| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Nuclear arms debate leaves Indian government on verge of collapse |
| 2008-07-22 |
| The Indian government and the much-vaunted nuclear deal it negotiated with George Bush in 2006 were last night on the brink of collapse after a bruising debate on a vote of confidence in parliament. The vote, due today, is so finely balanced that several infirm MPs will be brought in from hospital. Jailed parliamentarians, some convicted of murder, have gained temporary release to attend. Other MPs claimed they have been offered multimillion-pound bribes to vote. Smaller parties, which realise they hold the balance of power, have made extravagant demands. A regional party with three votes asked the government to rename an airport in north India after the party chief's father, Charan Singh, a former Indian prime minister. It got its wish, then announced it would be voting against the government. If the Congress-led government wins a majority of the 543-member house, analysts say it will limp on until next May, beholden to small parties many of which openly call for special favours for prominent businessmen who bankroll them. If the government loses, national polls will be held this winter, just as rising prices of food and petrol begin to bite. At the heart of the matter is a deal that would allow India to keep its nuclear weapons in return for international inspections of its civilian reactor programme. In effect, the government says, it allows the country to escape the nuclear non-proliferation regime which has denied it vital technology for decades. The crisis was caused by a withdrawal of support by the government's communist allies, who say the deal made India a pawn of Washington. The main opposition group, a coalition led by the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata party which calls the United States a "natural ally", says the nuclear deal limits India's ability to test nuclear weapons. Last night, Pranab Mukherjee, the foreign minister, predicted the government would win with a majority of five. The only certainty is the rise of Kumari Mayawati, an "untouchable" leader, who now leads a "third front" group of the regional parties. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #5 Also James Traficant. btw, Duke is pulling down a $64,000 pension while in the slammer and Traficant nicks the Treasury for a legal $40,000. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-22 21:05 |
| #4 Duke Cunningham |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-22 21:01 |
| #3 Old P, I am pretty sure we do have some jailed Congressmen, or at least did. The war hero from southern Cal comes to mind, for one, though I cannot recall his name. Now, we have many others who deserve such treatment, including (in my opinion, which should keep me from getting on THAT jury), our own William Jefferson. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-07-22 20:56 |
| #2 Why can't we have jailed congressmen, too? Posted by: Spot Because our government (may the fleas of a thousand camels, etc., etc.) is too corrupt to arrest them, prosecute them, hold them accountable, actually use the facts to determine guilt or innocense, and simply won't do it. I doubt there are three "honest" lawmakers in Congress, and there are probably 10%-15% of government employees that, if examined closely, could be found guilty of violating the laws of the United States. It is the biggest, most hushed-up problem we have with our government, and it's been going on since the days of George Washington. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-07-22 18:17 |
| #1 Jailed parliamentarians, some convicted of murder Why can't we have jailed congressmen, too? |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-07-22 08:03 |