news details |
|
|
| Senate approves N-deal with India | | |
B L KAK
The UPA government headed by Manmohan Singh said on Friday (Nov 17) that it was pleased with the long-awaited US Senate approval of a landmark nuclear cooperation deal but noted that some more key steps remained to be fulfilled. New Delhi's guarded reception of the news came hours after the Senate approved the controversial legislation by an overwhelming 85-12 vote.
The legislation allows civilian nuclear trade between India and the United States after a thre-decade ban by Washington. The government of India was jittery about thefate of the bill in the "lame duck" session of Congres, particularly after the Democrats, strong supporters of non-proliferation, swept elections to the chambgers this month. A top Indian offical, closely involved in negotiating the deal, said: "Of course we are pleased".
The official, who declined to be identifed as he is not authorised to speak to tghe media said: "The fact that it is done is good. But what this does is everytime a step is completed, it shifts our focus on to the next one that needs to be tackled". The deal now needs to be voted jointly by the two houses of the US Congress after they reconcile the separate legislations they have approved, followed by approvals from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group.
But the Senate action was considered critical to help allow India buy US nuclear fuel and equipment to boost its nuclear programme and meet its soaring energy needs under a deal that has become symbolic of the new friendship between the two countries. Strong doubts had arisen over the fate of the bill after the Republicans lost their majority in Congress as diplomats and analysts felt the Democrats could stall the bill until the new chambers sit in 2007 or introduce changes unacceptable to India.
Failure in the "lame duck" session would have meant the deal would have to go through the approval process all over again. Hours before the Senate debate started on Thursday, Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, spoke to the US President, George W. Bush, by telephone and urged him to ensure that the final version of the bill did not deviate from what they had agreed originally in principle in July 2005.
The Indian official said that there was little doubt over the bill getting approved as it enjoyed strong bipartisan support. "The real issue was whether the Senate could find time to meet and get this moving," he said. "That was really the challenge."
Most analysts agree that George W Bush is committed to the deal and would try to get it through in the lame duck session of Congress. Interestingly several Democrat Congressmen also believe that Indo-US relations have touched the influx curve where it cannot be substantially affected by changes in the party in power whether in Congress or in the White House.
Also, in the history of Indo-US relations Democrat Presidents have always been favourably inclined to India, but nonetheless Republicans have managed to do substantial business as well. Of course the worst in Indo-US relations have been at the time of Republican Richard Nixon when he sent in the Seventh Fleet into the Indian Ocean at the height of Indo-Pak war in 1971 to browbeat and even threaten India. However, it was during the Democrat President Bill Clinton that actual sanctions were imposed for exploding the nuclear device. That Clinton made a historic visit to India afterwards and became the darling of Indian legislators and masses alike is another matter altogether.
What is important is that Indo-US relations have moved away from the prism of the Cold War and the USSR. It has also moved away from the hyphenated Indo-Pak equation, wherein every move by Washington towards New Delhi or Islamabad had to be counter-balanced against each other. Lastly, it has also moved away from the politico-ideological posture of free market economy vis-a-vis state controlled economy. Today India is viewed as an important ally for the US.
They share common political systems namely democracies and common enemies namely terrorism. But more important than anything else is the fact that the two countries are engaging each other increasingly in the area of business, finance and trade. Coupled with the dazzling economic growth of India and the headlines made by Indian businesses by acquiring companies abroad, the relationship is moving from strength to strength.
This is exactly the reason why several important Democrat Senators have already indicated that they would like to have the bill passed to continue to engage with India. This is especially because while the Republicans have ignored the human rights record of China to woo Beijing through trade, the Democrats have not been so generous. Also the US now sees India as a very important balancing weight to China's ever-growing economic and military power. pronouncing his guilty or not guilty verdict.
In the latest twist to the tales, one of India's best known criminal lawyers, Ram Jethmalani, rocked the media waves with his decision to defend Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lal case. It has already had all sorts of dramatic elements ranging from witnesses turning hostile to people holding candlelight vigils asking for a retrial-- which, of course, was granted.
The media, the world over, is being redefined, with conventional takes on journalism, reportage and objectivity coming up for scrutiny more than ever. Activist journalism is quite common as is inserting and injecting small doses of opinion within news reports. It has become largely accepted and understood for reports on social issues and causes to toss out the different sides of the story bit.
However, media activism extending its long tentacles into the tricky terrain of criminal law becomes a matter of great concern. Jethmalani is under enormous fire for having taken on Sharma as his client. What is alarming is the arguments posed against the lawyer: Manu Sharma is guilty, the wise men and women of the media say. It is a different matter that the Indian judiciary system is in desperate need of a serious makeover. And it is probably true that Sharma is guilty, but India is a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, and are entitled to a legal representative.
So what is wrong if Sharma hires the best in the land given that he can afford it-- though Jethmalani has repeatedly insisted he is doing it for free. The defence lawyer, therefore, cannot be condemned on that point. The point of contention that Vir Sanghvi has finally highlighted in his Hindustan Times column is that sure Jethmalani has the right to defend Sharma.
But, the lawyer has publicly given up practising law and always remembered to remind the world that he "wants to use his legal prowess for the national good and to help the weak and powerless". So, representing a client, who is rich and pretty well-networked and taking on a case that is not even remotely associated with the country's well-being seems flimsy as an argument--even if it is from India's top lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
