07-20-2008, 03:37 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Botched up deal </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Local politics versus global imperatives
<b>It has been pointed with some irony that the future of the India-United States civil nuclear cooperation agreement will be decided by calculations far removed from the merits or demerits of a far-reaching diplomatic move. It is going to be shaped by whether Mr HD Deve Gowda wants an alliance with the Congress in Karnataka; by whether Mr Ajit Singh sees the need for a coalition in western Uttar Pradesh; by whether Ms Mayawati can poach enough MPs from the Samajwadi Party</b>. Indeed, the electoral considerations of Mr Harish Nagpal, the independent MP from Amroha (a constituency in Uttar Pradesh), have caused him to take a position on the nuclear deal, not a deep study of the 123 Agreement or India's proposed arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even the original turnaround, the Samajwadi Party's advocacy of the deal, was rooted in the realisation that it was better to take on the BSP in alliance with the Congress rather than fight alone in Uttar Pradesh. The turn of events has left strategic thinkers and foreign policy buffs aghast. In New Delhi they argue that such an agreement should not be reduced to base politics but judged in terms of broader benefits or otherwise to national strategic interest. Admittedly, the argument seems persuasive. Not everything in politics can be reduced to a beauty contest; serious concerns deserve more measured, calibrated thought.
Nevertheless, what is happening in India is scarcely unique. A quarter century ago, the then Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mr Tip O'Neill, famously said, "<b>All politics is local." </b>That aphorism is both universal and perennial. In the past two years, if Senators and Representatives in Washington, DC, have cheered the Indian nuclear deal and voted for it on Capitol Hill, it is not because every single legislative backer is a global strategic expert convinced of the power of a rising India. Many have done so for local factors -- traded favours with the Bush Administration at the constituency level, listened to voters and pressure groups among them who have India connections and may be worth crucial campaign funds. Similarly, American politicians with a large Pakistani community in their constituencies have been swayed by electoral considerations and opposed the deal. Like India, America, too, is a nation of Harish Nagpals; every democracy is.
India's polity is marked by contention and variety. Does its very nature suggest that every major foreign policy initiative will be thwarted by some interest group or the other, by opposition for the sake of opposition, or driven by State or regional or even one-seat political considerations? If this were so, it would be depressing. It is here that the skill and maturity of politicians and Governments is tested. <b>After the fiasco of the nuclear deal -- even if it eventually goes through, the Congress has expended so much political capital that it will never seem worth it to many within the party -- there is a lesson for India's political leadership</b>. Never again should a Government allow a major agreement or move, one on which broader consensus is necessary, to be posited as the achievement of a chosen few. Indian democracy thrives on coalition-building -whether after elections are held or before nuclear deals are concluded.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Local politics versus global imperatives
<b>It has been pointed with some irony that the future of the India-United States civil nuclear cooperation agreement will be decided by calculations far removed from the merits or demerits of a far-reaching diplomatic move. It is going to be shaped by whether Mr HD Deve Gowda wants an alliance with the Congress in Karnataka; by whether Mr Ajit Singh sees the need for a coalition in western Uttar Pradesh; by whether Ms Mayawati can poach enough MPs from the Samajwadi Party</b>. Indeed, the electoral considerations of Mr Harish Nagpal, the independent MP from Amroha (a constituency in Uttar Pradesh), have caused him to take a position on the nuclear deal, not a deep study of the 123 Agreement or India's proposed arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even the original turnaround, the Samajwadi Party's advocacy of the deal, was rooted in the realisation that it was better to take on the BSP in alliance with the Congress rather than fight alone in Uttar Pradesh. The turn of events has left strategic thinkers and foreign policy buffs aghast. In New Delhi they argue that such an agreement should not be reduced to base politics but judged in terms of broader benefits or otherwise to national strategic interest. Admittedly, the argument seems persuasive. Not everything in politics can be reduced to a beauty contest; serious concerns deserve more measured, calibrated thought.
Nevertheless, what is happening in India is scarcely unique. A quarter century ago, the then Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mr Tip O'Neill, famously said, "<b>All politics is local." </b>That aphorism is both universal and perennial. In the past two years, if Senators and Representatives in Washington, DC, have cheered the Indian nuclear deal and voted for it on Capitol Hill, it is not because every single legislative backer is a global strategic expert convinced of the power of a rising India. Many have done so for local factors -- traded favours with the Bush Administration at the constituency level, listened to voters and pressure groups among them who have India connections and may be worth crucial campaign funds. Similarly, American politicians with a large Pakistani community in their constituencies have been swayed by electoral considerations and opposed the deal. Like India, America, too, is a nation of Harish Nagpals; every democracy is.
India's polity is marked by contention and variety. Does its very nature suggest that every major foreign policy initiative will be thwarted by some interest group or the other, by opposition for the sake of opposition, or driven by State or regional or even one-seat political considerations? If this were so, it would be depressing. It is here that the skill and maturity of politicians and Governments is tested. <b>After the fiasco of the nuclear deal -- even if it eventually goes through, the Congress has expended so much political capital that it will never seem worth it to many within the party -- there is a lesson for India's political leadership</b>. Never again should a Government allow a major agreement or move, one on which broader consensus is necessary, to be posited as the achievement of a chosen few. Indian democracy thrives on coalition-building -whether after elections are held or before nuclear deals are concluded.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->