MPs on Sunday night.
<b>UPA should seek fresh mandate on N-deal: Mamata</b>
July 18, 2008 19:57 IST
The Trinamool Congress on Friday criticised "horse trading" ahead of the July 22 trial of strength in the Lok Sabha and said the United Progressive Alliance government should seek a fresh mandate on the nuclear deal instead of "debasing
Parliament".
"Horse trading which is going on is most reprehensible. What is happening in the name of mustering support is condemnable and against the value-based politics which we stand for. As a citizen and as an MP I feel ashamed of what is going on," party chief Mamata Banerjee told reporters in Kolkata.
Banerjee said 10 MPs were expelled on charges of corruption without being given an "opportunity to defend themselves", and added, "the horse trading which is going now is no less a crime. Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Shibu Soren is demanding the coal ministry."
Banerjee, a former railway minister in the National Democratic Alliance government, recalled that the Atal Behari Vajpayee government was defeated by just one vote. "But had Vajpayee compromised, the NDA government would have won the trust vote by a margin of five votes."
Banerjee, who is the lone Lok Sabha MP of her party, also declined to state whether she would vote on July 22.
"It is no use asking me the same question every day. We are busy with our 'Martyrs Day' rally on July 21. The programme was decided much before the trust vote. Whether I will be able to go to Delhi on July 22 will be decided after the rally," she said.
On being told that Communist Party of India-Marxist has excluded Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee's name from the list of MPs who were issued the whip, Banerjee said that whether he resigns or not, depended on him.
"Parliamentary norms and propriety demand that he resign since his name figures in the list of MPs, which was submitted by his party CPI-M to the president," she said.
"He will probably preside over the proceedings of the trust vote and resign afterwards. This is my information," she said.
Asked about jailed MPs being allowed to cast votes, she said, "If the court allows them, why should we object?"
<b>A sad saga of the prime minister's betrayals</b>
July 18, 2008
'Donon haath mein laddoo' is one of those earthy and graphic phrases in the colloquial dictionary of Hindi-speaking people that is far superior to its synonym in English: 'Win-win situation'. It is used when an individual or a collective is facing an either-this-or-that dilemma, but finds that both outcomes are beneficial.
Today pundits and plebians alike are unanimous on one point: whatever the outcome of the July 22 confidence vote moved by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance has 'donon haath mein laddoo'. If the government loses the trust vote, the outcome would demoralise the Congress and serve as a shot in the arm for the NDA. In the absence of a 'Third Front', the NDA is clearly the frontrunner in the parliamentary elections, which will have to be held within the next six months.
If, on the other hand, the government wins the trust vote, the outcome would still benefit the BJP and its allies on three counts: a. the legitimacy of that victory would be under a cloud since the people know all about the murky deals going on in Delhi and the unethical means employed by the Congress party to trade horses, the price at which each horse is being traded, etc; b. inflation, the biggest worry of the UPA government, is unlikely to ease by February or March, when elections will be due; c. the anti-incumbency factor against the UPA government, due to its dismal track record on multiple fronts, will have become stronger.
It is not uncommon these days to hear that, for the first time since the first general elections in 1952, the Congress party would be reduced to a double-digit tally in the next Lok Sabha elections. Remember that the BJP already runs more state governments, either on its own or with allies, than the Congress. Remember, also, that the Congress has lost in as many ten assembly elections held after the last Lok Sabha elections in May 2004.
So one knows why the BJP and its allies are expected to have laddoos in both hands irrespective of whether Dr Manmohan Singh's [Images] government survives or not.
But what is less known is that even the prime minister and his coterie of advisors (both in New Delhi and Washington) think that he too has laddoos in both hands as he prepares for the trust vote on July 22. If he wins the trust vote, he and his party will obviously bask in the euphoria generated by the victory, with Dr Singh being projected as a 'strong PM' -- and, possibly, as the Congress party's prime ministerial candidate in the next parliamentary elections.
But how can the PM be said to have a laddoo in his other hand if he loses the trust vote?
Well, first things first: What is meant by laddoo in the PM's other hand even if he loses the trust vote? According to highly placed sources in the government, it means that he has already secured the nuclear deal with the United States and a defeat on July 22 will not alter that reality. In other words, irrespective of whether he will save his government or not, he has already saved the nuclear deal and can therefore go down in history as the prime minister who achieved what pro-dealers in India and America wanted him to achieve.
But how did he manage that? Hereby hangs a tale of duplicity, deceit, betrayal, manipulation and institutional misuse at the highest level of government and the ruling party, the like of which has never been seen in India since Independence.
On July 20, 2005 -- that is, two days after Prime Minister Singh and US President George Bush [Images] issued a joint statement about the Indo-US nuclear deal -- Dr Singh addressed a press conference in Washington before returning to India. Smita Prakash of Asian News International asked him a pointed and prescient question: 'Mr Prime Minister, do you see any resistance coming forward from your allies and the opposition in putting the new India-US policy to practice? And will you seek a parliamentary consensus or approval to the new direction you seem to be taking in foreign policy?'
Dr Singh's reply was categorical, and befitting the prime minister of the world's largest democracy. 'Well, the Parliament in our country is sovereign,' he said. 'It goes without saying that we can move forward only on the basis of a broad national consensus.'
But look at the downhill road Dr Singh has traversed from then to July 20, 2008. Today is there a 'broad national consensus' in India in support of the Indo-US nuclear deal? No sane person can give an affirmative answer. And yet the PM has chosen to 'move forward' on the nuclear deal.
To know how far, indeed, he has moved forward by flouting his own assurance of adhering to the 'broad national consensus', it is instructive to refer to a front-page report by Radhika Ramaseshan in The Telegraph, Kolkata, on July 16. Titled 'Sink or survive, deal done', and quoting 'a highly placed official', the report said: 'The deal is 'done', whether the UPA survives the trust vote or not. The safeguards agreement, to be put before nuclear watchdog IAEA's board of governors at a special August 1 meeting, would stay on course, unaffected by politics back home... The deal will happen because the government is clear that it is in the supreme national interest. If the government has to go in the process, let it go, the source said. Earlier, sections of the government and a Congress spokesperson had hinted that if the government lost majority, it could withdraw the IAEA agreement.'
A day later, Rahul Gandhi [Images] indirectly corroborated this by telling mediapersons in Amethi that 'the nuclear deal is more important than the government. The prime minister has taken the risk in the interest of the nation and if the government falls in the process, so be it." It is revealing that The Telegraph report has not been contradicted by the government so far.
If The Telegraph report is true, it means that the prime minister has flouted another solemn assurance he had given in Washington three years ago -- namely, that he no longer believes that Parliament is 'sovereign', and that even its verdict against his government on July 22 would have no bearing on the nuclear deal because it is already 'done'. The duplicity and deceitfulness of his government becomes clearer when we revisit some of the important milestones in the deal's journey in the past three years.
Firstly, Dr Singh had no mandate to go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal since it was not included in the Common Minimum Programme of the UPA, which was jointly drafted by the Congress and Left leaders and on the basis of which the Left parties agreed to provide outside support the UPA government. Without the Left support, the UPA government would not have survived in office for four years.
Secondly, ever since the Singh-Bush joint statement of July 18, 2005, the Left parties' opposition to the nuclear deal was consistent and grew stronger with the passage of time. The CPI-M was unwilling to allow the government to start negotiations with the IAEA on the draft safeguards agreement in September 2007, but both Dr Singh and Sonia Gandhi [Images] pleaded with Prakash Karat and his comrades: 'Please allow the government to begin negotiations with the IAEA. We will not finalise the draft safeguards agreement without taking into account the findings of the UPA-Left committee to study all aspects of the nuclear deal.'
According to CPI-M sources, both Dr Singh and Sonia Gandhi separately told Karat, 'Trust my word.'
An added, albeit unrelated, argument was brought into this plea. 'Gujarat assembly elections are round the corner. Our common goal should be to defeat Narendra Modi [Images]. How can you damage the unity of secular forces by wanting to withdraw support to our government now on the issue of the nuclear deal?'
CPI-M leaders believed in the assurance given by Dr Singh and Sonia Gandhi. However, that trust was betrayed when the government finalised the draft safeguards agreement and sent it to the IAEA secretariat without bothering to obtain the findings of the UPA-Left committee, which, under the chairmanship of External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, had held as many as nine meetings between September 2007 to June 2008. These were not 'talk-shop' meetings.
The Left parties have recently published the notes exchanged between them and the UPA representatives in each of these meetings. Anyone who goes through this highly educative 202-page document would be impressed by the meticulous research done by the Left parties on all aspects of the nuclear deal.
Thirdly, on the day when the Left parties finally withdrew support to the UPA government -- and the trigger for this was provided by the prime minister himself, who said on his way to the G-8 summit to Japan [Images] that the government would go to the IAEA with the draft safeguards agreement 'soon', thereby making a mockery of his own assurance to the Left parties. When Pranab Mukherjee was asked by reporters whether the government, which had already become a minority government, would go to the IAEA before securing a trust vote in Parliament, his reply was categorical: No, the government would go to the IAEA only after securing a vote of confidence in Parliament.
To further drive home his point, he even stated that he was giving this assurance after telephonically speaking to the prime minister in Japan. Even this assurance was violated. In the process, the PM administered a nasty snub to his minister, who ought to have resigned after this episode. After all, the episode revealed that only one of the two -- Dr Singh or Mukherjee -- could have been truthful.
Fourthly, the government consistently refused to show the draft safeguards agreement to the Left parties in their internal deliberations on the plea that it was a 'classified' document. Indeed, Mukherjee said so even in his press conference after the Left withdrew support to the government. However, the cat was out of the bag when Karat challenged the government to disclose who had decided the document to be 'classified' -- the IAEA secretariat or the Indian government.
The same evening the document was up on the Internet, making a travesty of the UPA government's claim and confirming doubts that it wanted to hide the document's contents from Indian political parties and the Indian public.
Fifthly, after his first meeting with Bush in Washington in July 2005, Dr Singh had assured Parliament that India will accept only the 'same responsibilities and obligations as other advanced nuclear States like the US.' Speaking in the Lok Sabha on July 29, 2005, he said: 'We shall undertake the same responsibilities and obligations as... the US'; 'we expect the same rights and benefits" as the US'; and 'India will never accept discrimination.'
<b>
Today, anybody who reads the draft safeguards agreement with the IAEA would aver that the PM's assurance has been flouted. The IAEA does not recognise India as a Nuclear Weapons State on part with, and having the same rights and obligations as, the five recognised NWSs -- USA, Russia [Images], Britain, France [Images] and China. There are many other infirmities in the draft safeguards agreement and the 123 Agreement with the USA that compromise India's strategic security, without in any way ensuring India's energy security.</b>
However, that is not the main subject of this column. Suffice it to say that the PM is rushing headlong to meet the timetable set by the Bush presidency and the domestic political process in America. His haste itself has severely debilitated India's bargaining position vis-a-vis the United States and other countries.
The sixth and most damning betrayal has come in the form of what has been revealed by the report in The Telegraph. A minority government has not only gone to the IAEA before seeking a trust vote, but has now concluded that the deal is to be a reality even if it is defeated on the floor of the House! Responding to this report, the BJP on July 17 issued a strongly worded protest in which, among other things, it demanded 'a categorical assurance from the prime minister that the draft safeguards agreement will be withdrawn from the IAEA in the event of his government losing the trust vote in the Lok Sabha.'
The government, however, seems to be in no mood to oblige. Its view on the matter was quite graphically -- and, let me add, arrogantly -- articulated by a highly placed official source: "The nuclear deal has already fled the shores of India. And India does not have an Extradition Treaty with Austria to bring it back." (Vienna, Austria's capital, is the headquarters of the IAEA.)
All the above six betrayals are part of a conspiracy to make the outcome of the trust vote irrelevant to an international deal which, as the BJP has pointed out in its statement of July 17, 'has serious implications for India's national security in perpetuity.' The BJP has rightly asked the government why it has hurriedly sent a team of officials to meet the IAEA secretariat in Vienna for a meeting on July 18 -- barely four days before the trust vote in Parliament on July 22. It has also demanded that 'all further action in respect of the nuclear deal be suspended by the government until it proves its majority on the floor of the House, in keeping with the moral standards and political norms of parliamentary democracy.'
But does the Congress care for moral standards when, according to CPI leader A B Bardhan, it is indulging in horse-trading by offering Rs 25 crore to each non-UPA MP willing to support the government? When it is trying to seek the support of five MPs imprisoned for their role in heinous crimes?
And does the prime minister care for norms of parliamentary democracy when he has, with his brinkmanship, destabilised his own government and forced his party to resort to the most corrupt practices known in the history of Parliament in order to ensure its survival on July 22. The only thing he seems to care for is laddoos in both hands; and he seems to think that he will have at least one, the nuclear deal, even if he loses the other -- his government.
It is high time his supporters, and supporters of the nuclear deal, cared for the grave implications of all that Dr Singh has done for India's democracy, India's strategic autonomy and India's honour.
From ReDiff, July 14th 2008
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/14ndeal9.htm
How come there wasnt publicity to this!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>'Kalam changed his stance on N-deal'
Onkar Singh in New Delhi | July 14, 2008 19:41 IST
Former Union minister and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Arun Shourie said that former President A P J Abdul Kalam changed his stand on the Indo-US nuclear deal after discussing finer points of it with him. He was addressing a joint press conference with Yashwant Sinha on Monday afternoon.
"I did not want to bring his name into the controversy but since you asked a question let me tell you that his office called me and asked that Dr Kalam wanted to discuss the nuclear deal with me. I told him about our objections to the Hyde Act and other things and later I learnt that he had changed his stand," Shourie claimed. </b>
When asked if he knew more about the nuclear deal than Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh [Images], he said: "Who knows more would be judged by history long after we have all gone," he said.
"Leader of the Opposition L K Advani and other National Democratic Alliance leaders have already spoken of the government making India a laughing stock in the eyes of the world for the deceitful manner in which it approached the International Atomic Energy Agency," Yashwant Sinha said in his opening remarks.
<b>He accused of Dr Manmohan Singh of going back on assurances given to Parliament.</b>
On the draft of the Safeguards Agreement between India and the IAEA, he said, "Before we present our substantive comments on the draft, the BJP takes strong exception to the fact that a document that has serious long-term implications for India, and which has been made available to the governments and peoples of other countries -- indeed, to the entire world through the Internet -- was kept hidden from the political parties and people in India."
<b>Sinha said the draft agreement does not recognise India as a Nuclear Weapons State on par with the United States, Russia [Images], Britain, France [Images] and China.</b>
Quoting Dr Singh extensively, <b>Shourie pointed out a number of incidents which prove that Dr Singh did not adhere to his promises and was bringing India into Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime which India had been studiously avoided so far.</b>
Referring to a press conference in Washington DC on July 10, 2005, where the prime minister had said: <b>'�It goes without saying that we can move forward only on the basis of a broad national consensus', Shouri claimed nearly three years later, there is no broad national consensus on the Indo-US nuclear deal. He said the PM has broken the consensus, which had existed since the time of Indira Gandhi [Images] and continued till Atal Bihari Vajpayee's time.</b>
<b>"Dr Singh has indulged in duplicity and deceitfulness. While the government has all along said that the deal is exclusively about nuclear energy, the US Administration and America's bipartisan political class has left no one in doubt that the deal is all about bringing India into the non-proliferation regime.</b> The BJP charges <b>the leadership of the Congress party and the government with assisting the US in realising its most important foreign policy objective vis-�-vis India in a manner that has undermined India's strategic autonomy while promising illusory energy security," </b>Shourie alleged.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow here is the list I was asking about and that too in public.
If any one recalls I had said that the opposition should find an issue that could bring the govt down as it was on path of self conquest of India.
The only important number is 5
July 18, 2008
"The magic figure in the Lok Sabha is 273!"
"The price of an MP's vote is Rs 25 crore!"
"It will all come down to Deve Gowda's three MPs!"
The media are choking over numbers. But the Congress's managers know the only important number is 5.
What do Congressmen want, five assured months in office before the general election is called or the possibility of being re-elected for another five-year term? The question has revealed the disconnect between the leaders and the led for all to see, in the CPI-M as well as the Congress.
The Congress 'high command' may think it is worth courting humiliation for five months, some Congress MPs wonder if they aren't risking all future prospects of five years in Parliament. As for the CPI-M, it is divided between a leadership that thinks the greater enemy is "imperialism" (the United States), and a section insisting that "communalism" (the BJP) is Enemy Number One.
Assume for argument's sake that the Congress wins the vote in the House come Tuesday evening. It is what happens next that worries some Congressmen.
The prime minister, having staked his government on the issue, is honour bound to stay on until negotiations are completed with the US Congress, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives has already declared that there will be no lame-duck session after the American elections in November. In effect, this gives Dr Manmohan Singh [Images] fewer than three months to get the deal through, followed by the call for a general election in India that shall take at least two months, campaigning and all.
This is the five months in office that I speak of. And for every day of those five months Congressmen shall be tormented by their allies.
The Samajwadi Party general secretary may not get the Union petroleum minister's head (which he demanded openly), but can the Congress resist letting him have his way with, say, the petroleum secretary?
The benefits of winning over such 'allies' will be limited to five months; the damages will stretch long into the future. In 1971, Indira Gandhi [Images] cut a deal with M Karunanidhi for an electoral alliance in Tamil Nadu, and the Congress has not recovered in the state since that day. The price of Tamil Nadu's 39 Lok Sabha seats has been 37 years away from Fort St George -- with many more to come I am sure.
Indira Gandhi is long gone but Karunanidhi is still around, and has spent the last two years humiliating the Congress in Tamil Nadu though the DMK lacks a majority in the assembly and depends on Congress votes. The Congress now faces the prospect of eating crow not just in Tamil Nadu but in every state.
Are Congressmen prepared to back the nuclear deal by playing second fiddle to Mulayam Singh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh? And to Shibu Soren in Jharkhand? Or, possibly, even to H D Deve Gowda in Karnataka? (They have, of course, already conceded the whip hand in Bihar to Lalu Prasad Yadav and to Sharad Pawar [Images] in Maharashtra.)
<b>
Some Congressmen are beginning to strain at the leash. What, they wonder, is the point of working for a party where the high command is prepared to sacrifice state leaders' ambitions for the illusion of power in Delhi? Disillusioned rumblings can already be heard from Karnataka but they shall be neither the last nor the loudest.
</b>
The true challenge facing the Congress managers in the next one hundred hours is not wangling 271 votes in the House. No, their true task is convincing Congressmen themselves that there is still a possibility of winning five years in power after five months of humiliation.
<b>
The greatest price of all may be paid by the man who plunged his party into the crisis, Dr Manmohan Singh, who came to office with two priceless assets -- a reputation for efficiency and a record of probity. The inflation and growth numbers have shredded the claims of the "economist Prime Minister". Can the claims of being the "Mr Clean of Indian politics" survive embraces by Shibu Soren and Amar Singh? (Not to mention certain Honourable Members whose jail doors have been blasted open by the nuclear deal!)</b>
How about the CPI-M? Somnath Chatterjee brought the "anti-imperialist" versus "anti-communalist" argument into the open when he wrote to Prakash Karat, saying he could not bring himself to vote along with "communal forces". He has also, thus far, refused to resign as Speaker, claiming the office is above party politics. Isn't this hypocritical?
First, whatever the British experience, the Indian reality is different. Isn't the current Union home minister a former Speaker of the Lok Sabha? Or do Congressmen now wish to argue that being a Cabinet minister is somehow apolitical? (I say nothing of Dr Manmohan Singh inducting a former Chief Election Commissioner!)
Second, the CPI-M has a tradition of levying a fee on its members, asking all its MPs to give part of their salary to the party . Did Somnath Chatterjee stop paying when he was elected Speaker? Let us have the records.
Third, didn't Somnath Chatterjee betray himself when he wrote to the CPI-M general secretary? In what capacity did he do so, as Speaker or as a CPI-M member?
What if the motion in the Lok Sabha ends in a tie? That leaves the Speaker with the casting vote. The British traditions that Somnath Chatterjee now embraces say the Speaker votes with the Treasury benches on the first go, but with the Opposition if it goes to a second round. Which way will our Honourable Speaker lean?
The numbers game will make the headlines for a few days more. But it is the increasing differences in perception between the leadership and the party workers in both the Congress and the CPI-M that will have longer-lasting repercussions. That is the true story, and it won't end on Tuesday.
Tailpiece: Why do commentators, on every channel, insist on saying "very crucial" and "very vital" when they mean 'very important'? An issue is either 'crucial' or it is not, describing something as "very crucial" is an assault on the language!
T V R Shenoy
<b>'SP offered my MP Rs 15 cr to vote for UPA'</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â
As the race to pouch Independents and single-member parties heats up ahead of the July 22 trust vote of the United Progressive Alliance government, Uttar Pradesh-based National Loktantrik Party on Friday alleged that a senior Samajwadi Party leader called his party MP and offered him Rs 15 crore to vote in favour of the government and threatened the party and the member with dire consequences if he does not do so.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sonia had given SP 25 Crore and SP is taking its cut 10 crore. Wow these guys are Maha Chor.
<b>Only 16 of 39 MPs turn up at SP meeting</b>
July 18, 2008 13:51 IST
Ahead of the government's trust vote in the Lok Sabha, Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav on Friday held a meeting with his party MPs to devise a strategy to be adopted in Parliament.
<b>
Amid reports that all the 39 MPs of the party were not in favour of supporting the Government, only 16 of them turned up for the morning session.
The meeting, addressed by Yadav and party general secretary Amar Singh, assumes importance as the SP has become a crucial ally of the Congress-led coalition at the Centre ahead of the confidence motion.</b>
While MPs Ateeq Ahmed and Afzal Ansari are in jail, Raj Babbar and Beni Prasad Verma have been suspended from the party.
Munawwar Hasan is a known rebel, who has announced that he would vote against the motion. Same is the case with Rajnarain Budholiya, MP from Hamiripur, and Jai Prakash, who represents Mohanlalganj.
Kirti Vardhan Singh, Mohan Singh and Revati Raman Singh, who had not attended the last Parliamentary Party meeting of SP, were present at today's deliberation.
Meanwhile, the party has issued a three-line whip asking its members to be present in the Lok Sabha on July 21 and 22 and vote in favour of the confidence motion.
Dinesh Trivedi, Trinamul Congress leader
<b>
'It has become like a game of the mafia now'</b>
July 18, 2008
Will the Congress make it past the magic number of 272 in the trust vote on July 22?
This is something that has everyone guessing as the battle for numbers rages full time. Several leaders feel the manner in which the ruling Congress is going about things is similar to the IPL auction which took place last March.
Former Rajya Sabha member and Trinamul Congress leader Dinesh Trivedi believes if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images], who is considered an honest politician, can go to any extent to win the numbers, there is no hope left for democracy.
Trivedi spoke to Special Correspondent Vicky Nanjappa about his party's stand on the trust vote, the nuclear deal, and about the levels leaders are going to to stay n in power.
Has your party taken any decision on the trust vote?
A decision is yet to be taken. We are meeting on July 20 to finalise our stand. However, let me tell you that our basic principle would be to keep equi-distance from both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party.
All you want to know about the trust vote
What are your feelings on the trust vote and the manner in which the Congress is going up to toggle up the numbers?
It is hard to say whether the Congress will make it or not. However, the manner in which the numbers game is being played is shameful. Why is a party with a 123-year-old history stooping to such a level? The Congress should appeal to the conscience of the people and not stoop to unimaginable extent in order to win the trust vote.
There is a lot of talk about horse-trading and even MPs with criminal backgrounds being wooed into voting for the Congress.
If Dr Manmohan Singh, who is perceived to be honest, can go to any extent to save the government then there is very little hope left for democracy. The Congress has put both the British and Moghuls to shame. According to me, the real Congress left with Rajiv Gandhi. What is the Congress trying now? Now they have changed the name of an airport to keep their hopes alive. It is quite unimaginable to think what they would do next. It has become more like a game of the mafia now.
This is the time to bring in the Vohra Committee report on Crimilisation of Politics into play. Each one including Dr Singh is bargaining for himself and not for the country. Worse, all this is being done for three to four months of survival. I would also like to ask as to why Rahul Gandhi, who speaks for the youth, is keeping quiet. The hopes of the youth are being dashed with this kind of politics.
Do you think the Speaker should have acted?
If the Speaker could have suspended eight MPs without a hearing, then why is he keeping quiet now? There are stories of MPs being purchased, and this is an indication of wholesale corruption. Where is the Speaker's morality now? He spoke about morality when he suspended eight MPs. Why is this situation any different?
Do you think the nuclear deal is good for the country and should the government have gone ahead with it?
The nitty-gritty of the safeguards should be gone into in order to make any sort of a comment regarding the deal being good or not. Without doing so it is difficult to comment. Although there is no Constitutional requirement that the ratification of Parliament is needed in order to go ahead with the deal, I still do believe that the safeguards should not have been kept a secret. What is so secretive about it?
What do you think the Manmohan Singh government should have done?
I feel the government should have discussed it threadbare and gone ahead with the deal with conviction. It looks like a desperate bid to push the deal through during the government's last few days of survival. The deal should have gone through much earlier if everything was clear, according to the Congress.
How do you react to the manner in which the CPI-M has gone about things?
The hypocrisy of the CPI-M has been exposed. When the Congress wanted a vote in Parliament, they discouraged it. Moreover, (Science and Technology Minister) Kapil Sibal went on record stating that the CPI-M had told them to go ahead with the deal and had no objection. If this is not hypocrisy, then what is?
Do you think the CPI-M was being taken for a ride? A coordination committee had been set up to discuss the issue and without any final decision being taken in the committee, the Congress went ahead with the deal.
Everyone knows what transpired at the coordination committee meetings. The CPI-M was keener on bargaining on Nandigram [Images]. Both the Congress and CPI-M behaved like private limited companies on this issue. During the meetings all they had was samosas and in the bargain each one has been exposed now. No one will trust the CPI-M ever again.
<b>
Mulayam, Amar apprise Imam Bukhari of nuclear deal</b>
New Delhi (PTI): Samajwadi Party leaders Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh on Friday met the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, who told them that the Indo-US nuclear deal cannot be "for or against" Muslims.
"The Imam said that the deal could either be anti-India or pro-India and this is for the nuclear experts to decide. It cannot be pro or anti-Muslim," sources close to the Imam said.
In the meeting, which lasted around 70 minutes, the ongoing political developments were also discussed. The Imam told the leaders that he felt compulsions of Uttar Pradesh politics had led to the closeness between SP and the Congress, the sources said.
Yadav and Singh told the Imam that the UNPA could not go along with the SP in supporting the Congress as its constituents like TDP and INLD are competing against the Congress in Andhra Pradesh and Haryana respectively, the sources said.
<b>PM calls up Deve Gowda, seeks support</b>
Vicky Nanjappa in Bengaluru | July 18, 2008 12:10 IST
Last Updated: July 18, 2008 13:43 IST
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] has made a last-ditch attempt to woo the three JD(S) MPs to vote in favour of the government in the trust vote on July 22.
Gowda will meet the prime minister on Saturday.
Dr Singh appealed to former prime minister H D Deve Gowda in a telephonic conversation to support the Congress during the trust vote on July 22.
Both the Congress and JD(S) camps refused to divulge details of the conversation. Rubbishing a split in the party, Gowda said the party MP from Kerala [Images], MP Veerendra Kumar, is very much in the party. Gowda will also meet Kumar on Saturday.
Here we take a look at the possible pros an cons of Gowda's decision -- whatever that is.
Advantages of supporting the Congress:
1. A tie-up during the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections and sharing of seats in Karnataka.
2. A long-term relationship means toppling the BJP government and forming the government in Karnataka with the support of the Congress and independent MLAs.
3. Could ensure nationalisation of mines as a result of which the BJP which controls a large chunk of the mining lobby will be affected.
Disadvantages
1. Dreams of reviving a Third Front and his subsequent key role.
2. Gowda's dream of playing important role in national politics once again could be dashed.
3. Will earn the wrath of the Left which helped Gowda become the prime minister.
Mayawati PM if UPA government falls: Bardhan
July 18, 2008 18:07 IST
Communist Party of India General Secretary A B Bardhan on Thursday said that Bahujan Samaj Party chief and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati will be the prime minister if the United Progressive Alliance government loses the vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha on July 22.
More details are awaited.
<b>We have 280-plus MPs: Congress</b>
Onkar Singh in New Delhi | July 18, 2008 19:39 IST
The Congress on Friday claimed that it has the support of 280-plus MPs, which would ensure its victory in the confidence vote in the Lok Sabha on July 22.
"We have 280-plus MPs. This is our firm and confirmed support base," Congress media department chief M Veerappa Moily told media persons in New Delhi, adding, 'the news would give sleepless nights to BJP and the Left'.
Asked about the break-up of the numbers, Moily refused to elaborate saying it will become clear on July 22.
"There are vultures out there in the Opposition, who are waiting for the prey," he said in a lighter vein.
On the game of numbers being played ahead of the trust vote, the Congress leader said the UPA enjoyed a 'majority' even after the Left withdrew support.
"We knew that the Left will withdraw support on some pretext and the nuclear deal gave them the excuse. We were prepared for it and had the numbers in place," Moily said.
Replying to questions on Congress MPs speaking against the party in Karnataka and Haryana and its implications for the trust vote, Moily said, "Our flock is together. We are not worried on that count and (are) confident."
He, however, countered by alleging that some MPs of the BJP are not with the saffron party. Asked if the Congress was in touch with any BJP MP to cross over for the trust vote, he replied with a firm 'no'.
Additional Reportage: PTI
The former Canadian Governor General Lord Acton, said " Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutley!"
This is in ref to Mr. clean MMS.
Interesting. instead of developing a resposne to the Ind Embassy bombing in Kabul NSA is palyig footsie. If any one recalls the balst occured while he was pressuring Bhim SIngh of J&K MLA to vote for Azad.
From Pioneer
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->NSA gets into act, 'advises' Maran
J Gopikrishnan | New Delhi
With every vote becoming crucial to decide the fate of the UPA Government during the July 22 trust motion, it has roped in even National Security Adviser MK Narayanan to help boost the numbers.
Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Narayanan contacted and requested Maran to keep aside family differences and support the UPA Government during the vote, sources said. Maran is said to have assured them that he would support the Government.
Amid reports of a possible abstention by Maran during the trust vote, DMK supremo Karunanidhi had issued a strict warning on Thursday. Adding fuel to the rumours, Maran was keeping silence and staying away from the media. Sources close to him confirmed that Sonia contacted Maran twice, on Monday and Thursday.
Narayanan talked to him on and advised him to follow the DMK whip. Maran is learned to have told them about the "harassment" he faces from the DMK leadership and assured the UPA of his support.
"Maran is our MP and like all other MPs he will vote according to the whip issued by our supremo Karunanidhi," said TKS Elangovan, the DMK spokesperson. "I can't comment on the rumours appearing in the media," he added.
Though there was speculation that Kerala Congress (Joseph) MP Francis George, who is part of the Left Front in the State, had gone underground, The Pioneer managed to speak to him late on Friday. "I will abide by what my chairman tells me to do," he said. Though his party chairman PJ Joseph claimed that the MP would vote along with the Left parties, there were also reports that he may back the UPA. Kerala Chief Minister Achuthanandan claimed that their front was intact. "I don't think so... Nobody will go against the Left's decision," he told newspersons in New Delhi.
"The Left Front in Kerala is intact and our 18 MPs from the State will vote against the Government," said S Ramachandran Pillai, a CPM Politburo member.
But the State's intelligence sleuths are believed to have informed Politburo member and Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan that a Delhi-based Malayali liaison officer of a major business group had brokered a deal with Francis George. According to the intelligence report, the Congress has offered a ticket to Francis <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>
Government will lose vote, all our MPs will be present: BJP</b>
Special Correspondent
âIt is not going to be a vote on nuclear deal aloneâ
Make arrangements for Vajpayee to vote: Malhotra
âUnited Progressive Alliance is luring MPsâ
NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party said here on Friday that the government was shaky and would lose the trust vote in the Lok Sabha.
The partyâs deputy leader in the Lok Sabha, V.K. Malhotra, had this to say: âIt is true that the Shiromani Akali Dal is ambivalent on the nuclear deal. But now the Dal has told us it will be issuing a whip to its MPs.â (The SAD later in the day issued a whip asking its MPs to vote against the government.)
âWe have requested the Lok Sabha Secretariat to make special arrangements for the former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who can be brought into the lobby outside the Lok Sabha where he can vote from.â This, Mr. Malhotra added, had been done in the past for leaders of different parties. Lok Sabha Secretary-General P.D.T. Achary, said âalthough there are no rules on this, there were many precedents and it would be up to the Speaker to give the necessary permission.â
Three MPs ill
Mr. Malhotra said the BJP was making every effort to gather all its MPs to ensure their presence so that they can vote out the government. However, he admitted that three of its MPs were seriously ill in different hospitals. âDharmendra (representing Bikaner in Rajasthan) is in the United States where he has recently had a knee replacement surgery. Mahesh Chandra Kanodia (from Patan in Gujarat) has recently had bypass surgery and Harish Chandra Chauhan (sitting MP from Malegoan in Maharashtra) has had an accident and is seriously ill,â Mr. Malhotra said. Efforts were being made to make them vote on July 22.
Talking about the pressure faced by the Akali Dal, he said it was true âthere is a chorus in Punjab that the Akalis must not vote out a Sikh Prime Minister. Akhand paths [24-hour recitation of religious hymns] have been organised in different parts of the State.â This, Mr. Malhotra said, âwas an attempt to communalise the Prime Ministerâs chair and office,â and he condemned it.
On the controversy surrounding Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, the BJP said: âWe are not objecting to Mr. Chatterjee presiding over the proceedings in the House [on July 21 and 22].â
The BJP alleged that the United Progressive Alliance was âluringâ MPs to shore up its numbers, while it also claimed that the numbers of MPs against the government were swelling. On Friday, the party had produced in its office an independent MP from Amroha in Uttar Pradesh. Asked about this, Mr. Malhotra said: âThey [the MPs] are coming to us after listening to their conscience, they are going there for money.â
A host of issues
The BJP would focus on the all-round failure of the Manmohan Singh government in the debate on the trust motion.
âIt is not going to be a vote on the nuclear deal alone. Inflation is now nearly 12 per cent and there are many other issues which the BJP as the principal Opposition has been highlighting,â Mr. Malhotra said.
Party leaders said: âThe BJP has been impressing upon at least two allies â the Akali Dal and the Shiv Sena â who are inclined favourably towards the nuclear deal, that the Manmohan Singh government must be condemned for the totality of its failures.â
<b>Gowda to decide on vote</b>
S. Rajendran
Bangalore: The Janata Dal (Secular), headed by the former Prime Minister, H.D. Deve Gowda, is all set to vote against the UPA government. It has three members in the Lok Sabha including the former Union Minister, M.P. Veerendra Kumar
The Kerala faction, headed by Mr. Kumar, is all set to merge with the JD(S), following discussions between him and Mr. Gowda on the trust vote.
Mr. Gowda, who held discussions with senior party leaders, told The Hindu that he had been authorised to take a decision. âI will announce my decision after consultations with the national leaders of the party to be held in New Delhi on Sunday.â
<b> âUPA Government should be defeated in the interest of sovereigntyâ</b>
Staff Correspondent
CPI(M) interaction in Hassan raises several questions on nuclear deal
PREPARING A CASE: Former MLA and CPI(M) leader G.V. Sriram Reddy addressing an interaction on the nuclear deal in Hassan on Friday.
HASSAN: âThe Manmohan Singh Government will now face a trust vote in the Lok Sabha at the end of a two-day session on July 22 to prove its majority, thus, legitimacy. It requires this legitimacy to provide political and moral legitimacy to the India-U.S. nuclear deal which will be set on an auto-pilot course once the IAEA Board of Governors approves the Safeguards Agreement with India. For this reason, the Government needs to be defeated to ensure that the India-U.S. nuclear deal does not get this legitimacy. Those of us opposing this deal will have to vote in full strength to ensure this,â said S.Y. Gurushanth, State Communist Party of India (Marxist) Secretariat member, here on Friday.
He was addressing an interaction on âNuke agreement and price riseâ organised by the district CPI(M) at the Kannada Sahitya Parishat Bhavan.
Mr. Gurushanth said this raised the question whether the CPI(M) and the Left would like to be seen on the same side as the BJP and the communal forces in voting against the Manmohan Singh Government. Particularly, since the Leftâs outside support to the United Progressive Alliance Government, based on a Common Minimum Programme, was aimed at keeping the communal forces away from power.
The question here was to protect the country from the consequences of the India-U.S. nuclear deal which imply protecting Indiaâs sovereignty, independent foreign policy and independence in dealing with the countryâs security concerns. The only solution was that this Government should be defeated in the trust vote. The Left would, thus, discharge its responsibility in national interest by voting against the Government, he said.
Mr. Gurushanth said the objective was not and could never be contingent upon who else was voting against the Government and for what reasons. The Left was clear. It should work to achieve its objective of upholding national interests and preventing India from becoming a subordinate ally of U.S. imperialism.
Mr. Gurushanth said the BJP had its own reasons for voting against the UPA Government because it wanted to return to power. The process of strengthening the strategic relationship with U.S. imperialism was, indeed, begun by the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance Government. If the BJP was against the nuclear deal, then why did it not move a no-confidence motion during the tenure of the 14th Lok Sabha, though it [BJP] was the principal Opposition. The fact that it chose not to do so showed that it did not wish to displease the Bush administration.
Mr. Gurushanth said during these last four years, in 13 State Assembly elections, many of them being ruled by the Congress and its allies, the BJP and its allies defeated the Congress and set up governments there. It was the failure to implement alternative policies by the Congress that rendered it helpless to stop popular discontent arising out of its own policies from benefiting the communal forces.
Former MLA and senior CPI(M) leader Sriram Reddy, who addressed the gathering, charged the UPA Government with misleading people on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal and said that it was running a disinformation campaign.
He recalled that even in the issue of oil, more than 50 per cent of Indiaâs oil consumption was in the transport sector â cars, buses and trucks and the rest in petrochemicals and fertilizers. Only a negligible amount was used in power plants. Nuclear energy had little to do with oil. It could not be used as a substitute for oil.
On the other hand, natural gas from Iran would insulate India substantively from oil price shocks. The Government had been dragging its feet over the Iran gas pipeline project at the behest of the U.S. and in consideration of the Hyde Act.
Mr. Reddy, referring to power shortage, said this had little to do with lack of nuclear energy but more with starving the power sector of public investments over the last two decades. In the last three Five Year plans, capacity additions had been of around 20,000 MW per Plan, less than what we had added in the 7th Plan.
He said that even if the deal was signed today, it would take about eight years before any electricity was produced from imported reactors under the deal. The cost of installing nuclear power plants using imported reactors was three times that of coal-fired plants of the same size.
Mr. Reddy said that the quickest and cheapest way to tackle electricity shortage was to build coal-fired plants which needed half the time required for setting up nuclear plants. He said that the nuclear plants required imported uranium, which was controlled by an international cartel.
The price of uranium had gone up by five times in the last few years because of this cartel.
Nuclear energy had an important place in Indiaâs energy option and this route needed to be kept open. However, this should be based on indigenous technology and indigenous resources to ensure energy security.
Mr. Reddy said that even with the most optimistic nuclear scenario that the Government had projected, nuclear energy would at best meet only 8 per cent of the electricity demand and about 4 per cent of the total primary energy demand.
While the nuclear option should be kept open, it had little importance for meeting the immediate energy needs.
CITU district president Dharmesh presided over the interaction.
Former MLA Maruthi Rao Manpade and CPI(M) leader Sukumar spoke.
<b>Janata Dal (S) leaves it to Deve Gowda</b>
S. Rajendran
Party working to consolidate base
Deve Gowda
BANGALORE: Irrespective of finalising its stand to vote against the confidence vote to be tabled by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the Lok Sabha on Monday, the Janata Dal (Secular) has refrained from announcing its decision in the light of what has been described as pressure being exerted on it by a section of the Congress leadership.
Sources in the JD(S) told The Hindu that the former Prime Minister and national president of the party, H.D. Deve Gowda, will announce the partyâs decision in New Delhi as authorised by the other party leaders. The JD (S) has preferred to avoid announcing the decision due to the rapid political developments in certain States in connection with the confidence vote.
The JD(S) is now working to consolidate the party in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Apart from Mr. Gowda and his son and the former Chief Minister, H.D. Kumaraswamy, the other party leaders present at the high-level meeting included the parliamentary board chairman D. Manjunath, State unit president N. Merajuddin Patel, working president C. Narayanaswamy, secretary-general P.C. Siddanagoudar, Chamarajanagar MP Shivanna and the former Ministers, M.C. Nanaiah, Iqbal Ansari and Basavaraj Horatti.
<b>
Asked on the stand of Mr. Veerendra Kumar, Mr. Gowda told The Hindu: âI am in touch with him. He was away from the party after Mr. Kumaraswamy formed a coalition government in alliance with the BJP.</b> However, having realised my commitment to secularism and the consistent stand to maintain an equidistance from the Congress and the BJP , Mr. Veerendra Kumar has returned to the mainfold of the party. We will now work at consolidating the JD(S).â
Mr. Kumar is expected to be made the leader of the JD(S) parliamentary party, a position which he enjoyed earlier too.
The former Prime Minister had, until a few days ago, been talking to the Congress and even extended support to that party in the Rajya Sabha election. But the discussion aimed at a long-term understanding between the two parties thereafter took a backseat.
<b> Hectic parleys on as trust vote nears</b>
Sandeep Dikshit and Anita Joshua
12 SP MPs unable to attend meet convened by Mulayam
NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India (Marxist), the CPI, Samajwadi Party, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), and Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) issued whips to their Lok Sabha members on Friday, asking them to vote as per the party decision during the trust vote on July 21-22.
Besides issuing a whip to its four members, the MDMK also submitted a letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee informing him about the Election Commission decision recognising Vaiko as its general secretary. However, MDMK rebel leader L. Ganesan told The Hindu that he and Gingee N. Ramachandran would vote as per the decision of the Democratic Progressive Alliance leader M. Karunanidhi.
Meanwhile, the efforts to shore up numbers continued but the undecided parties â including United Progressive Alliance (UPA) constituent Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) â kept both sides guessing. There was considerable speculation through the day that JMM chief Shibu Soren was being offered a Union Cabinet berth or would be made the Jharkhand Chief Minister.
Another UPA constituent â the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimmen â is yet to take a decision on whether to vote with the government or against it. Its lone MP Asaduddin Owaisi said his party would decide by Saturday morning. Stories of desertions in the Congress camp itself did the rounds, though the partyâs spokesman Veerappa Moily maintained that all such reports were baseless.
Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh convened a meeting of Lok Sabha members but admitted that 12 MPs could not make it. While three SP members have said they will defy the whip, two are in jail. Of the other absentees, Salim Sherwani could not attend because of his sonâs wedding and there was a death in the family of Usha Verma. Another notable absentee was S. Bangarappa. The Samajwadi Party leadership, however, did not elaborate on the absence of other members.
Elsewhere in the capital around the same time, rebel Samajwadi Party member Munnawar Hasan said he had the support of seven other party MPs. Describing the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal as anti-Muslim, the Muzaffarnagar MP said he would formally join the Bahujan Samaj Party after the trust vote. Further, he claimed to have been offered Rs. 25 crore to vote in favour of the Government.
Late in the evening, Telangana Rashtra Samithi leader K. Chandrasekhara Rao flew into the capital and met his Rashtriya Lok Dal counterpart Ajit Singh. JD (S) leader H.D. Deve Gowda is due here on Saturday and is likely to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Meanwhile, Lok Jan Shakti Party leader and Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan was optimistic of the government winning the trust vote in Parliament.
Declining to go into the details, Mr. Paswan was hopeful of the UPA alliance garnering the support of 276 to 288 Lok Sabha MPs.
<b>Congress hits out at Left parties</b>
Gargi Parsai
Left suffering from âStockholm Syndromeâ
UPA flock is together, says Moily
NEW DELHI: Even as speculation was rife about the ânumbersâ the United Progressive Alliance government had so far mustered to win a trust vote in Parliament on July 22, the Congress on Friday hit out at the Left parties for âforming a family with the communal Bharatiya Janata Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party and adopting a destructive role.â
âWe are 280-plus and are firm and confident that our numbers wonât be less than this. This will give sleepless nights to the Left leaders and the Bharatiya Janata Party,â senior party leader and chairman of the AICC Media Committee, M. Veerappa Moily, said here.
âBe positiveâ
<b>Charging the Left parties with suffering from the âStockholm Syndrome,â he appealed to them to be positive. âThey are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome, that is, when you start enjoying the suffering. They seem to have adopted a destructive role and are compromising the interest of the country.â
</b>
(Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker regardless of the danger.)<b>
According to Mr. Moily, all parties opposed to the UPA were destabilising the government. âAll those who want to destabilise the government, their interest is to destabilise politics and democracy,â he said.</b>
Accusing the Left, the BJP and the BSP of âpoachingâ to get the support of MPs to defeat the trust vote, he said, âThe perception is that they belong to one family. I would like to know from [Communist Party of India-Marxist general secretary] Prakash Karat as to when the Left parties joined the BJP, who have a communal agenda?â
Claiming that the UPA âflock was together,â he said Shibu Sorenâs Jharkhand Mukti Morcha was a âpart and parcelâ of the UPA, while Janata Dal (Secular) leader Deve Gowda was meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday.
Asked if the government had offered a Ministerial berth to Mr. Soren, he said, âThere is no Constitutional injunction against it.â
|
