It is fortunate that Indian democracy had a trust vote – crises help to identify, and eliminate, the rot.

The trust vote held on July 22nd was most likely a defining moment in Indian history. Inevitably, the occasion will reveal winners and losers, contours of which will become increasingly apparent in the next few months (and years). The trust vote, as we all vividly recall, contained some obscene scenes of ostensibly graft money being thrown on the parliament table. This caused a lot of media experts to writhe in agony and claim this was the most shocking day in their own personal lives and in the history of Indian democracy and the worst shameful hour in world democracy. Hello, hello is anybody there? What world, nee planet, are these self indulgent folks living in? Forgetting our own sordid history of yesterday and tomorrow, do these purity stalwarts know what happens in the democratic world elsewhere; just study USA and Italy. And since when was buying votes a new or different phenomena? Corruption by any other name is still corruption. This will go on; our role as believers in fairness, democracy, a level playing field, markets and full information dictates that things will get considerably better over time. Whether corruption and vote-buying will be eliminated - do not bet on it at all.

The numero uno winner, and by a considerable margin, is undoubtedly the PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh. By asking the opposition leader Mr Advani (one of the BIG losers) to change his astrologers and treating fairly, and contemptuously, the ranting of the left, Mr. Singh served notice that he was "mad as hell and was not going to take it anymore". Leadership is partly defined by fair emotions; the blackmailing activities of the Left, and the uncalled for, unfair, personal attacks on the PM, degraded everybody. By responding partly with the heart, and with hurt, the PM revealed confidence in his own leadership. By winning the trust vote, and by calling it like it is, Mr. Singh has served notice that he is an indispensable leader. India has changed twice in the last 61 years - in 1991 and 2008 - and on both occasions Mr. Singh was there, confidently leading the way. As they say, Hail to the Chief.

The second big winner was Omar Abdullah and the Muslim community. Many democracies are in search of tomorrow's leaders today - like Mr. Barack Obama. Twelve years ago, in 1996, Mr. Obama gave a speech at the Democratic convention supporting Bill Clinton as President. In 2008, there is a good chance that Mr. Obama will be President. Mr. Abdullah also spoke from the heart, with emotion, passion, and firmness. Just like Mr. Singh did in the speech he was not allowed to deliver. The opposition, led by the Left, had equated, in their usual don't confuse me with logic fashion, that as a Muslim one should vote against the nuclear deal. Omar reminded these certifiers that he was both a Muslim and an Indian and that he, unlike the CPM, saw no distinction between the two. If an Indian could support the deal, so could a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Christian, an atheist - and vice-versa. Don't be surprised if twelve years later, if not before, Mr. Omar Abdullah is the Prime Minister of India. If a Hindu, or a Sikh, can be Prime Minister of India, why not a Muslim or a Christian? Mr. Abdullah is India's Barack Obama.

The other winners, in alphabetical order, include Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, Mr. Brajesh Mishra, and Mr. Laloo Yadav. The Speaker, Mr. Chatterjee, deserves immense praise for his courage, humor, leadership, and for his passionate belief in democracy. Mr Rahul Gandhi, for wholeheartedly supporting the nuclear deal because it was in the national interest, and by convincing the old laggards, and nattering nawabs of yesteryear, within his own party. Mr. Brajesh Mishra, for being intellectually honest and for being courageous in defying the party whip. What he did, the BJP should have done. And Laloo Yadav wins because he is Laloo - and because he killed the opponents of the deal ever so softly!

All losers present a sorry picture, by definition. But this picture will worsen for many, and especially for the greatest loser, Mr. Prakash Karat, leader of the Communist Party of India, Marxist. The world has been littered by the political corpses of Communists over the last fifty years. In India, these self-appointed regulators of morality and policy have lasted longer than all others. No one likes a BIG loser, least of all politicians. Losing the trust vote by a big margin is worse. The future of CPM as we know it is in big jeopardy and we as Indians should be happy about the gift that Mr. Karat has just bestowed on India - with his likely departure, India will have a Communist party like any other in the free world.

The second BIG loser has to be the leader of the BJP, Mr. Advani. He managed to lose on several counts. It was his own party, and Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Mishra, who first charted the new Indo-American foreign policy, and the beginnings of the nuclear deal. Instead of taking  credit for a brilliant initiative, Mr. Advani, and his political party, showed extreme political naivete in changing course without logic and without explanation. Except for crass political expediency. . His unwarranted astrology induced personal attacks on Mr. Singh did not help either. Don't be surprised if before the next election, he, like his close competitor, Mr. Karat, is no longer the leader of his party. The third big loser is most likely Ms. Mayawati. How she could openly dream that not only would the government lose the trust vote but also that she would today be the PM shows worse political instincts than even Advani or Karat. Her misjudgment may be the first sign of the popping of the great Mayawati bubble. She also just may be the most hyped up national political leader of India.