Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:

The India-US Nuclear agreement (123) debate is furious in India. The coaltion government led by Congress party, and the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are finally determined to have a go at the nuclear agreement. The communist parties with about 60 parliamentary (Lok Sabha) members are about to withdraw their support to the coalition government but the Samajwadi Party led by Mulayam Singh with about 39 parliament members are all set to support the government.

There is ferocious finger-pointing and heated rhetoric in the Indian debate. Without considering the substance or merit of the agreement, I rate as follows the winners and losers of this debate. I rate on a 1-10 scale, 1 being a perfect loser, 10 being a perfect winner and 5 being no-loss and no-gain.

(1) Congress Party: I give a 5. By pushing aggressively for the consummation of the 123 agreement, the Congress party reinforces its standing as a national party which protects and furthers the country’s interests above its own party interests. But the near-collapse of the political alignments for (governance) now and for the forthcoming elections, and the great uncertainty about the final approval of the agreement by the U.S. Congress in good time, and the eventuality that even if the agreement is consummated the United States invokes the Hyde Amendment are too many potential negatives that it make it a 5 for the Congress party.

(2) Mrs. Sonia Gandhi: I give a 5 for the same reasons. The political downsides are too many. But I do laud her ability to put the national interest above the partisan interest.

(3) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh: I give him an 8. Even if the Congress party and its allies were to form the next government after the parliamentary elections, it is most likely that Manmohan Singh will be nominated/elected to be the Prime Minister again. Manmohan Singh is, most likely, concluding his serendipitous political life — first as much hailed reformist Finance Minister and now as the Prime Minister. Given these facts, how can there be a more lasting and memorable legacy than the consummation of this extra-ordinary nuclear agreement?

(4) The political allies of the Congress party: I give them a 5. What are their choices — be with the Congress party or with the other political party — BJP.

(5) Bharatiya Janata Party: I give an 8. The Congress party and its political allies won the 2004 parliamentary elections simply because their collection of parties was larger than that of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies. Take, for example, the state of Maharashtra. The coalition Congress party, the National Congress party led by Sharad Pawar and the Communist parties clearly outdid the combine of Bharatiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena. And so went the story in state after state.

But now the opposition to BJP and its political friends is now fragmented — most states are likely to witness a triangular contest with Congress and its friends as one contestant, the BJP and its friends as the other contestant, and the Communist parties and other small regional groupings as the third contestant. In such a fragmented contest, BJP is likely to benefit very substantially.

Add to this, the opportunity to woo the Muslim voters who are deeply suspicious of the United States — not unlike the Muslims all over the world after 9/11.

(6) Lal Krishna Advani: I give him a 9. For a man who is 80 years old and who is not seen as a statesman, and who was almost cast away by his own party after his favorable remarks about Jinnah in 2005, there is a remarkable turn-around in fortunes.

Melwyn Pinto SJ asked:


The writing on the wall is fairly clear: the days of single-party rule at the centre are over for Indian democracy. Today only a coalition government which can hold its partners together through thick and thin can hope to form a government at the centre. What has given rise to such development is the rise of regional parties which try hard to make their presence felt at the centre as well.

When Indian democracy had its first elections in 1952 there were hardly any regional parties. In fact, it was the Congress party which held its sway over the nation. Even in the sixties the national parties won nearly 90 per cent of seats. That trend has changed considerably today. In the 2004 general elections, regional parties won as many as 43 per cent of the total number of seats and national parties 57 per cent. Today there are 47 regional parties and over 400 smaller parties vying with one another for their share of pie.

It is not at all surprising that today two states are ruled by independent regional parties and in as many as eight states there is an alliance government of regional and national parties. In Tamil Nadu, for example, national parties have hardly a chance. The regional parties have dominated the scene since 1967. Andhra Pradesh was ruled by the Telugu Desham Party between 1983 and 1989 and between 1994 and 2004. Uttar Pradesh has also been ruled by regional parties for greater part of the last two decades. National parties do not seem to make any significant progress in their voters’ share in UP.

Whether such a trend is good for Indian democracy can be debated; but one cannot ignore the fact that in a large democracy smaller parties do have a place and also have a crucial role to play. It is possible that in the larger interest of the Nation, the local aspirations of people can be totally forgotten by national parties. It is here that local and regional parties can bargain hard to get fair representation of local needs.

Recently Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, said that regional parties were responsible for the backwardness of several states and that they lacked a national perspective, much to the ire of many regional parties. What he meant to say, perhaps, was that regional parties indulged more in regionalism rather than having a broader vision of the country. At times it is difficult to draw line between regionalism and nationalism. If a nation is a sum total of multi-cultural, linguistic and ethnic regions, regionalism is a natural fall out and cannot be ignored easily. Though regional parties try to draw greater political mileage out of regional issues, no one can deny the fact that all regions must be given adequate attention.

The other important aspect is that in several instances regional parties eventually grow to become national parties. The present Bharatiya  Janatha Party had its origin in the erstwhile Jan Sangh which was a regional party. The Bahujan Samaj Party is contesting independently in all Lok Sabha constituencies in these elections. The Left parties are no longer regional parties as they have their strong presence in several states and are contesting Lok Sabha elections in many states. Even National Congress Party and Samajwadi Party are contesting in several states. While regional parties want to strengthen their base in their core states, they also want to grow nationally as a power to reckon with.

The rise of regional parties can only be attributed to the failure of national parties to give due importance to the regional aspirations of people. While it may be true that regional parties fail to have a national vision and think only of their region, single party rule, as history has shown, can be authoritarian, caring little for the regional issues. It is here that the formation of the Third Front consisting mostly regional parties can make a difference. Combining both national and regional aspirations, though difficult, is not impossible. If they are able to put their sectarian politics behind and concentrate on more pertinent issues that trouble the country, indeed, the Third Front can bring about a breath of fresh air into the Indian democracy.