It looks like the U.S.-India nuclear deal, that was greeted with such fanfare 2 years ago, is going to be put into cold storage until 2009, disappointing Americans who hoped for a new strategic partnership and demonstrating again that India is not ready for the world stage. PM Singh announced:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, even though he has forcefully staked his legacy on a landmark nuclear agreement with the United States, made it plain on Friday that his government would not invite early elections by confronting its Communist allies in Parliament over their opposition to the deal. “What we have done with the United States — it is an honorable deal, it is good for India, it is good for the world,†he said at a conference here. “I do attach importance in seeing this deal come through, but if it doesn’t come through that is not the end of life.â€
Not ready for the world stage may seem a harsh assessment. After all, many critics of the deal pointed out that even if it did go through, the actual electricity generated would not meet India’s needs. Indian security experts (that were not reflexively anti-American) pointed out that they were uneasy about how involved America would be in setting Indian nuclear policy.
I do not dismiss those concerns out of hand, but the deal was something more – it was an acknowledgement of changing global realities. The. U.S. invested a lot into the deal, being criticized by the non-proliferation community as being reckless, by some paleo-cons as being too indulgent with India, etc. But it was, in a sense, a bet by the U.S. that India was going to take a bigger role on the world stage. America bet on the wrong horse.
By failing to get the Communists in line, PM Manmohan Singh has shown he is an incompetent who cannot get things done. Under his watch, there have been no major arrests in high profile terrorist attacks, such as the Bombay train blasts of 2006 or the recent blasts in Hyderabad. Naxalites have free reign over parts of rural India. In the immediate neighborhood – the Maoists are close to seizing control in Nepal, Bangladesh is under military rule, and Sri Lanka is looking to Pakistan for weapons to deal with the Tamil Tigers. Pakistan has been a better neighbor lately, but that may have to do with its preoccupation with internal matters than any new thinking on their part.
On the economic front, reforms have stalled. With millions of young workers entering the labor force every year, Singh has failed to enact labor market reforms that can make those jobs available. Instead, all Singh managed to do was threaten the private sector with caste quotas. All that will do is ensure that the private sector will be as wasteful and unproductive as India’s public sector.
On the education front, primary and secondary education are still woefully underfunded, with absentee teachers collecting money for classes that are not taught. Rather than deal with this, Singh offers to expand quotas at university level, and increase the acceptance rate – which is likely to lower standards.
By being adamant in their opposition to the deal, India’s Communists have blocked India from having access to Western technology that their paymasters in China already enjoy. Someone is popping champagne in Beijing, seeing their Indian puppets carry out their bidding with such effectiveness.
When Singh first became PM, it was thought that since he was not a career politician, he would not be as beholden to special interests. He’d handle the policy, and Sonia Gandhi would handle the politics. By not having any experience on how to keep parties in line, Singh was a poor choice for prime minister. Nitin Pai at The Acorn is calling for his resignation.
Am I over-reacting? I’d like some feedback from the India-based readers.
Hey KXB,
Im not India-based, from my perspective as an Indian-American, I think you’ve hit it dead on. There were great risks taken by American administration in reaching out to India in this manner. This deal irked major non-NATO ally Pakistan and major trading partner China very much and was a recognition of India’s greater stance in the world community. I understand Indian sentiment against the Iraq invasion among the Left, but did they not see how this made India strategically stronger? If anything there was a ruckus in the American Congress in the leeway given to India in this deal which will now likely never come to fruition.
I’m just throwing this out there, but after reading about a celebration that the Indian communist party had for china celebrating its annexation of Tibet either this year or last year , does anyone think that the party or elements of the party have become tools of the Chinese state?
Indian journalist Manoj Joshi speculates.
KXB, I’m not India-based either, and I also hope India based readers and bloggers will chime in.
I agree with the way you have laid out the issues and their implications. The nuclear deal is about much more than just India’s energy needs.
It really does appear now that the nuclear deal has been set aside because the Congress party, and Sonia Gandhi in particular, does not feel ready for elections right now. I wish I could say that by waiting a year, they could take this ‘to the people’ when they are in a stronger political position. The only trouble is, even if elections are held in 2009 – both the overall parliamentary result, and the status of the deal might not change much.
Any new coalition, even if it is led by the BJP and its allies, will also result in attempts to renegotiate the deal. They too have expressed ‘nationalist’ objections. Even more, the nuclear deal and all its implications is not something that can be ‘taken to’ India’s huge 600 million + strong electorate. So the whole thing is very very depressing.
While I would also have been disappointed if the deal were rammed through without scrutiny, I note that the CPI-M has only 43 seats in the Lok Sabha of 545 members. There are as many as 81 members who are neither with the ruling coalition nor with the BJP. I am absolutely stunned that the government would not seek, or would be unable to muster the support of even half these ‘undecideds’, on a deal as big as this.
Among other things, the present imbroglio also highlights the fact that India’s present system of democratic governance is becoming increasingly unworkable, though reforming it to ensure increased represenativeness as well as workability is currently on nobody’s agenda.
True, the American administration took risks in reaching out to India in such a manner, but for what purpose? If some leaders in India are suspicious of that purpose can we blame them?
Just see the covert and overt ways in which the American administration either starts or supports conflict in various regions around the globe. I would be suspicious too, and I’m an American!
To answer your first question – no one, not even the Indian proponents of the deal, believed the Americans were behaving out of altruism. The purposes were many, but one is easy to guess – the U.S. does not want to see Asia dominated by China.
As for the second question – that is why the Communists did not like it. In a choice between advancing India’s interests or protecting China’s, the CPI and CPI-M have always chosen the latter.
KXB,
It is possible, that (as Ruchira’s link to Manoj Joshi’s article implies) that this is a face saving formula (farce) between the Congress and the Left.
To give the left a room to back off. But this symbolic backing off might backfire on Congress’s face, as BJP will capitalize Congress as a weak government.
Maybe, the Indo-US nuclear deal will go through quietly.
Technically, Congress never needed the support of the Left on the deal, and but it came to that they had threatened to pull their support.
Kush,
I just read the link, and I hope what Joshi writes pans out. But I am concerned that this may be yet another one of India’s false dawns.
While there may be better analysts than me about the intricacies about forming a coalition in government, one which seems to be a no-brainer is to end the practice of “we will support, but not be an official part of, this coalition”. That allows a minority party to have veto power, but no responsibility. Because, if one of the Communists were given a portfolio, such as Agriculture or Transport, then they would have to demonstrate some ability to run a department, and thus leave a record which voters can judge them on. But, this way, they are unaccountable. As chachaji pointed out, allowing 41 members of Parliament to hold up the rest is no way to run a government.
I am sure US is aware of such bottlenecks. Thats what you expect when you are dealing with a truly democratic nation.
Does anybody remember Deve Gowda’s Govt. being pulled down because of support withdrawl of Congress? I always wonder about the seeming sense of decorum in India, inspite of blackmail coalition politics.
To clarify, when I say there is sense of decorum, its only on surface. I dont think that there is any cohesion in aspects of governance.
Its only that common people who find ways to get their lives on – if things are like that in any other society, there would be a huge revolution.
It was a big screw up by Dr Singh and co. The deal definitely seemed to have greater implications than energy. But the Govt handled the whole thing badly, it seemed like the details were not disclosed till the last minute and then pressure was put to get it passed. This irked the opposition which in the grand scheme may not be important but played its part in the drama.
Also, a lot of noise has been made that the communists were creating all the fuss because they are Chinese puppets. But if there are valid concerns, I think it was immaterial why the communists were protesting as long as there were valid concerns. Here is an old article and a new one.
For once the guys at National Interest may have a point, since the respectable Dr Singh has disappointed a bit recently. But then the question would be, if not him then who, pray not Rahul Gandhi and pray not some BJP goon.
The congress is a weak government, what with absurd populist policies and as KXB pointed out, they are failing in so many areas. Sadly the options are nothing to write much about.
KXB, with some googling, I learnt that the PM spoke at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit yesterday and had a very candid exchange with the attendees, including journalists, foreign instutional investors, even some politicians. A very small part of the exchange was reported in the print media, and the quote at the beginning of your post is from that exchange. The MC exclaimed that the exchange was one of the most candid the PM has ever been involved in. I would agree.
The video of the speech as well as the exchange is available here. The speech can be skipped – partly because he reads it somewhat dryly, but also, the audio is bad during most of the speech, though the video is clear. But both are clear during the exchange, which begins around 30 minutes into the clip and lasts for about 15 minutes. I thought it a well spent 15 minutes, and you can see the body language, and get the full context in which he makes the remarks quoted above.
After having seen that exchange, and read Manoj Joshi, I am not feeling as low as I did earlier! Nitin Pai may be over-reacting.
So what happens to the mangos?
KXB – All great points. Manmohan’s term is an unmitigated failure. Besides the emergency period during Mata Indira’s reign, observers will rightfully consider his tenure as disastrous for the Republic. As for his honesty canard, that is just that…a canard. While I cannot prove it, will go down in History as the worst Prime Minister in Indian history. Also, I never bought into the whole honest Manmohan canard. I know of several businessmen and journalist who will tell you otherwise. And, lest we forget – he was knowingly serving a very corrupt regime, which makes him equally corrupt.
ps – it is high time indians started placing their nation ahead of their leaders, however “honest” or non violent.
KXB – The fourth and fifth line in my comment, from “As” to “history” is a typo. please delete, if you can.
KXB, good analysis. Just one thing: Manmohan may not be incompetent as much as he is powerless. It’s a pity that one should have to say that about a prime minister, but there we are…
KXB, Here is another take….We already know that even after India-specific safeguards are passed by NSG there is going to be great deal of opposition to the approval of the deal by US congress ( primarily by NPT friendly Democrats led by Senator Markey and influential non-proliferation/arms control ayatollahs ). There is also a slim chance that one of the most vocal supporters of the deal, Bush and his Republican flock ( including Singh and UPA montage ) will not survive the 2009 elections. So it makes sense to delay the deal so that it doesn’t get stuck in the muddle of elections and/or new govts ( primaries begin in Jan 08 )
KXB, I find a certain lack of precision in your post, which is somewhat disturbing. I am not sure whether that stems from the exigencies of blog-writing, or whether your post has an anti-Manmohan agenda that has been provoked by Manmohan’s peculiar leftiness (for the want of a better political term). I honestly don’t mean this as a criticism of the motivation behind of your post — I am frankly curious to know the angle from which you are approaching this.
Moving on to what I am criticising: first consider your assertion, “On the economic front, reforms have stalled.” If the primary evidence for that assertion is the link off of that statement, I think it is uninstructive and imprecise. Based on the point of the Reuters story, it would be more valid to deduce that reforms never truly happened in India! What your one-line assertion ignores is how the present government has quietly been working to reduce the size of the Central Government bureaucracy (mostly through attrition, and through veeeery graaaadual amendments to the Central Govt. Service Rules) — a venture that, in India, must necessarily stay below the horizon of the news radar. I use the qualifiers “in India” and “necessarily” because making waves would have such an impact on the Central Govt. Employee Unions — which in India are all a part of this or that political party — that the whole venture would be politically tainted for at least an entire decade. On this one issue, people on the ground feel that the total absence of posturing, and a certain gradualism, that Manmohan brings to his cabinet has been more effective in bringing about (slow) bureaucratic load-shedding than any other previous attempt.
The roots of this particular malaise lie not in the wimpiness of the Manmohan administration, but in the fact that administration is split between the Central and the State bureaucracies. The State Government bureaucracies are truly f@#ked up, and how those Augean stables can be cleaned is a whole another story.
I completely agree with your analysis on the state of primary and secondary education.
As for this statement: “Under his watch, there have been no major arrests in high profile terrorist attacks . . .” — I’m afraid that to use that criticism against this or that particular government, as opposed to governments in general, puts you squarely in what I call the Feelings Faction or the Moods Majority. All recent Indian administrations — and several non-Indian administrations too (most notably the Tony Blair administration) — have failed at revamping those organs of Law Enforcement that would lead to a qualitative improvement in the acquisition and processing of human intelligence (most recent anti-terror arrests by more “proactive” governments elsewhere have been either low-value or dubious). Manmohan Singh’s cardinal sin seems to be that not only does he dislike the bellicose, priapic, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach to terrorism that results Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo, or in the surprising number of terror detainees that were put behind bars solely on the basis of their religion (by both BJP and non-BJP administrations BTW), but that he (i.e. Manmohan) publicly voices his discomfort with that approach.
Speaking as someone whose course of life has been irretrievably warped by an act of terrorism, but who is extremely uncomfortable at what gets enacted in the name of survivors’ rights, I don’t buy your contention that the Manmohan administration’s anti-terrorism record is inferior to that of previous administrations. If, however, you are merely suggesting that the Manmohan administration has shown no improvement, then you are perhaps correct.
You asked whether you are overreacting. Either that, or yours is a case of seeing the (very teeny-tiny-sized) cup as half empty as opposed to half full.
“Rather than deal with this, Singh offers to expand quotas at university level, and increase the acceptance rate – which is likely to lower standards.” – there are many people who get into these universities by paying money( paid seats ). I know a few. These people lower the standards then quotas since they just want a degree thats all!
While my sentiments are largely with KXB–Desh cert. needs improved electricity supplies, & it’s difficult to think of a better partner for Desh than the US (maybe Japan…), it may be worth pointing out that the actual “agreement” seems, on a first read by me, to be awfully vague, and not really commiting anyone to do anything–also, India & US can do any of this stuff without the formal agreement, on a case-by-case basis–so, keep hope alive!
A couple of things have been bothering me about the nuke deal– it seemed like another sale of technology that s soon to become obsolete, like old warplanes. With Al Gore on a streak, how far behind can solar energy be? And prospects for the petro-situation seemed precarious too. Ramchandra Guha says Travancore had enough monazite to try to set up as an independent state– what of that? Monazite for literally semi-antique technology(semi-antique meaning over half a century old)? I think a more pressing question is what is to become of the mangoes for Harleys deal? –which really would increase enjoyment for the few on both sides.
I’m quite surprised that no Mutineers have noted above that 2009 also means there will be a new administration in the White House. I thought Sonia was all ready to go with Rahul in the hot spot (although Jyotiraditya Scindia could give him a run for his money) so something must have come in the way. Fascinating. Enquiring minds want to know.
That was last summer over here if I recall correctly. That same practice was more formalized here– legacies may have lost some footing in admissions policies lately, but the custom of preferred admission for the offsprung is old, assuming the alum parents fork out when the hat is passed, and a string is very much pulled here and there, right here in these United States, to get one’s non-performing brat in where one wants.
And “Amen!!” to that–$30 billion in the bank at Harvard & Yale can’t be wrong (Heh–I am partially tongue-in-cheek on this–but still, something is going right there–US univ’s still set the global gold-standard–let’s not be too quick to kill the “golden goose,” just because we don’t fully “get it”).
Overreacting would be putting it mildly. It is understandable that as an Indian American you might be a little sad or mad about this near miss on the “strategic” alliance between Indian and the US. But when you look at the deal solely from an Indian perspective, it is a scary thought that the Indian nuclear establishment could be put under hostage by a later American government if there comes a time when the US and Indian governments do not agree on something. On India missing out and “demonstrating again that India is not ready for the world stage”, i think you are being a little naive their. India does not follow the American way of making its presence felt on the world stage, instead India needs to develope its own method of foreign engagement which has to take into consideration domestic sentiments.
On your perceived role of Communists in India, you should understand that the communists are the third largest party in India and represent the sentiments of a sizable population. They have legit arguments made by very Indian people about very real concerns for India. They may seem anti-American to you but they are very pro-Indian.
First a disclaimer. I am not based in India per se, but am an FOB in the US.
Regarding the 123 Agreement: Although in principle, I would like India to attain a de-facto P5 status in the nuclear club of the world, and do beleive that it is in both India’s and US’s interest to co-operate in the Nuclear arena, I do not see the 123 agreement (as it stands) as a good way for India to proceed. I base my view on reading the exchange of views between Bramha Chellaney (a defense analyst critical of the deal as it currently stands) and Kapil Sibal (a government minister and former spokesman of the Congress Party). I could find one part of the above at
http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/19/stories/2007091955491300.htm
interested readers can dig out the previous two parts.
Regarding Manmohan Singh (indian political rant – tnagential to the main topic, feel free to ignore):
It sometimes hurts to be so right and on the money. When he became PM, almost all of my grad school buddies were very happy that we now had such an “educated” PM. My take on it was “I fear to have such a coward as the PM”. And why did I think of Manmohan Singh as a coward? Because I rmember when he was given the power to implement the free-market reforms of 91, he took the right decisions. So he knew very well what should be done. Yet all through the 80s, he had advised “Indira-ji” and “Rajiv-ji” on economic policy, and presumably told them what he beleived they wanted to hear (as evidenced by the socialistic policies that we kept following). He either did not care enough for those impacted by policies (the “aam junta”) and/or was too much of a weakling to “push through” any policy that he knew was right – but which went against the worldview/interests of his “mai-baap” (the people on whom he depended to draw his power and perks). And in the kaledioscope of interwoven special interests that is India, it would be disastrous. And lo and behold: our “educated” PM has not dared to challenge in any way shape or form the assault on the educational institutions in the name of “reservations” and “social justice” by politicians who draw their votes from castiest sentiment – and hence viscerally dislike the caste-conciousness free atmosphere of meritocratic educational institutions. I rmember the colum i read (in TOI perhaps) – but could not find the original link. He’re a reproduction though
http://social-equality.blogspot.com/2006/06/letter-from-obc-iitian.html
And yet, to this day, Manmohan Singh almost universally respected – especially among the more educated classes. Frankly, we get the government we desrve.
What’s the relationship between the India-US nuclear deal and ‘reservations’ ?. I see commenter after commenter railing against ‘reservations’. If reservations are treated as an assault on academic institutions, I welcome that assault.
But then the question would be, if not him then who, pray not Rahul Gandhi and pray not some BJP goon.
The last BJP government was a good manager of the economy and strategic issues. They privatised a lot of inefficient public sector enterprise, carried out the nuclear test, defended India and showed leadership in the Kargil War, put great emphasis in building the relation with USA and Israel. You cannot use a single event, the 3000 or so dead muslims in the post godhra riots to judge the six years of good economic management. It was a good government after a long interval filled with disasters such as VP Singh, Chandrashekar, HD Deve Gowda and I K Gujral.
The communist party in India have their historical reasons for not supporting this deal. But who can blame anyone in the world right now for taking a position as simple as let’s not touch anything US foreign policy related with a ten foot pole right now. While in India one can feel the bitterness towards the US. Can you blame some people for not wanting to partake in a watershed deal with a US regime that will be remembered by history as the biggest thuggery that ever was after WW2? I just never ever want to see our Prime Minster shaking hands with George Bush in a picture that would look like he was grateful to him.
I recollect that serveral ammendments were made to the 123 agreement that were against Indian interests (I am not reffering to the Hyde act here). Can Anyone provide more information on what these were when the bill passed?
26 · Samir:
Don’t see how Rahul Gandhi would be worse than Manmohan. Power without responsibility (as the Nehru-Khan-Gandhis have today) seems worse.
Check your sources — you’re way off. Incorrect information leads to tainted perspectives and wrong opinions
you want to hear it from an “india based” someone?ask someone who is sticking to the ‘base’ like glue for ages now,much as s/he would have it otherwise,about what they think of the deal.i have a feeling they don’t think much of it. forget china,i am just glad america isn’t getting to be the puppeteer this time.for now. you are right about the reforms and education bit,of course.but”keeping parties in line“?certainly doesn’t smack of democracy. as for the private sector,wonder if it’s more threatened than threatening. @sandeep:bang on target!
Another thing, KXB, and this time I must be less polite than in my observations @ comment #18. It is a bit offensive when an SM post carries statements like this (emphasis mine):
This is offensive at two levels. Unless filed under “Humor”, a post on SM is not expected to be a purveyor of unverified innuendo like the statement emphasised above. The CPI, for a long time, had senior members in the party leadership who were in the pay of the KGB. However, there is no history of similar links with China. Whatever be your or my issues with the CPI and the CPI-M, they must not manifest themselves in an SM post (SM is not the DrudgeReport or a blog collective of that ilk) that alleges — without any links to credible sources — that members of a mainstream political party are in the pay of a foreign power. Granted that SM is not a news outlet, but it has not chosen to go into innuendo either.
But what offends me more than the above is the “having access to the Western technology” bit. Firstly, in the last 15 years, it has been the uppitiness of the U.S. that has prevented India from having access to Western technology, rather than political sabotage at home. Secondly, Indian science is not such a basket-case that it desperately needs infusion of Western technology, as your statement seems to suggest. The Indian science establishment, like that of any other country except the U.S. (whose science establishment is remarkable), is made up of equal numbers of bright and earnest scientists, smart and world-weary slackers, and out-and-out scoundrels. The amazing failure of the Indian atomic-energy establishment stems from the fact that it largely comprises scientists from the latter two categories. Similarly, the success of the Indian space programme stems from the fact that most ot its members are drawn from the former two categories. Both case-studies can be well understood without invoking either “superior western technology” or Communist subversion.
BTW, I strongly suspect that the reason behind the Indian atomic-energy establishment’s opposition to the 123-Agreement (before the sudden and timid volte face by Anil Kakodkar) had everything to do with the fact that specific provisions of the agreement would have revealed the extent to which it had, through the years, parasitised unaccounted amounts of public funds.
PS in #25 – That was a rant to highlight this Governments weakness to bring about a radical change for the better, please ignore. And I am actually quite pro affirmative action, but not the kind we are practicing in India at the moment. That needs to be changed and improved. I digress so let’s drop this.
The last few years they seem to have lost direction, they seem to be trying to rely even more on the saffron card and their up coming leadership leaves a lot to be desired. They seem to be very different from the BJP government which ruled a few years back.
Seriously? If anything, the dumping of this deal by the commies shows how robust the Indian democracy is, compared to the presidential thugocracy in the US. Instead of meekly appeasing the executive that does not even need legislative ratification to ram this treaty down, the CPI is, for once, doing the right thing and protecting India’s national interest. I understand that this is an American blog, and therefore your loyalties probably lie in protecting America’s national interest which lies in subjugating India’s nuclear capabilities of which this deal is an instrument. However, from Indian perspective, this is deal is an unmitigated disaster.
Here’s a few statements from the CPI(M)’s website on the nuclear deal where they articulate their opposition to the deal: AN OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT On the Indo-US Bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
Guess what – these are the same concerns expressed by BJP and other nationalists at the other end of the political spectrum. Here’s the three part series exchange between Brahma Chellaney – a nationalist defense analyst – and Kapil Sibal, a Congress minister (DB pointed to part 3 in #24, I found all three on Brahma’s blog):
Questions raised by the 123 Agreement 123 Agreement: A Response to Brahma Chellaney 123 Questions Won’t Go Away – A Rejoinder
Brahma’s blog has many other excellent analytical articles, some of which are: Put Nuclear Deal On Hold In A Nuclear Bind Wool Pulled Over India’s Eyes
As the CPI has rightly pointed out, if the deal had to be ratified in the Indian parliament, it would be resoundingly defeated. Unfortunately, it’s a shortcoming of the Indian Constitution that gives the executive the privilege to sign a foreign treaty without legislative ratification. What CPI has done is to use its power to prevent the executive from ramming a bad deal in the absence of a parliamentary power to block it even though it is not supported by a majority of the MPs.
If the left and right coming across the party line to prevent abuse of executive privilege is not true democracy in action, then I don’t know what is. Compare this with the lying Colin Powell and his dog and pony show at the UN, or the Democrats including Hillary Clinton meekly surrendering to the thug-in-chief to wage an illegal war and kill half a million innocent civilians. Compare this with the US Congress destroying the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans in the name of a phony and endless war on terror instead of standing up to a corrupt, incompetent and dishonest executive. Compare the Indian media’s strong expression of dissent over the deal with the lying propaganda machine of the US media that created a freak show out of playing the war on TV.
But I guess poor Indians are so not ready for the world stage until they learn lessons in democracy from the great US of A. NOT.
BTW, I am completely in agreement with those who think that Man-moron Singh has been a complete failure as a prime minister of India and that communist parties are, in general, thugs and louts with nothing positive to contribute to the future of India. So, by and large, I agree with the main premise of the post. However, the nuclear deal is the wrong stick to beat the commies with as they are, surprisingly enough, doing the right thing. I am speculating that it is more or less an accidental by-product of their anti-Americanism and pro-Iranism stemming out of muslim vote bank politics. Still, fair is fair, and it must be acknowledged that what they have done is actually good for India’s national interest.
Most people knew that the Manmohan Singh (Congress) led government was weak coming in. To it’s credit it has been able to keep economic reforms going. The fact that they overreached their ability in trying to get an Indo-US Nuclear deal was based on getting support from the BJP as well. That the deal is stalled at the moment is not an indication of a meltdown, but an inherent reflection of the flaws in the deal that it’s benefits are not very convincing to a lot of parties and people. I would be happy if it dies prematurely, but have a feeling that it would be revived and the deal would go through to India’s long-term detriment.
The Nuclear Deal has nothing to do with India’s standing on the world stage. If anything, it would have weakened India’s independent standing and would make India a client state of the US.
As for caste based reservations in the private sector and pandering to muslim sentiments, it is the worst face of the Congress in line with it’s vote-bank politics and has nothing to do with foreign policy or nuclear deals!
In summary if you looking to give a report to Manmohan Singh’s administration it would not be a ‘meltdown’ but ‘par for the course’ of what was expected.
In su
KXB, I am not sure on what your credentials are, but a lot of what you have written here, shows your lack of understanding on how India works.
To start off, the past decade, Indian voters have been split when it comes to electing people to power. The growth of regional parties and lack of voters have been major contributors. Another ill timed election will have serious consequences for India.
One of the important reasons the US pursued this deal was to balance the power in Asia. In fact very recently there were joint military exercises between India and the US that irked China. To say that the US invested a lot is the half truth. India did too.
If you look at India’s stance towards the US, they have never been too comfortable. In fact when the Tsunami hit South Asia, India refused US help.
Given such a stance (and it has been the same way throughout history) it was amazing that we opened our doors and we engaged in dialog. You cannot expect us to jump into bed when you are ready, there is also the part where you want to dictate terms.
Also, I think India earned this. Out of all the developing counties if one can be trusted with technology, it is India. Sure we have our flaws, at least we are not secretly selling ammunition.
Like you quote else where, Singh is not a career politician, but no matter who was in power, this deal was never going to go take off as easily as people assumed. Most issues you have pointed out here have always existed. Given that Nepal, Bangladesh and Burma are all having trouble at the same time has focussed a lot of international attention to the region. The Sri Lanka problem has existed for over a decade, none of which, Singh is responsible for.
I would appreciate links. What economic reforms have been stalled? (The link you have now updated the post with red tape, not economic reforms) The growth that India was experiencing was never sustainable for a long time, talk to economists they will tell you. Although we produce a gazillion educated people, who enter the workforce every year, you will find that unless they come from a top ranking school, they skills in the world stage are lacking. A lot of it has to do with the lack of infrastructure and syllabus that is outdated. Again, problems that have been plaguing India for a long time, nothing that Singh could change in a few years at the helm.
India never depended on the public educations system. When you see news that a kid from a low-income family made it big, it is news, because it really is a wonder.
This is the only part of your post I agree with. But then again, India has been getting technology from Europe, particularly France. This deal failing is not good news for India that has to look else where to fix its energy deficit, more importantly, the ties between the two countries will be bitter for a while. Blame this on the Indian voter bank and the democratic system in India, some of it on Singh, not all.
Overall, this post shows that you are out of touch with reality, at least when it comes to India. I am thankful that none of the SM regular’s work on such sweeping and ill researched assumptions. To say that I am very very disappointed is an understatement.
Absolutely uncalled for.
Gujjubhai at #34, in re
Reasons please ? Just because Manmohan Singh does not talk the cowboy-capitalist talk that warms the hearts of the Indian business class, and he expresses sympathy for the parents of young men who have, owing to life’s circumstances, been presumed guilty of heinous crimes until proven innocent, does not make him a failure. At least he has not (so far, hallelujah!) ordered the release of convicted terrorists from prison. Or like one other Gujjubhai, given his blessings to a systematic pogrom (okay, that was a bit uncalled for; I’m sorry).
The test of an Indian PM lies not in whether he can maintain 9% GDP growth, or privatise everything in sight a la Boris Yeltsin, or whether the Indian Armed Services can stick it up a neighbour’s ar$e whenever it wants to. His mettle lies in whether he can do anything to alleviate the ugly, soul-sapping poverty of those Indians that have never had any experience of trade or enterpreneurship, and who will therefore not benefit from the (very) gradual exit of the state from the mercantile sphere. In this regard, Manmohan’s report-book is a mixed one. Manmohan’s record on improving access to quality schooling, which would probably have a far more lasting impact on poverty than government largesse, is dismal. On the positve side, his administration’s policies on rural credit* and on halting the diversion of power away from the farm sector for non-industrial uses have been first-class. Hardly reason to call him “Man-moron”.
GB, the reasons for MM Singh’s political failure are well articulated in Nitin Pai’s blog post that KXB linked to in the main entry. And, speaking of releasing convicted terrorists from prison, MM Singh actually did one better : he made the Congress’s chief architect of 1984 pogrom – the man whose armed mobs terrorized and brutalized Sikh population of New Delhi – his cabinet minister. MM Sing is a disgrace – how can he get the likes of Tytler to sit on the same cabinet table as him?
Amitabh, apologies for using the monicker – but seriously, MM Singh is an utter failure. He has lowered the dignity and prestige of the office of the PM of India and set a dangerous precedent of creating an extra-constitutional, unaccountable center of power outside that office, which dictates how the country is run without any democratic oversight.
Karthik,
People with IQ’s in the triple digits (I’m just sayin’) don’t need “credentials” to talk about India. Take your “license raj” inclinations, and your massively unwarranted condescension & stick ’em where the sun don’t shine.
Dude Gujjubhai, you call that well-articulated!?! Nitin Pai characterises Manmohan’s record as miserable, and the evidence he cites are his own blog posts, the views/conclusions of which are definitely open to debate. At my day job, we have a rather rude word for that!!!! But I shall refrain from lowering the tone. Let’s just say that Nitin Pai’s argument is rather unscientific.
GB,
Fine then..perhaps you’d find the rest of KXB’s post and many other comments on this thread enlightening enough to figure out why MMS is a failure. For me, his inclusion of Jagdish Tytler as a union minister was enough evidence of his moral bankruptcy that set the tone of his tenure right from the beginning of his tenure as a toady of the Nehru dynasty.
From what I understand, India’s bullish market is not impeded in the least bit.
Seriously, the chances of any Indian PM resigning is zero. And even if the experienced Manmohan Singh can’t deal with these problems, imagine what it will be like when Congress’s wet dream comes true, and Rahul, a man with no talents or attributes other than being considered as a King with a divine right to rule, is somehow leveraged into the place of power.
First of all, it does seem a bit premature to write off the deal just yet. Some headlines had to come out of the Hindustan Times Summit, the MC acknowledged as much – and these were the ones they chose, nuance being the last thing that headlines lend themselves to. As Sonia Gandhi actually observed (and I never thought I would ever be quoting her on anything) – if they didn’t come up with sensationalist headlines, nobody would read their paper. At which everybody on stage and in the audience had a big laugh. But it’s true, so let’s not get too worked up about it all, just yet.
BTW, for those who have time and are so inclined, the link I posted above has videos of remarks by, and detailed exchanges with, a number of major players, including an hour with Finance Minister Chidambaram, an hour with Sonia Gandhi, an hour with Shah Rukh Khan (the most impressive of the lot, and it really changed my mind about him, and the Indian film industry in general – it was also, understandably, the most well-attended session. Someone actually asked him about the Nobel Prize for IPCC and Raj Pachauri, and what the fact that he didn’t mention it in his remarks means for how India markets itself and its products in the global market. Very interesting). Shorter segments with Dr. El Baradei (who, it turns out, is a lawyer, not a nuclear physicist or engineer, a revelation that really made me sit up), and Imran Khan – whose segment gets cut off just as things get interesting. I hope they put that up in full.
For those asking what reforms are stalled, check out the Chidambaram segment from the videos.
To come to the deal itself – the point Amrita makes about choosing the most appropriate technology is absolutely bang-on. Solar and wind is proceeding ahead, but is not yet at the stage where large scale generating plants can be hooked into the grid. Wind is a little farther ahead, but both suffer from intermittency problems. Not every day is windy or sunny, even in India. 🙂 But as to thorium, yes, that’s a very good point, and India is already using thorium in its indigenous PHWRs. However, until the effective embargo is lifted, India cannot get access to the full spectrum of advanced technologies. Only after it has access can it can pick and choose – whether it is pure thorium reactors (currently it uses U and Th) or continue with natural uranium reactors (with Australian uranium), it doesn’t necessarily have to get light water enriched uranium reactors. That it needs to get anything from abroad is not a statement about Indian technology – it is a statement about Indian industrial capacity. India is ahead in fast breeder technology, but if so, when the embargo is lifted, it can offer this to the world on commercial terms. The deal is not one-way!
But the fundamental issue I see among people debating so many sides of this issue – is the conviction somehow that India is an entity completely independent of the world system, and all its decisions, whether internal or external, can be completely autonomous, that it can economically engage the rest of the world without also becoming an active strategic player and sharing in the world strategic consensus. Well, that’s flat out wrong. There is no such thing as absolute sovereignty, and any strategic space that is carved out for any nation, including the hegemon, is a complicated negotiation with the world system, and the nuclear deal is a way of developing such a strategic room for maneuver. Alliances can both create strategic space for you, and restrict those of others who wish you harm. Intelligent choices in such matters is what statecraft is about. An alliance with the US should not be seen merely as constraining India, but also as a way of influencing, even encouraging US policy, especially in those areas where the impact on India is geratest, such as the immediate neighborhood.
The fact that there is opposition to the deal from both the left and the right in India illustrates not some advanced strategic mindset but rather that both sides are still seeing the world through outdated ideological lenses. One of the CPIM bigwigs actually said that they ‘do not want India to become another Japan’, a statement that almost made me puke. Sure, Japan is under the US umbrella and has explicitly hosted US bases and does not have a completely independent foreign policy. But it is arguably the technologically most advanced country in the world, the second largest economy, and a very prosperous country that has also managed to preserve many aspects of its unique culture. I suggest these two things are not independent of each other, the second, in fact, largely follows the first. So if there is something India should very much want to become more like, it is Japan! So I simply don’t buy the CPIM silliness on this issue.
And just look at China – for the last 30 years, they have played ball with the US. For the first half of that period, they were actually on the team against the former Soviet Union! This de facto alliance enabled them to attract Western investment, and develop an economy that in PPP terms is already almost as large as the US. Today, in nuclear matters, they cooperate with the rest of the world across the board. Barely 40 years ago they were the nuclear pariah, after their A-bomb in 1964 and H-bomb in 1966.
And India cannot play this kind of ball with the world system? Why?
For me, his inclusion of Jagdish Tytler as a union minister was enough evidence of his moral bankruptcy that set the tone of his tenure right from the beginning of his tenure as a toady of the Nehru dynasty.
First, Jagdish Tytler resigned after the Nanavati Commission report. Let the law take its course. In a parliamentary democracy – be it India, Japan – they are pockets of zone of influence, even with your own party – and they have to be included to survive. That is why you see Arjun Singh, Sharad Pawar, Pranab Mukherjee all in the cabinet, even though they all are rivals, and have in past openly sabotaged each other. At one point, Sharad Pawar even broke away from Sonia Gandhi. In Japan, politicians who openly hate each other share cabinet to keep every zonal influence equally represented within the ruling party.
I think people are missing two most important points:
a) MM Singh is not a failure. In fact, he is perceived as pro-growth, and has taken some important initiatives. This comes to core of the present situation – coalition politics. You can do so much within the confines of very varying support groups, and yet survive your government to full term. Most of the aggressive growth policies are shuttled by communist partners*. Coalition politics, like Italy is here to stay in India. It has its pluses and minuses.
** This comes to someone raised that communist are never close to Chinese – in fact, they are very close, especially CPI (ML), and history tells you in Tibet crisis, 1962 Indo-China War, Naxalite movement. In past, some of the communist group openly derived support from USSR – Read Guha’s India After Gandhi. This all said, they (communist) have very strong grass root support in West Bengal, and Kerala, and cannot be written off.
2) Now to Indo-US Nuclear deal – Indo-US Nuclear deal is a natural progression of global politics, and would come to fruition be it BJP or Congress. LK Advani did a 180 a month ago, he came out and supported the deal with minor modifications (Hyde Act), and also 123 agreement. I think BJP wants Congress to fall/ fail, snap polls being called, they hope they (BJP) comes to power, get the deal, and show that they are the only government that get controversial things seen through. Personally, I am not too much freaked out on MM Singh’s statement – He is playing politics (good for him), and is letting communist partners have an honorable stance or back off without loss of face.
The proof is that right now (few days ago) – IAEA chief was in India. His visit did not get delayed.
Kush, very good points.
@28
the first about rahul gandhi statement was a quoted from #11
IMF policies
The medicine IMF recommended to India in 1991 failed in Mexico, Argentina***, and Turkey.
They all went belly up.
*** Now Argentina is doing quite well but had some real crisis prior.
Why did it succeed in India?
It was combination of many events – nascent software outsourcing business (like TCS that had been doing contract work all over the world for ages) just mushroomed, Ireland had moved to tier I country so cheaper outsourcing like call centers were not viable there anymore, and India was a natural destination (english speaking), large number of software engineers, IBM thrown out of India (way before 1991) forced local computer industry to develop, and Y2K.
Condescension? You of all people is accusing someone of that? You are the only commenter here who feels the need to consistently remind everyone that you are a Yale Alum, nevermind the fact that half the bloggers and a solid portion of the regulars here ALSO attended an Ivy…and yet, they don’t feel the need to reference it constantly, which says a lot. Triple-digit IQs aren’t as infallible as you seem to think and anyone who relies on such a pointless contention to refute anything is essentially admitting defeat in a debate.
I humbly suggest you take your obvious insecurity and do similar with it. I’m sorry to mirror incivility with more, but enough is enough. I’m just sayin’. Perhaps next time you can draw on your Yale credentials to craft a better comeback.