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.

Alan Peter asked:


The issue of how gas from auctioned acreages should be priced, thrown up by a set of legal tangles between entities controlled by the Ambani brothers on the one hand and Mukesh’s Reliance Industries Ltd and NTPC, have divided policymakers. A number of MPs cutting across party lines and Congress functionaries have written to PM, Congress chief and oil minister opposing Andhra chief minister YSR Reddy’s demands on the issue.

Reddy has written a series of letters to PM on pricing of gas from RIL’s Andhra offshore field. These letters question the formula for working out the price, demand a preferential allocation for the state — which, industry analysts say is like a first right of use — and Central intervention in pricing.

Reddy’s letters have evoked protests from MPs representing the Congress, RJD, BJP, Samajwadi Party and the JD — several of whom are members of House panels on petroleum — and some Congress functionaries. The essence of these letters appears to have indirectly raised a debate over the country’s federal structure.

“…the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in a special reference case of 2001 in its judgment dated 25th March, 2004 clarified that only the Central government has exclusive competence to enact any legislation pertaining to oil and natural gas. Hence, the demand of AP Government on KG basin gas pricing and preferential allocation of gas is not justified and is unconstitutional,” says one letter.

The letters also oppose any move by the government to artificially cap prices. Such a move will amount to Centre going back on its promise of allowing investors freedom on pricing with government approval, hamper efforts to attract investments in exploration and reduce the government’s income from new discoveries.

Some letters point say Reddy’s demands amount to taking “ undue interest” in a corporate dispute and point out that demand for cheap gas is unfounded as many of the fertilizer and power companies are buying gas for a higher price from other sources.