|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Highlights
Sino-India Ties:WILL CHINA DELIVER AT IAEA?,by M D Nalapat,15 January 2008 |
|
|
CHINA SPECIAL
New Delhi, 15 January 2008
Sino-India Ties
WILL CHINA DELIVER
AT IAEA?
By M D Nalapat
(Holds UNESCO Peace
Chair, Prof, Geopolitics, Manipal
Academy of
Higher Education, Ex-Resident Editor, Times of India, Delhi)
When chosen by Sonia Gandhi to be the UPA's Prime
Ministerial choice, it was expected that Manmohan Singh would concentrate on
his core competence, which is economics, and leave foreign policy and national
security to those with a better understanding of the subject. Instead, he has
neglected the economy, remaining a passive spectator to the slowing down of
liberalisation under pressure from the Communists.
In place of a reduction in restraints on Indian corporates,
the period since 2004 has witnessed a steady increase in the Regulation Raj.
Whether it is the buying of shares or the paying of income-tax, the process has
been made more difficult and complicated for those hundreds of millions of
citizens who lack money power or political influence. Although the UPA touts
the growth rate of 9% as proof of the success of its economic management, the
fact remains that this is still the "Vajpayee rate of growth". It was
expected that the "Manmohan rate of growth" would be the 12% and more
that China
has achieved for the past two decades
It is a matter for our leaders to ponder that the Indian
economy, which was double the size of the Chinese in 1950, is less than half
its size today, even after the 1991 liberalisation. China's
foreign exchange reserve is six times that of India,
and its trade with just the US
equals the entire foreign trade of India. Even as the Left parties
demand a rollback of economic liberalisation, the communists in China are
showing that they are the best businesspersons in the world.
At this rate, China
will become a superpower in ten years, and usher in a "bipolar" world
where it alone can be compared to the US. As for India, it would still be far behind, with a per
capita income that is a third of China’s,
despite the fact that the population of that country is even higher than India's. It is
as the head of a much smaller economy that the economist Prime Minister met
with his Chinese counterparts in Beijing.
Long before the PM's visit, the Chinese leadership had
signalled that it was unwilling to accept the "Zhou En Lai" formula
of 1961 on the boundary dispute. Then Premier Zhou had made repeated visits to India to offer
Jawaharlal Nehru a border settlement based on the existing reality. Under this
plan, Aksai Chin would be accepted by India
as Chinese, while Arunachal would be taken as Indian by China.
Nehru, who was convinced that the Chinese were too much in
awe of his stature and reputation to fight a war, rejected Zhou's offer and
launched the "forward policy”, under which an under-equipped and
poorly-led Indian army was asked to advance to locations held by the Chinese
and "throw them out”, in Nehru's ringing words.
Instead, in October-November 1962, it was the Chinese army
that threw out Indian forces from much of the territory they had claimed,
although Zhou En Lai withdrew all Chinese forces from land seized by them
during the humiliating conflict, that diminished Nehru and India
internationally. Since then, most of the world has seen China as a pan-Asian power and India as a
regional power. However, lately China
is regarded as a world power and India as a pan-Asian force
If there is virtually no hope of a breakthrough in the
border talks, because of the Chinese insistence on taking over Tawang and
legitimising Pakistan's occupation of part of Kashmir, and if commercial
treaties of any significance are impossible because of the control that the
Chinese Communist Party has over product prices and raw material costs, what is
Manmohan Singh aiming for in Beijing?
The Prime Minister has bet his legacy on a single issue, the
Indo-US nuclear deal, and he knows that Chinese backing would be crucial in
both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers
Group (NSG). Thus far, directly and through other players, China has taken a stance hostile to India in both
bodies. Beijing is demanding that India abandon its nuclear weapons programme and
leave China with a monopoly
in Asia in advanced nuclear weaponry and the
missiles needed to deliver them.
This hard-line approach by Beijing will make it impossible for Anil
Kakodkar and the rest of the Department of Atomic Energy team to get the
minimal concessions from the members of the IAEA and the NSG that they are
asking for. And in case there is no deal, the Singh-Bush agreement collapses,
for it depends for its operationalisation on an acceptable safeguards agreement
with the IAEA and an assurance of fuel supply from the NSG. If these are not possible,
then the entire deal becomes worthless to India.
Already, the numerous concessions made by Manmohan Singh to
please the US and other major powers --- concessions far in excess of that
discussed by the NDA --- have created a political and scientific backlash
against the deal. Unless the PM can get the minimal concessions he seeks from
the IAEA and the NSG (assurance of fuel supply and non-interference with the
defense programme), he will not be able to get enough political support in India to
implement the deal. As Washington is finding out,
New Delhi is not Beijing,
Riyadh or Islamabad,
where an unelected authority, a monarch and a general can agree to conditions
that a democratic system would not tolerate
To get the deal past the IAEA and the NSG, Manmohan Singh
needs the support of President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. Will
they give it? True, there are news reports about China's
support for the India-US nuclear deal, but it remains to be seen if the
hardheaded Chinese Communist Party leadership --- after decades of following a
policy of containment of India
--- would support a reduction in nuclear restrictions on India. Not only
would such a move challenge China's
current strategic monopoly in Asia, it would push India
and the US closer together ---
a nightmare for China.
Clearly, while soothing words will as always be plentiful, actual support may
yet be distant
The fact remains that India
is the only country in Asia that has the potential to match and surpass China. Australia has too few people and Japan has been
having economic problems for more than a decade. In case the IAEA and the NSG
accept Kakodkar's present terms, it would result in the Singh-Bush nuclear deal
suddenly becoming attractive to many of its critics, thus clearing the way for
its adoption. The Left parties, once China is on board, will be in a
bind on their stand of total opposition to a deal that would have the consent
of much of the scientific community. India
and the US would come much
closer together, and India's
economic outlook would improve.
None of this would be good news for China. It is a
measure of the Nehruvian dissociation from reality of the UPA's top policy makers
that they seriously expect the hard-headed Chinese leadership to help India become a strong economic power and an ally
of the US.
Such idealistic thinking may be what works in India
(that turns the other cheek to Pakistan
repeatedly, building on the concessions made at Tashkent
in 1965 and Shimla in 1972), but thus far, China's leadership has shown that
it is made of stronger stuff
All that Manmohan Singh is likely to get are sugary words
and vague promises. In exchange, the Chinese leadership will expect substantive
and painful concessions from the Indian side, such as the handing over of
Tawang and the granting of free entry to Chinese companies in India. In the
field of infrastructure, especially, the demand for good infrastructure has
been saturated in many parts of China,
even while India
has primitive facilities. The Chinese will seek to send their teams to India, to build
roads, ports, bridges and power plants at a profit even while they thus stave
off unemployment.
Oddly, when China
wanted visas for hundreds of its workers to come to India rather than recruit local labour
some of the UPA’s allies lobbied (successfully) with Manmohan Singh to allow
this. Beijing’s friends in the UPA can be
expected to ensure that tens of thousands of Chinese workers will be given
visas to come to India
and work on infrastructure projects. Unless the Prime Minister agrees to this,
he his unlikely to get any actual Chinese support at the IAEA and the NSG.
The question is: will he be willing to pay such a high price
in order to get support from Beijing
for his nuclear deal? Even if China
formally backs the deal, the clout of Beijing is
sufficient to ensure that several other countries (including a few in Europe)
oppose India
and thereby derail the deal. Manmohan Singh has shown what a forgiving and
generous man he is in his negotiations with Pakistan,
towards which he has taken a stand even more conciliatory than South Asia's Man of Peace, IK Gujral.
It remains to be seen if this big-heartedness of his will
lead him towards the commercial and territorial concessions that China seeks.
The nation awaits the price that it will be made to pay to China so as to
keep Manmohan Singh's pet project, the Indo-US nuclear deal, alive. ---- INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Defence Ties With Russia:WHY INDIA PREFERS ISRAEL ?, by Radhakrishna Rao,25 February 2008 |
|
|
Defence Notes
New Delhi, 25 February 2008
Defence Ties With Russia
WHY INDIA PREFERS ISRAEL ?
By Radhakrishna Rao
The smooth and successful
launch of Israel’s military
satellite TECSAR by an Indian space vehicle this January and the presence of a
number of defence and aerospace firms from Israel
at the DefExpo-2008 in Delhi in February are a
clear pointer of Israel
emerging as India’s
most-preferred defence partner in the near future. In sharp contrast, the
subdued and modest presence of Russian
defence entities at the Expo was a mirror to the growing friction in Indo-Russian defence ties. From being a reliable defence
partner, Russia
has come to be looked upon in India
as an undependable supplier of military hardware, many of which have proved to
be “poor performers”.
In fact, India
is far from happy over the cost escalation, time slippages and poor after-
sales service including the non-availability of spares on number of occasions
in respect of many defence projects for which it has signed up with Russia.
Perhaps the most galling to the Indian defence establishments is the Russian insistence on an additional payment of
US$1.2-billion for the retrofitting and modernization of the Admiral Gorshkov,
a 44,750 tonne Kiev
class aircraft carrier. Russia
had originally agreed to retrofit this decommissioned
aircraft carrier for US$1.5-billion and supply it to the Indian Navy by
2008-09. Now it will reach India
only by 2012-2013 .Currently, negotiations are on between the two nations to sort
out the controversy.
Sometime last year the Chief of Navy Admiral Suresh Mehta
had stated that it was high time that New Delhi
stopped putting all its eggs in one basket, thereby implying that India should stop depending totally on the Russians and instead expand its defence ties with more
reliable partners such as Israel.
Obviously, Mehta was referring to the change of Russian
stance over the retrofitting of Gorshkov.
Clearly and apparently, Gorshkov is not the only case of
Indo-Russian defence collaboration
gone sour. It is only the tip of the ice-berg. Citing global inflation and
depreciating US dollar, Russia
has already asked India
to cough up more for SU-3)-MKI combat aircraft. And, the Indian Navy on its part
has refused to take delivery of the Kilo class
submarine and the land attack missiles
it was equipped with to fire, after it came a cropper in test firings.
Similarly, last year India
withheld the payment for one of the three IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft
upgraded with the Sea Dragon submarine detection equipment since it did not
fulfill the stringent norms set by the Indian Navy.
Another bone of contention between India and Russia
is the issue of technological
transfer in critical areas for production of T-90S battle tank by the Heavy
Vehicles Factory at Avadi near Chennai. There is a dismay in India over the
way Russians are putting impediments
in its plan to indigenously manufacture 1000 T 90S battle tanks. Now India has decided to develop the critical
technological elements in respect of T-90S that Russia
has refused to make available.
As a defence analyst in
New Delhi put it, India
is irritated with Moscow
for its failure to keep its commitment of delivering weapons systems on time
and also failing to sustain a system to provide uninterrupted supply of spares,
apart from jacking up the cost arbitrarily halfway through the implementation
of the project.
The break-up of the mighty Soviet empire leading to the
bankruptcy of its vast and sprawling military industrial complex has been
blamed for India’s
far from happy track record in dealing with the Russian
defence contractors. As it is, India
had a taste of this in 1992, when succumbing to the American pressure, Russia refused to honour its
commitment of transferring the critical cryogenic engine technology to India. Russia,
which had signed with Glavkosmos as part of the deal with Indian Space Research
Organisation (ISRO) before the break up of the Soviet
Union was required to make available the cryogenic engine
technology. Subsequently, ISRO managed to build and test a fully Indian
cryogenic engine stage meant to power its high performance GSLV (Geosynchronous
Satellite Launch Vehicle).
Diplomatic observers in New Delhi
believe that the growing chill in Indo-Russian
defence ties has to do with India’s
growing bonhomie with the US.
The Russian supreme Vladimir Putin
who is at logger heads with the American administration is quite keen about India remaining
within the orbit of Russian
influence. However, Russian
political and defence commentators continue to believe that Indo-Russian defence ties are as healthy as ever despite
“frictions and tensions” In this
context, they point out to the Indo-Russian
high-level cooperation for developing a fifth generation combat aircraft and a
multi-role cargo transport aircraft.
The Brahmos supersonic cruise missile,
developed through a joint Indo-Russian
endeavor, is being cited as yet another example of robust Indo-Russian military ties. Interestingly, India and Russia
are now not only exploring the possibility
of exporting Brahmos to friendly countries, but also are working on building an
advanced version of Brahmos missile.
Russia which currently sells defence
hardware worth about US$1.5-billion to India
could in the years to come yield place to Israel
whose annual sale of defence equipment to India clocks a turn over of
US$1-billion. In fact, Israel
has now displaced France as India’s second
largest defence partner.
The sky seems to be the limit for India
to expand its defence ties with Israel.
At DefExpo-2008, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) entered into an agreement
with Tata Industries to float a joint venture meant to cater to the needs of
the Indian customers of IAI. Tata Industries is looking at digging deeper into
the Indian defence market. Further, the Bangalore-based state-owned defence
enterprise BEL (Bharat Electroncis Ltd) tied up with three Israel-based
companies at the Expo. BEL has singed a “term sheet” with Rafael Advanced
Defence Systems to form a joint-venture company to “encourage indigenous
advanced technology capabilities of missile
electronics and guidance systems”. On the other hand, BEL has signed a MOU with
IAI-Malat for the joint development of unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, a 12-year
tie up with Elisra envisaged the joint working on various air borne electronics
warfare programmes.
Israel, which has supplied Barak missiles to the Indian Navy, is also assisting the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics
Ltd in upgrading many of the Soviet era weapons including MiG series of combat
aircraft. It is a tribute to the growing Indo-Israel ties that the Government-owned
Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and IAI have joined hands
to develop a missile capable of
intercepting aircraft and other aerial objects. And despite the opposition from
the US, Israel has struck a deal with India to supply
three state-of-the art AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System).
These AWACS would help the Air Force gain a deeper and more
detailed insight into the enemy territory. First of the three AWACS would reach
India
by the year-end. In addition to supplying a variety of missiles,
UAVs, and electronics warfare hardware for all the wings of the Indian defence,
Israel
is also assisting many Indian
entities in developing missiles and
radars for a variety of end uses. For instance, Israel
is helping Bangalore-
based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to test and integrate the multi
mode radar (MMR) into the indigenously developed fourth generation Light Combat
Aircraft (LCA) Tejas. HAL has also decided to equip its Advanced Light
Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv meant for export market with IAI made avionics system.
Meanwhile, the launch of the 300-kg TECSAR featuring a
synthetic aperture radar capable of seeing through the clouds and cover of
darkness by means of the four stage
Indian space vehicle PSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle) has stirred
political and diplomatic controversy. The CPM whose support is crucial to the
survival of the UPA Government has hit
out at ISRO for launching a spy satellite belonging to Israel. “The
launch of Israel’s TECSAR
shows how India is aiding
the military efforts of Israel.
The satellite has the capability to track the activities in Iran and the
region”, said a CPM spokesman.
The Left party has also alleged that ISRO has agreed to
launch two more defence satellites from Israel. Iran
on its part has made its displeasure over the TECSAR launch by India with the statement that India should
have weighed the geo political situation before agreeing for this launch
contract on purely commercial terms. Time will tell how far India goes with its defence requirements with Israel. --INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Defence Deals:LURE FOR INDIAN MARKET, by Radhakrishna Rao,15 March 2008 |
|
|
Defence Notes
New Delhi, 15 March 2008
Defence Deals
LURE FOR INDIAN
MARKET
By Radhakrishna Rao
In keeping with the growing strategic importance of India in the
contemporary geo-political environment, the budgetary allocation for the country’s
defence sector over the years has been witnessing a steady growth. Not
surprisingly then, the budgetary defence
spending for the first time is set to cross Rs.1,00,0000-million mark As it is,
India’s national budget for 2008-09 allocates
Rs.1,056,000-million for the defence sector as against
Rs.96,0000-million outlay for 2007-08.
As expected the Indian Air Force (IAF), which has drawn up a
massive up-gradation plan with a focus on supporting the net centric warfare
and the creation of a tri-service aerospace command, has walked away with the
highest share of the budgetary allocation for the acquisition of a range of
state-of-the-art equipment. During the current year, IAF stands to get
Rs.19,0000-million in contrast to its spending of Rs.14,0000-million last
fiscal On the other hand, the Army will have a proposed allocation in excess of
Rs.12,0000-million against its spending of Rs.11,0000-million. The Navy stands
to get Rs.11,0000-million as against its spending of Rs.80,000-million.
Meanwhile, a study by the Associated Chamber of Commerce
and Industry states that the country’s military
equipment imports are expected to go up by 12-fold to US$30-billion by 2012.
This fact-filled study also drives home
the point that India has drawn up a
concrete plan to purchase a range of high profile defence hardware including
multi-role combat aircraft,1.55-mm howitzers, helicopters, military transport
aircraft as well as long range maritime surveillance aircraft. According to consulting firm Ernst
and Young Global Ltd, right now, India is the second largest buyer
of conventional weapons systems.
New Delhi-based strategic analysts are of the view that India is now boosting its defence spending as China is developing into own state-of-the-art
combat aircraft and Pakistan
is in the process of getting F-16 aircraft from the US. Significantly, sometime back
Defence Minister A.K. Antony had stated that the government plans to acquire
military aircraft and helicopters valued at US$ two billion from the global
defence vendors.
The offset policy forming part of India’s defence hardware
procurement programme aims at to encourage the development of home grown defence
systems for the use of the three Services, he added. On the other hand,
Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh, observes, “The
offset policy will help equip the armed forces with sophisticated technology as
well as strengthening of the technology base of the country’s defence
industry”.
As it is, the offset policy spelt out in the 2006 Defence Procurement
Policy makes it abundantly cleat that any defence contract worth over Rs.3,000-million
that we will enter into with a foreign
defence vendor will have a direct offset
liability to the extent of 30 per cent. This
puts the onus on the vendor to source from India equipment or services worth
at least 30 per cent of the contract value.
In fact, the massive Indian offset business worth
Rs.40,000-million that the defence market presents is highly alluring to global
defence contractors. As pointed out by a top ranking functionary of the Confederation
of Indian Industry: “In the new scenario, each foreign vendor will need
multiple Indian partners to meet offset obligations. This could also help
Indian public-private sector firms improve their technology skills”.
India’s state-owned Defence Research and
Development Organisation (DRDO), which has covered much ground in indigenously
developing and deploying a range of missiles, is now focusing on involving both
the Indian and foreign high-tech companies as part of its long-term goal of
developing indigenously a wide spectrum of defence hardware including long
range missiles. On its part, the government has made it clear that defence
deals far from being a buyer-seller relationship should involve sharing of the
know-how and transfer of technology to enable India to take up the indigenous
production of the equipment it is initially sourcing from a foreign vendor.
Recognizing India’s
growing strength in defence technology, Charles Edelstenne, Chief Executive
Officer of French defence and aeronautical outfit Dassault, which is one of the
six competitors in the race to give India’s high ticket defence order
for 126 multi-role combat aircraft said, “We are used to transfer of technology
and foreign companies taking over production”. In the similar vein, Jean Marie
Carnet, CEO of GICAN, an umbrella organization of 129 French outfits engaged in
the design and development of naval ships and armaments remarked, “France is ready
for complete transfer of technology”.
However, India’s
offset clause in respect of the contract for 126 multi-role aircraft stipulates
that 50 per cent of the contract value should be invested by the supplier in India. As the
value of this contract is expected to run into more than Rs.40,0000-million,
the Indian companies hope to get business worth more than Rs.20,0000-million.
Under the contract 18 aircraft will be delivered in flyway condition and the
rest will be produced by the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. The competitors for
this mega Indian defence deal are Rafale of France, RSK Mig-35 of Russia, Saab Gripen of Sweden, F-16 of
Lockheed Martin, F/A-18E/F- Super Hornet of
Boeing and Euro-fighter Typhoon.
Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin which has bagged an Indian order
for six C-130 J military transport aircraft is optimistic about India
converting option for six more aircraft into a firm order as soon the first
batch is delivered. Indeed, Rick Kirkland, its President of S.Asia has stated
that India
is potentially the biggest growth market in Asia Pacific region for Lockheed
Martin and its competitors. He also drove home the point that India is likely
to buy US$4-billion worth of defence communications system and spend as much as
US$5-billion to expand its naval ships and submarine programme. Incidentally,
Lockheed Martin has bagged a contract worth US$498-million from Pakistan for
the supply of F-16 fighters. As such F-16 fighters – of course with many
superior features—offered by Lockheed Martin to India is not likely to find favour
with the defense establishment.
The increasing lure of the Indian defence market for foreign
vendors was clearly mirrored in a number of partnership ventures that foreign
defence companies signed with the
industrial majors at the Defence Expo 2008 held in the Capital last
month. Bangalore-based Bharat Electronics (BEL), a major player in the national
electronics sector, entered into agreements with three Israel-based defence
companies .Mumbai-based Tata Industry not only joined hands with Sikorsky to
make S-92 helicopter cabins but also singed an agreement with Israel Aerospace
Industries (IAI) for an unspecified number of military hardware and software
projects. At the same time, auto major Mahindra and Mahindra joined hands with Whitehead Alenia Sistemi
Subacquei, a subsidiary of the Italian firm Finmecanica for developing
underwater systems. Further, heavy engineering giant Larsen and Toubro (L&T),
signed an MOU with EADS and another with Boeing.
Thus, as things stand today, sky seems to be the limit for
both the Indian companies and their foreign partners, competing for the highly
lucrative Indian defence market. –INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Nuclear Controversy:SEEK SENSE OF PARLIAMENT, by Poonam I Kaushish,30 October 2007 |
|
|
New Delhi, 30 October 2007
Nuclear Controversy
SEEK SENSE OF
PARLIAMENT
By Poonam I Kaushish
India’s endemic crisis of casualness has created another problem. A basic issue of critical importance to the future of our
democracy, thrown up by the controversy over the Indo-US nuclear deal, has not
received the attention it deserves: Is Parliament supreme vis a vis the
Executive or is it not supreme? The Constitution is crystal clear in the
matter. Article 75(3) provides: The Council of Ministers shall be collectively
responsible to the House of the People or the Lok Sabha as it is popularly
known.
The issue popped
up initially when the UPA Government announced its willingness to hold a debate on the nuclear deal. The BJP-led
NDA welcomed the debate but demanded a vote at the end. This was not acceptable
to the Government. The matter came up again when the Government agreed to set
up a Committee with the Left to resolve differences. The BJP objected and
demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee to whet the deal. The Government again
said no and an angry BJP thereafter stalled the monsoon session.
The Left, which has threatened to pull the rug time and
again, wants Parliament to debate the deal but not vote on the motion as it
would leave it with no elbow room for manoeuvre. Either it would have to vote
against the deal, which would mean bringing down the Government. Or, it would
simply have to walk out of the House, which would mean losing credibility and
making a bigger laughing stock of themselves.
Top leaders of the UPA’s major allies ---- NCP’s Pawar,
DMK’s Karunanidhi and RJD’s Laloo too rubbish all talk of a vote. That would
constrain them to affix their seal of approval or disapproval, notwithstanding tall
talk of misgivings about the deal. It could also result in a loss of power and patronage, which none wants at any
cost.
The Congress expectedly
opposes a vote. It knows only too well that a majority in the Lok Sabha,
including the Left, is opposed to the deal. Any vote would surely lead to the
Government’s exit. Hence, the emphasis on a debate without a vote. But then the
Opposition justifiably asks: What purpose will a toothless
debate sans voting serve?
It is, therefore, high time that the Government carries out
its responsibilities honourably. It should summon both the Houses of Parliament
without further delay. This could be done by either convening a special session forthwith or by advancing Parliament’s winter session, with at least a week earmarked solely for a
full debate on the nuclear deal.
All parties, groups and MPs eager to participate in the
debate must be provided adequate time to have their full say. Following which,
ideally, the motion should be put to vote so as to leave no scope for any doubt
about the will of Parliament. If the Government is still hell-bent against a
vote, it should at least seek the sense of the Lok Sabha, which could be done without
jeopardizing its own existence. If the sense is for the deal, the Government
should go ahead. If not, the deal must be called off.
True, the Constitution does not specifically require the
Government to take prior parliamentary approval for conducting the affairs of
the State, including foreign policy, and seek ratification of international
agreements. Nevertheless, in our democracy,
Parliament is supreme vis a vis the Executive. The Government is answerable to
it every minute of its existence.
Interestingly, former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam too
is of the same view. He has asserted
in a newspaper article that absence of a legal dispensation requiring
Parliamentary approval of major matters “is merely a technicality.” He adds:
“Every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There
cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance,
without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.”
Not just that. He adds: “If the Prime Minister had taken
this step earlier, the present impasse
could have been avoided. Either he was naïve or was ill-advised. But at least
the Congress, which has ruled the
country the longest and has vast experience of government, should have followed
the correct path and got Parliament’s concurrence.”
Especially as India’s foreign policy is not the
sole prerogative of any single party, or a coalition Government. In the present
case too, what is at stake is India’s
foreign policy and India’s
nuclear deal, not that of the UPA. Time was when India’s foreign policy was
bi-partisan under Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Wherein both sides of the political
spectrum were agreed on basic issues.
There was thus no occasion for successive
Governments to seek prior Parliamentary approval.
The same does not hold good today. There are sharp
differences on foreign policy. What is more, the UPA Government lacks a clear
mandate. It is essentially a
Government of post-poll opportunistic alliances. The Prime Minister is welcome
to claim that the UPA enjoys a majority mandate and is, therefore, entitled to
go ahead with the deal. Nothing could be
farther from the truth.
The Congress won
only 143 seats in the Lok Sabha of 545 members. A simple majority totals 272
MPs. To make up the shortfall of over 130 MPs, the Party allied with the Left and
smattering of regional outfits to form the Government. The UPA could have
claimed a majority mandate had it gone to the polls as a united front. But it
did not.
Questionably, can a Government which did not secure a proper
majority mandate commit future generations of Indians to a deal which is
opposed tooth and nail by a majority of the parties and groups in Parliament? Clearly,
it would be right and proper for the Government to push ahead with the deal
only if a majority favours it. Thus the least that the Government must do is to
seek a sense of the Lok Sabha.
The Congress takes
great and understandable pride in harking back to Nehru’s legacy time and
again. Yet it conveniently forgets the supreme respect India’s first
Prime Minister gave to Parliament. On one occasion, he even came to the Lok
Sabha to request permission to leave
New Delhi to attend a meeting of the
Commonwealth Heads of Government in London
when Parliament was in session. Such
was his great respect for Parliament.
Nehru need not have done so. Neither was it a Constitutional
requirement nor did the rules of Parliament enjoin upon the Prime Minister to
seek Parliament’s prior approval for going abroad. However, Nehru did so as it
was the right thing to do vis-à-vis the highest temple of democracy. Today,
even junior Ministers think nothing of departing without notice!
Nehru wanted India
and its Parliamentarians to always draw inspiration from Britain, which works out its democracy admirably
even when, unlike India,
it has no written Constitution. Westminster
functions on the premise of what is done and what is not done. Consequently,
any Minister who comes under a cloud resigns because that is the right thing to
do. No one demands a commission of
enquiry or talks of the law taking its due course.
Merely because our Constitution or laws do not provide for prior
Parliamentary approval before an international treaty like the nuclear deal is
signed does not mean that the Government is scot free to do whatever it wants.
Our Constitution does not, for instance, pointedly enjoin upon us Indians to
speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Does that mean we can merrily tell lies
and damn lies?
Clearly, it is time that Parliament is summoned soonest and a
sense of the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, ascertained on the deal. The
Prime Minister need not worry about any loss
of face. He should know that in a Cabinet form of Government, the PM is only the
first among equals. Appropriately, he took the deal to the Cabinet and secured
its approval. It is not his fault if his fair-weather allies have now chosen to
desert him and undermine the coalition dharma.
Neither should the UPA worry that its Government would fall if
the sense of the House, which is an implied vote, goes against the nuclear
deal. After all, to quote Manmohan Singh: “The UPA Government is not a one issue Government”…. It would merely have “to live
with certain disappointments…. and move on to the next….”
In sum, the UPA Government must take immediate steps to end the
paralysis that now grips its functioning by having a full and detailed debate
on the nuclear deal. The NDA, for its part, must cooperate and take note that
the country has had enough of irresponsible stalling of the Houses. Every party,
group must be given full opportunity for a threadbare discussion of the deal. Parliament must be enabled to express itself forthrightly. Either it is supreme vis-à-vis
the Executive or it is not. We cannot have it both ways! ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Nuclear Controversy:SEEK SENSE OF PARLIAMENT, by Poonam I Kaushish,30 October 2007 |
|
|
New Delhi, 30 October 2007
Nuclear Controversy
SEEK SENSE OF
PARLIAMENT
By Poonam I Kaushish
India’s endemic crisis of casualness has created another problem. A basic issue of critical importance to the future of our
democracy, thrown up by the controversy over the Indo-US nuclear deal, has not
received the attention it deserves: Is Parliament supreme vis a vis the
Executive or is it not supreme? The Constitution is crystal clear in the
matter. Article 75(3) provides: The Council of Ministers shall be collectively
responsible to the House of the People or the Lok Sabha as it is popularly
known.
The issue popped
up initially when the UPA Government announced its willingness to hold a debate on the nuclear deal. The BJP-led
NDA welcomed the debate but demanded a vote at the end. This was not acceptable
to the Government. The matter came up again when the Government agreed to set
up a Committee with the Left to resolve differences. The BJP objected and
demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee to whet the deal. The Government again
said no and an angry BJP thereafter stalled the monsoon session.
The Left, which has threatened to pull the rug time and
again, wants Parliament to debate the deal but not vote on the motion as it
would leave it with no elbow room for manoeuvre. Either it would have to vote
against the deal, which would mean bringing down the Government. Or, it would
simply have to walk out of the House, which would mean losing credibility and
making a bigger laughing stock of themselves.
Top leaders of the UPA’s major allies ---- NCP’s Pawar,
DMK’s Karunanidhi and RJD’s Laloo too rubbish all talk of a vote. That would
constrain them to affix their seal of approval or disapproval, notwithstanding tall
talk of misgivings about the deal. It could also result in a loss of power and patronage, which none wants at any
cost.
The Congress expectedly
opposes a vote. It knows only too well that a majority in the Lok Sabha,
including the Left, is opposed to the deal. Any vote would surely lead to the
Government’s exit. Hence, the emphasis on a debate without a vote. But then the
Opposition justifiably asks: What purpose will a toothless
debate sans voting serve?
It is, therefore, high time that the Government carries out
its responsibilities honourably. It should summon both the Houses of Parliament
without further delay. This could be done by either convening a special session forthwith or by advancing Parliament’s winter session, with at least a week earmarked solely for a
full debate on the nuclear deal.
All parties, groups and MPs eager to participate in the
debate must be provided adequate time to have their full say. Following which,
ideally, the motion should be put to vote so as to leave no scope for any doubt
about the will of Parliament. If the Government is still hell-bent against a
vote, it should at least seek the sense of the Lok Sabha, which could be done without
jeopardizing its own existence. If the sense is for the deal, the Government
should go ahead. If not, the deal must be called off.
True, the Constitution does not specifically require the
Government to take prior parliamentary approval for conducting the affairs of
the State, including foreign policy, and seek ratification of international
agreements. Nevertheless, in our democracy,
Parliament is supreme vis a vis the Executive. The Government is answerable to
it every minute of its existence.
Interestingly, former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam too
is of the same view. He has asserted
in a newspaper article that absence of a legal dispensation requiring
Parliamentary approval of major matters “is merely a technicality.” He adds:
“Every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There
cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance,
without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.”
Not just that. He adds: “If the Prime Minister had taken
this step earlier, the present impasse
could have been avoided. Either he was naïve or was ill-advised. But at least
the Congress, which has ruled the
country the longest and has vast experience of government, should have followed
the correct path and got Parliament’s concurrence.”
Especially as India’s foreign policy is not the
sole prerogative of any single party, or a coalition Government. In the present
case too, what is at stake is India’s
foreign policy and India’s
nuclear deal, not that of the UPA. Time was when India’s foreign policy was
bi-partisan under Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Wherein both sides of the political
spectrum were agreed on basic issues.
There was thus no occasion for successive
Governments to seek prior Parliamentary approval.
The same does not hold good today. There are sharp
differences on foreign policy. What is more, the UPA Government lacks a clear
mandate. It is essentially a
Government of post-poll opportunistic alliances. The Prime Minister is welcome
to claim that the UPA enjoys a majority mandate and is, therefore, entitled to
go ahead with the deal. Nothing could be
farther from the truth.
The Congress won
only 143 seats in the Lok Sabha of 545 members. A simple majority totals 272
MPs. To make up the shortfall of over 130 MPs, the Party allied with the Left and
smattering of regional outfits to form the Government. The UPA could have
claimed a majority mandate had it gone to the polls as a united front. But it
did not.
Questionably, can a Government which did not secure a proper
majority mandate commit future generations of Indians to a deal which is
opposed tooth and nail by a majority of the parties and groups in Parliament? Clearly,
it would be right and proper for the Government to push ahead with the deal
only if a majority favours it. Thus the least that the Government must do is to
seek a sense of the Lok Sabha.
The Congress takes
great and understandable pride in harking back to Nehru’s legacy time and
again. Yet it conveniently forgets the supreme respect India’s first
Prime Minister gave to Parliament. On one occasion, he even came to the Lok
Sabha to request permission to leave
New Delhi to attend a meeting of the
Commonwealth Heads of Government in London
when Parliament was in session. Such
was his great respect for Parliament.
Nehru need not have done so. Neither was it a Constitutional
requirement nor did the rules of Parliament enjoin upon the Prime Minister to
seek Parliament’s prior approval for going abroad. However, Nehru did so as it
was the right thing to do vis-à-vis the highest temple of democracy. Today,
even junior Ministers think nothing of departing without notice!
Nehru wanted India
and its Parliamentarians to always draw inspiration from Britain, which works out its democracy admirably
even when, unlike India,
it has no written Constitution. Westminster
functions on the premise of what is done and what is not done. Consequently,
any Minister who comes under a cloud resigns because that is the right thing to
do. No one demands a commission of
enquiry or talks of the law taking its due course.
Merely because our Constitution or laws do not provide for prior
Parliamentary approval before an international treaty like the nuclear deal is
signed does not mean that the Government is scot free to do whatever it wants.
Our Constitution does not, for instance, pointedly enjoin upon us Indians to
speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Does that mean we can merrily tell lies
and damn lies?
Clearly, it is time that Parliament is summoned soonest and a
sense of the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, ascertained on the deal. The
Prime Minister need not worry about any loss
of face. He should know that in a Cabinet form of Government, the PM is only the
first among equals. Appropriately, he took the deal to the Cabinet and secured
its approval. It is not his fault if his fair-weather allies have now chosen to
desert him and undermine the coalition dharma.
Neither should the UPA worry that its Government would fall if
the sense of the House, which is an implied vote, goes against the nuclear
deal. After all, to quote Manmohan Singh: “The UPA Government is not a one issue Government”…. It would merely have “to live
with certain disappointments…. and move on to the next….”
In sum, the UPA Government must take immediate steps to end the
paralysis that now grips its functioning by having a full and detailed debate
on the nuclear deal. The NDA, for its part, must cooperate and take note that
the country has had enough of irresponsible stalling of the Houses. Every party,
group must be given full opportunity for a threadbare discussion of the deal. Parliament must be enabled to express itself forthrightly. Either it is supreme vis-à-vis
the Executive or it is not. We cannot have it both ways! ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 Next > End >>
| Results 5671 - 5679 of 6001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|