Printable View
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv...WEN20080058204Quote:
As the Indian Parliament debated the trust motion and the India-US civil nuclear deal that will decide the future of the Manmohan Singh government, common people in the national Capital on Tuesday said they were increasingly losing their faith in parliamentarians.
Will the Manmohan Singh government survive ???
Please excuse my ignorancce of the government system in India. What is the significance of the "trust vote"? Why does the survival of the current government depend on it? Are there term limits and then regular elections or does it work differently?
I'm very curious to learn more about the system there from someone there.
The Constitution of India, the longest and the most exhaustive constitution of any independent nation in the world, came into force on January 26, 1950.[33] The preamble of the constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.[34] India has a quasi-federal form of government[35] and a bicameral parliament operating under a Westminster-style parliamentary system. It has three branches of governance: the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
The President of India is the official head of state[36] elected indirectly by an electoral college[37] for a five-year term.[38][39] The Prime Minister is, however, the de facto head of government and exercises most executive powers.[36] The Prime Minister is appointed by the President[40] and, by convention, is the candidate supported by the party or political alliance holding the majority of seats in the lower house of Parliament.[36]
The legislature of India is the bicameral Parliament, which consists of the upper house called the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the lower house called the Lok Sabha (House of People).[41] The Rajya Sabha, a permanent body, has 245 members serving staggered six year terms.[42] Most are elected indirectly by the state and territorial legislatures in proportion to the state's population.[42] The 543 of the Lok Sabha's 545 members are directly elected by popular vote to represent individual constituencies for five year terms.[42] The other two members are nominated by the President from the Anglo-Indian community if, in his opinion, the community is not adequately represented.[42]
A Motion of Confidence is a motion of support proposed by a government in a parliament or other assembly of elected representatives to give members of parliament (or other such assembly) a chance to register their confidence in a government. The motion is passed or rejected by means of a parliamentary vote (a Vote of Confidence). Governments often propose a Motion of Confidence to replace a Motion of No Confidence proposed by the opposition.
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is the present ruling coalition of political parties heading the government of India. The coalition is led by the Indian National Congress (INC), which is currently the single largest political party in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the parliament of India). The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, and the Council of Ministers are drawn from members of the UPA. INC's President, Sonia Gandhi, serves as the Chairperson of the UPA.
The UPA was formed soon after the 2004 general elections, determining the composition of the 14th Lok Sabha. An informal alliance had existed prior to the elections as several of the current constituent parties had developed seat-sharing agreements in many states. However, it was only after the election that the results of negotiations between parties were announced and it became evident that the Congress's major rival—the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance—was not in a position to head the government.
Well Thank God - the Govt. has won the Trust vote.
Else another election would have been thrust on us.
Especially in this trying times in India when the inflation has crossed 11%
So, in a sense, it's like a vote for impeachment from congress. But, it's called a vote of confidence from parliament?
Thank you for the information. I also heard from a friend today that part of the problem here was that people were openly offering their vote for sale?
- Well - politicians are worst than prostitutes. They offer their soul along with the hole for anybody for a price !!!Quote:
I also heard from a friend today that part of the problem here was that people were openly offering their vote for sale?
The current deal, nicknamed the 123 Agreement, was championed by US President George W Bush and Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh as a way to bring the US and India closer, and also for India to do business with the cliquish club of international nuclear suppliers.
India is supposed to open up its 14 civilian reactors to international inspectors, and in return will be allowed to buy and trade nuclear fuel, reactors, and spares with the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. Its military reactors will stay off-limits.
The country's energy needs are vast - as its economy booms, the country plans to quintuple its nuclear energy production to as much as 40,000 megawatts by 2020. At an estimated $2.5 billion per 1,000 megawatts, the nearly 30 new reactors India will commission could signal the beginning of a "nuclear renaissance" which will benefit a host of domestic and international companies involved in their construction.
Sounds like a smart approach to energy. It's unfortunate that the US is so behind and hyperbolic on civilian nuclear energy. [We make the reactors for use in other countries but can't get past the partisan web to use them for ourselves.]
Power is a major hindarance in India and China because of the bludgeoning populations. They have to find ways to deal with it.
While the entire population in India(which is feeling the power crunch) was for signing the Nuclear deal with the US. The Left parties(Communists) were against any truck with the US and hence withdrew their support for the Govt. for which the Trust vote had to motioned.
Good the Govt. won the Trust vote and now its smooth sailing for the Nuclear deal. India can only gain from this and so can the US ! If only US-India would have got together two decades back then there would have been No Terrorism in the world !!!
Hehe. I agree that a lot of good can be done between US-India relations. But, why would that have prevented terrorism?
Well the Indian Govt. has been harping about Terrorism in the Kashmir valley for ages - but alas the US govt. always sided with the Pakistan govt. telling its a Freedom struggle. Too bad it took a 9/11 for the U.S to realize how far the tenatacles of terrorism had reached !
If India-US would have launched an offensive then to wipe out the terrorist camps operating within Pak-Occupied Kashmir - the world would have been a much peaceful place devoid of terrorism.
Kashmir is an important issue. I just don't see it as being the source of all terrorism. It seems like the extremism that is the culprit has been relatively mobile and has found roots in various countries and organizations before, during and after Kashmir.
I do know what the general sentiment toward Pakistan is in India, though. So, I know where you're coming from. :)
I do know what the general sentiment toward Pakistan is in India, though.
I am happy for this outcome in several ways:-
a) No early elections, meaning saving a lot of money that might have gone in elections.
b) Nuclear decision, though not very clear at this point, seems very positive for my country as more then anything else it will give power to those thousands of villages that suffer 4-12 hour power cuts.
c) I trust Mr. Manmohan as he's a very qualified and genuine leader, and the state of the country has been better ever since he has taken the lead.
- Well the Govts. have been quite cordial allowing for more citizens to travel over. There is a Train and bus service b/w the 2 countries. Pakistani artistes perform in India quite regularly. So there is no hate kinda thing like you would envisage.Quote:
I do know what the general sentiment toward Pakistan is in India, though.
Only thing we all want is for Pakistan to stop abetting Terrrorism. Well the dragon they fed has grown more than they can handle and is beyond anybody's control and spread its wings all over the world.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,3121933.storyQuote:
"This is not Charlie Wilson's war. This is Benazir Bhutto's war."
The dilemma for Washington has been heightened by U.S. officials' reported suspicions that Pakistan's powerful intelligence service, ISI, was involved in a July suicide bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied a connection to the bombing, though a government spokeswoman conceded Friday that "individuals" within the spy agency might be sympathetic to the militants and that Pakistan needs to "weed them out."
Administration officials worry that Pakistan's government does not have enough control over the military or ISI to take action against the militant extremists who populate the country's lawless regions near the Afghan border. "The problem seems to be growing faster than they can handle," a senior administration official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.