From day one of the 123 negotiations the Bush administration conceded that this bilateral agreement would be - in the prevailing American jargon - “India specific”. In plain English, this meant that India’s case is an exception, that the US administration recognised and accepted this, particularly in view of New Delhi’s unblemished record of non-proliferation despite its non-membership of the NPT. Early on this point was quite persuasively made by the administration in its talks with Congress. It called for an element of trust which is precisely what the Hyde Act has failed to provide specifically on testing, reprocessing and guaranteed fuel supplies trust plays no part, and under the Hyde provisions the final word on these crucials issues will remain with the President of the United States.
US negotiators claim that the Act has deprived the administration of some “flexibility” but they also argue that it has to conform. So have we here a situation in which the Act and the Bush government are really of one mind, and that Hyde is being invoked to push India into line? Blame Hyde not us is the message from Bush, together with the clear implication that there is no room for exceptions and if trust is a factor it is New Delhi which must do the trusting.
Pranab’s loyalty at stake
It is in this context that the external affairs minister’s comment in a TV interview is of more than usual interest. Obviously addressing the US leadership and Congress he declared, bluntly, forthrightly and unambiguously that America was trying to “transfer your problems to us”. This is in contrast to the display of dithering, false optimism, and the under pressure anxieties the 3A ministry has put on since the 123 talks started.
It has the ring of a fully matured minister with a background of experience that has earned him key positions in the Manmohan government. It has the confident ring and a sense of direction which the conduct of foreign policy has lacked since Manmohan Singh was hand picked by Sonia Gandhi as the Prime Minister. Both in tone and substance his comment signals a determination and ability to speak out.
Yet his reputation of indispensibility has in it more than an element of equivocation. He has been shunted from one ministry to another and despite his qualifications for the post of deputy PM, even a tentative proposal for both the post and his appointment has been brusquely vetoed. Could it be that he is seen as too independent, too experienced and perhaps deficient in what the high command defines as “loyalty”?
Frenzy ruling the BCCI
Frenzy is the single word that adequately describes the atmosphere into which the BCCI has inadvertently plunged India’s cricket. Too many voices doing their own thing. Supposedly final decisions ignored or overturned. Too many axes being ground by factions attached to their private agendas. Too many pressures at work under-cover, “balanced”, as it were by a public display of differences. From day to day there is little evidence that the governing body knows its own mind. All of which is in shattering contrast to the relative calm and restraint to which English players and coaches are accustomed.
Are the seniors in control or the BCCI? Chappell’s widely publicised experiences have unnerved most foreign would-be coaches for the Indian team. No surprise then that barring Whatmore there is no screamble for a post that is now hopelessly undefined and exposed to hazards never before associated with cricket. Ford and Emburey came, saw and were disquieted. As Emburey tactfully put it “Indian cricket has a lot of external pressurese that a coach should not be made to face”. Elsewhere selectors are exactly what they are called, namely, people or a person authorised to select. The BCCI’s bottom line job is to ensure this instead of seemingly promoting a cacophony from which any coach of some standing will run away.
Questioning democracy
When Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, claimed that he is the world’s “purest” democrat he was provocatively saying various things simultaneously. One, that it is the essiest thing to describe oneself as a democrat. Two, that autocrats masquerading as democrats make a mockery of democracy. Three, that democracy is so flexible a concept that the attempt to foist one version of it on others is bound to fail. Fourth, that mindless testimonials in favour of democracy have been reduced to no more than a slogan to satisfy the demands of political correctness.
His response to a question whether Germany is an “impeccable democracy” was a hearty laugh. Here in India, with the sanction of the election commission, “security personnel will whisk away winning candidates to a safe place to ensure there is no horse trading”. In Washington there are hieaways for legislative deal-making. In Bhutan mock elections were threatened by Nepal based separatists. A permanent Parliamentary committee is to be set up in New Delhi “to keep an eye” on MPs.
Musharraf has his own ideas about what makes for democracy. Benazir Bhutto is eloquent on the subject of democracy but her record hasn’t helped to clarify what exactly it is and what it should be for countries outside the “liberal democratic” tradeition.
The crooked democracy
A poll the other day revealed that eighty per cent of Russians are “happy with strong rule”. In Britain the 1832 Reform Bill gave the vote to a small minority of the people and it was just under century before universal suffrage. That was Britain’s chosen path. There is no reason why others also should take it. Think of A J P Taylor’s comment: “It is an interesting reflection that the nearer the system gets to democracy the more crooked it becomes”.