Author: Editorial
Publication: Free Press Journal
Date: March 27, 2006
URL: http://www.samachar.com/features/270306-editorial.html
The Congress Party spokesperson, Abhishek
Singhvi, was one hundred per cent certain that the post of chairperson, National
Advisory Council, of the ruling UPA alliance was not an office of profit.
Singhvi iterated that most unambiguously on several occasions prior to the
resignation of Sonia Gandhi from the Lok Sabha last Thursday.
Simultaneously, she also quit as the chairperson
of the NAC. Singhvi, rewarded recently for his verbal 'services' to the Congress
Party by a seat in parliament, either did not care to consult the relevant
clause or was being a typical Congressman, uttering what he believed would
please his leader in the hope of earning a crumb or two from her table.
Not long ago, this Supreme Court lawyer had
intoned with a straight face at a press conference that Rahul Gandhi was a
'born leader.' Indeed.
The point is that when seemingly educated
politicians like Singhvi indulge in a cringing show of sycophancy, why blame
ordinary Congressmen for behaving in a self-demeaning manner? The manner in
which they have competed with one another from the Prime Minister down to
shower encomiums on Sonia Gandhi might mislead someone unfamiliar with the
past and present of the shameless flatterers and, of course, the flattered,
that the Congress supremo indeed was an epitome of the Mahatma and the Buddha
rolled into one.
Given the low-level of political literacy
in the country, as amply revealed by the sayings of a hotshot lawyer like
Singhvi, there is a real danger that the gullible among us might well come
to believe in the veracity of the panegyrics showered on her in the last couple
of days. But, truly, there could be nothing farthest from the truth.
For, there was not even an iota of 'tyag'
in her resignation. Consider the facts again. She did not resign when the
Jaya Bachchan case first hit headlines. Nor even after the EC recommended
her disqualification. The Opposition soon sought her disqualification on similar
grounds. Apart from heading the NAC, she also presided over the Rajiv Gandhi
and the Indira Gandhi trusts which were liberally funded by the taxpayers.
Indeed, the Congress response was typically
arrogant, suggesting that the opposition to her was all humbug. Singhvi's
cocky response in that case was illustrative. Now the TDP leaders upped the
ante, petitioning President Kalam to refer the case against her to the EC
for its opinion. The President revealed on Wednesday to an opposition delegation
that he had indeed sent all such petitions to the EC.
This caused panic in the Government. And with
Hansraj Bhardwaj as its law minister, the government came up with a novel
proposal to save her through an ordinance. And an apolitical PM did not appreciate
enough the wrong it would cause the parliamentary arrangement if he pointedly
bypassed while it was still in session.
Or, it may be, in order to serve his master
who had catapulted him in the prime ministerial `gaddi`, he was ready to ride
roughshod over all conventions and niceties. (For proof of Manmohan Singh's
actual conduct remember the Goa, Jharkhand, Bihar scandals, and, above all,
that give-the-Bofors-loot- to- the-Italian-crook Ottavia Quattorocchi scam.)
It is important to note that the President
had duly forwarded the petition against Sonia Gandhi to the EC on Wednesday
when the government abruptly adjourned the two Houses sine die in order to
issue the ordinance next day.
This is when the script changed. And her managers
came up with the stratagem of her resignation followed by a quick re-election
from the family pocket borough in UP. Of course, nobody would hold her accountable
for a needless expense being inflicted on the nation by forcing a needless
re-election. Tax-payers' rupees do not count for anything when self-centred
politicians play games for self-glorification. As for those rent-a-crowd rallies,
the party can always fall back on moneybags whose cause it has always served
while paying lip service to the 'aam aadmi.'
The Congressmen's crudity and their leader's
machiavellian powerplay aside, there is a need to have a fresh look at the
provision regarding office of profit. Given that most MPs and MLAs depend
for real 'profit' on various moneybags, given that the executive of the day
always manages to get its way in the legislature thanks to the anti-defection
law and the issuance of whips, etc., the quaint 1950s law needs to be removed
from the statute book altogether.
Whatever relevance the said law had in the
early 50s, it has lost it thanks to the dominance of the executive over the
legislature. Time and again it has been proved that so long as a government
enjoys majority support in parliament, it is able to get its legislation passed.
(For proof re-visit Indira Gandhi's Emergency.) The talk about the conflict
of interest or the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature
is pointless in our context.
Why, the legislature, including the two presiding
officers, were helpless when the Executive sprang a surprise on Parliament
and forced its adjournment sine die. It would be far more simpler therefore
to abrogate the 'office of profit' clause than to dangle it selectively in
a game of cheap tit-for-tat politics.
Which, you would appreciate, began when a
little known Congressman was put up to complain against Jaya Bachchan. The
rest, as they say, is history.
