Etymologically, the word “coalition” means growing together. Whether one grows together or sinks together is anyone’s guess, since in everyday usage, a coalition is always a temporary alliance. Most interestingly, a side-meaning of the word “coalition” is a group of male lions that collectively drive off other male lions to mate with the females. Hence, one negotiates about ministerial berths, monetary payments, whether Ladakh can become a UT, winning back rebel Congress MPs from UP, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (Bishnoi from Haryana isn’t the only one), Somnath Chatterjee’s continuation as speaker (then he doesn’t vote) and other blandishments that aren’t in the public domain.

For those thus cultivated, there is an understandable calculation and trade-off. Elections are inevitable. If not today, nine months down the line. If the government continues and elections aren’t immediate, the timeline is more like six months. Are temporary (nine or six months) or one-off carrots sufficient compensation for possible electoral losses consequent to support on the nuclear deal? Public memory is short, but it isn’t that short. Siding with the UPA is also tantamount to endorsing what is perceived to be an aftermath of the UPA’s economic policies, inflation. Since this is an added negative, the price demanded could be higher. And to reinforce the point made earlier, the price demanded would have been lower not only in 2004, but also at any earlier point when there hadn’t been a crisis that increased incremental value of every vote. Look at it this way. The Congress leadership has been proved wrong on numbers in 1999. The euphoria about having numbers on July 7 was also premature. Is there some imagery in the PM making that statement on board an aircraft, 35,000 ft above the ground? On the ground, the vote is headed for a photo finish, with JMM, RLD, JD(S), NC, AIMIM, rebel Congress MPs and assorted Independents determining the outcome. Four issues emerge.

... contd.