With you always, but only to suppress you

 

(First published in The Pioneer dated December 26, 2012)

 

RAJESH SINGH

 

On Sunday morning, a young protester at India Gate asked me: “Where is the Prime Minister? Do we even have a Prime Minister?” I had no answer. On Monday, Mr Manmohan Singh made a televised address to the nation which proved that we have a Prime Minister, but only in name. In a bland lecture that is eminently forgettable, Mr Singh said the massive protests which have erupted over the gang rape and torture of a young girl in a moving bus in Delhi were justified and understandable. We didn’t need the Prime Minister to tell us that. We needed him to tell us who has been held accountable for the shocking and sad incident and what immediate steps is his Government taking to ensure that rapists are punished severely. Mr Singh’s message to the country was worse than what a dithering bureaucrat would have said.

 

Incidentally, the Prime Minister did not forget to mention that, as a father of three daughters, he felt the pain of the victim and her family. It has suddenly become fashionable for politicians to remind the people that they have daughters. A few days earlier, the thoroughly inept Union Minister for Home Affairs Sushil Kumar Shinde too mentioned at a Press conference that he had daughters and thus could appreciate the anger among the protesters. Not satisfied with that, he pointed to his deputy, Mr RPN Singh, and disclosed that the latter too had daughters — and we assume that he too, therefore, felt the pain as deeply as the senior Minister did. A few days earlier to Mr Shinde’s media briefing, prominent Trinamool Congress leader Derek O’Brien expressed his own bit of anguish over the Delhi incident and reminded the audience that he too was the father of a daughter. Of course, he had not felt the same pain over the Park Street rape case in West Bengal some months ago in the Trinamool rule, nor did he even squeak when the police officer investigating the case was unceremoniously shunted out and the rape victim made to undergo all sorts of humiliation.

 

Having daughters, or being a woman, does not seem to have made any difference in the attitude of public figures towards heinous crimes against women, and so they look hypocritical when they shed (crocodile) tears. Not too long ago, Ms Pratibha Patil towards the end of her tenure as President had reduced to life imprisonment the death sentence awarded to a convict who had raped and murdered a six-year old girl in Uttar Pradesh in 2001. She had also extended clemency to two other convicts who had gang raped and then brutally killed the 10-year old daughter of a jailor in the jail premises in Madhya Pradesh in 1996. Being a woman did nothing to stop her from letting off such inhuman criminals. So, why should we believe politicians when they say that they understand the grief and suffering merely because they have daughters or are women? 

 

Politicians have to be judged by their action. Let’s look at that action. When the street protests assumed a huge dimension in the middle of last week, the Prime Minister issued a statement that he understood the anger of the protesters, adding that the agitation was justified. Later, various other politicians in the UPA, from Ms Sonia Gandhi down, echoed similar sentiments. All of them promised action. And that action came, to be fair to them. On Saturday, more a dozen Metro stations were shut down so that protesters could not reach in large numbers at India Gate and Raisina Hill to conduct their peaceful demonstrations. Despite this, people in thousands found their way to both these locations. As the crowd continued to swell, the police began swinging their canes recklessly and beating up the gathering. Even on that Saturday, senior Congress leaders continued to believe in the agitation!

 

On Sunday, there was further proof of that solidarity and appreciation of the protesters’ movement. Section 144 was imposed in Delhi to prevent the assembly of people. More Metro stations in the proximity of India Gate and Raisina Hill were closed for ‘security reasons’. (They remained closed on Monday and Tuesday as well.) Despite all these repressive measures, huge numbers arrived at India Gate and began their protest. It was one of this season’s coldest days and the police let loose water cannons and dozens of rounds of teargas shells on the protesters, besides indulging in the usual lathi-charge. Beginning from around three in the afternoon, the security forces went on a rampage, under the pretext that they had to contain an unruly mob which had infiltrated the peaceful gathering and was damaging public property and resorting to violence. It is true that sections of the protesters had turned violent, but they could have been easily isolated and dealt with. Had the security forces done that and identified who these unruly elements were, perhaps the Congress would have had reasons to be embarrassed by the expose.

 

Despite all the repressive measures which the Government has taken, the regime cannot break the spirit of the protesters. Nor can it get away by sitting on the fence on issues which require a firm stand. In the initial days of the protest, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit maintained a grim silence. But she sought to blame the Union Ministry of Home Affairs for the incident after the agitation gained massive proportions and cries of “Sheila Dikshit hai hai!” grew as loud as “Sonia Gandhi hai hai” and “Delhi Police hai hai”. Miraculously, a letter written by Congress MP and her son Sandeep Dikshit to the Centre appeared in a section of the electronic media. The letter raised questions on certain appointments the Lt Governor had made to the police force. Since the Delhi Police reports to the Centre, it is directly accountable to the Lt Governor. And now, Ms Dikshit has openly questioned the strong-arm tactics which Delhi Police employed with the protesters and their conduct while recording the statement of the rape victim. 

 

Clearly then, although the political class is rattled, it is still unable to respond in a fitting manner. The demand to have a special session of Parliament, the demand to include the death penalty in laws that deal with rape and amend other related provisions, the demand to initiate firm action against top Delhi Police brass, the demand to sensitise police to help them handle crimes against women effectively — these are not unjustified. Yet the Government has refused to offer any roadmap to walk that path. As always, it believes that the crisis will play out and subside over time, and that everything will be back to normal. But it will not be back to normal for the girl who has been brutalised (we hope she lives), for her family members, and for all those hundreds of victims of rape across the country who still wait for justice while the police, the prosecution and the judiciary take their time to deal with their horror. Token assurances and symbolic gestures are no longer enough.

Congress sees victory in defeat!

(First published in The Pioneer on December 21, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

As it became clear in the course of Thursday that the BJP was going to win Gujarat hands down, I decided to walk down to 10, Janpath, to gauge the mood of the people gathered outside the most important address for Congress workers. Naturally, I had expected a sombre gathering shell-shocked by the —even if expected — drubbing. But I discovered a raucous crowd waving Congress flags, bursting crackers and crying out, “Sonia Gandhi zindabad!” and “Rahul Gandhi zindabad!” For a moment I thought the supporters had got it all wrong. To understand this strange phenomenon I decided to approach 10, Janpath, straight. I located Ram Lal among the people excitedly waving one of the huge flags.
Ram Lal is the nephew of one of the drivers of the car that the Congress president travels in. The driver is a cousin of the gardener who tends to the lawns of the residence. The gardener owes his position to his uncle who had recently retired from service as a bearer who served tea and snacks to members of the dynasty in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the house for twenty long years. The bearer’s place had been taken by his son who only months ago returned from the US where he studied catering and who is a bit hit with Rahul Gandhi because he can quote all the important websites on tea preparation and surf the net and send short messages at super-fast speed while pretending to listen to others talk to him. Ram Lal likes to call his lineage the ‘second dynasty’ at 10, Janpath. Like all efficient bearers, he is good at eavesdropping on conversations that happen between the most important people that gather in the inner recesses of the residence.
So it was Ram Lal who explained the reasons for the untimely celebration. “Narendra Modi has swept Gujarat”, he exulted as he pumped my hands vigorously.
“But why are you people so happy?” I wondered.
“Now Modi will become an important national leader and will be seen as a candidate for the country’s prime ministership.”
“That’s not good news for you.”
“Believe me, it is. It’s what we had all along wanted.”
The after-effects of a humiliating public defeat can render people senseless and drive them mentally unsound. I looked at Ram Lal with concern. But he didn’t appear insane. “This is what our party High Command had
worked for.”
But why would the Congress plot its own debacle? “This is a good instance of stooping to conquer”, he exclaimed with pride. The phrase had been used with greater clarity before. He added, “With Modi as a likely candidate to become the Prime Minister, divisions in the BJP will grow wider. That’s good for us, no?”
I tentatively accepted that Modi’s arrival on the national stage will cause some upheaval in the BJP. But the internal matter can be effectively settled within the party. “What about outside the party, within the NDA?” he countered. “Partners like the JD(U) will break away from the NDA. Potential partners like Naveen Patnaik will keep away from re-joining the Opposition combine. Both the NDA and the BJP will get weak, and we will win the next Lok Sabha election.”
“So you people had actually thought the matter over to this deep extent?” I was struck by awe.
“Yes,” Ram Lal answered, and yelled out, “Sonia Gandhi zindabad!” as he saw the main gate of the residence sliding open. A car drove out, bearing huge garlands of crumpled flowers. They were on the way to be immersed in the gutter-like waters of the Yamuna River. He then let out the secret. “My relative the bearer happened to hear a conversation between Madam and Rahul baba. Ahmed Patelji and Diggy Raja saheb too were present. Mind you, he had no intention of doing so; it’s just that, as he was entering the room with tea and biscuits, he caught snatches of the talk towards the end.”
I was by now very curious to know what exactly he had heard, and even joined him in his next cry, “Rahul Gandhi aage badho, hum tumhare saath hain!” when another car emerged from behind the gates with an athletically built man with a trim moustache seated grimly in the passenger’s seat. I recognised him instantly as the man who had developed close and friendly ties with one of the country’s biggest builders.
“This is in strict confidence,” he whispered and looked over his shoulders. “Madam said that the Congress must not attack Modi during the election campaign. It must not talk of the 2002 riots, the plight of Muslims in the State and the various projects that are languishing for want of the State regime’s attention. In fact, she said that Modi should not even be named during the campaign. Even the criticism that we make for the sake of show must be such that Modi can instantly rebut it.”
“So that he could eventually trounce you and trample all over you?”
“Yes, yes, precisely. And see how that plan has worked out to perfection”, Ram Lal rubbed his hands in glee. I complimented his party’s leadership for the success. But was there no opposition to that plan? Did Rahul Gandhi and others accept it without a murmur? After all, defeat is defeat, even when it is supposed to be victory. What was the tea bearer’s take on that? Ram Lal was aghast at even the suggestion of dissent. “My rishtedaar told me that the other three in the room began to clap and cheer. They even sang, ‘Modi tum jiyo hazaron saal’. Even Madam joined in the chorus. It was a master-stroke to finish off the BJP’s challenge in the Lok Sabha election. We were of course told about the plan later and we played to the script.”
By now, the crowd had done one hour of cheering and was clearly exhausted. Moreover, neither Sonia nor Rahul had appeared outside to boost the gathering’s energy. With one final, “Zindabad, zindabad!” they began to disperse. Ram Lal curled up the worn-out flag around the pole and kept it aside. It had seen better days. “I have a confession to make.”
“Yes?” I prompted him.
“We may have succeeded remarkably in our plan for self-defeat, as you can see from the results. But if we had worked to defeat Modi, we might have failed. That would have been disastrous — for Madam and Rahul baba.”

Chickens are counted before they hatch

(First published in The Pioneer dated December 14, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

In less than a week from now, the winner of the election to the Gujarat Assembly will be known. Many people — and they include members of the media who are vehemently opposed to Chief Minister Narendra Modi — believe that the result is a formality and that the Modi-led BJP will surely register a win. That may be so, but there is no point in counting the chickens before they hatch. Actually, there is a point, which is why the un-hatched chickens have been counted by commentators ever since the election campaign kicked off formally a month ago. Not a day has gone by when the experts did not dwell on the various titillating scenarios that are on offer once Mr Modi wins Gujarat for the BJP. What will be the margin of victory? Will it be strong enough for the Chief Minister to claim a place on the national stage? Will he emerge as the BJP’s candidate for prime ministership in the next Lok Sabha election? If he does arrive as a national leader, will the established guard of the party accept him or sabotage him? Will some NDA partners walk out of the coalition if Mr Modi is projected as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate?
The informed discourse that we have heard over the weeks in the run-up to this election has, thus, dealt very little with issues that concern the people of Gujarat and more with the impact that the result of the election will have on national politics. In that sense, therefore, Mr Modi has already been placed on the country’s centre-stage. The ‘Modi versus Rahul Gandhi’ and the ‘Modi versus the rest’ (including sections of the BJP) refrain that we have been subjected to through various print and electronic media coverage confirms the obsession of the Press and the people with the Gujarat Chief Minister’s future outside his State. It would seem that he is pitted against many dangerous rivals within and outside his party who are just waiting to finish him off as soon as he sets foot in New Delhi.
These various possibilities have provided fodder to 24x7 news channels and the print media to sustain their ‘special coverage’ of the election. And, because Mr Modi is not going to take over the prime ministership tomorrow, the media will have many more days and months to continue analysing the prospect and attracting television rating points in the process. Interestingly, all these initiatives are only serving to add to the larger-than-life image of the Chief Minister. Mr Modi has had few reasons to object, therefore, although in the process he has also ended up getting stinging comments from participants in television debates and analysts in the print media. It’s a small price, veteran observers will say, to pay for securing a place under the sun.
So, it’s not as if Mr Modi’s detractors have been mute spectators to the foretelling of his victory. They began by first rubbishing the impression that the Chief Minister is on the course to lead his party to a third straight Assembly win. Not managing to go far with that assertion, they took to wondering whether the claims of development which Mr Modi had been making across the State were not canards at worst and selectively true at best. Again, failing to strike a chord with that argument, his critics in the media and outside then presented a different perspective: Is the development plank alone sufficient to propel Mr Modi to victory? Now, that is a strange train of thought indeed, because one would have believed that the politics of development is the best recourse to take. Have these experts then been suggesting that Mr Modi should have exploited communal or casteist issues to polarise votes in
his favour?
The fact is that his detractors were desperately eager that he bring up those matters so that they could rip him apart. It would have also given the Congress a platform to raise the issue of 2002 violence and the ‘plight’ of the minorities in the State under Mr Modi’s rule. But, while the Chief Minister had enough material to draw the attention of listeners — witness how he panned the Prime Minister, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi in his inimitable style —the Congress was left without anything substantial to say. The party’s leaders were terrified to directly mention either 2002 or the ‘terrorisation’ of the Muslim community in the State, for fear that they would play into the Chief Minister’s hands. They had to then fall back on the issue of development — much to Mr Modi’s delight.
In the eventuality, the Congress settled down to an insipid campaign with no catchy issues to exploit. Worse, the party’s rising star, Rahul Gandhi, made a mere guest appearance on the last day of campaigning for the first phase of polling. And he said nothing that set the Sabarmati on fire. Nor did Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr Manmohan Singh, who had campaigned earlier.
Those who claim to have seen what they believe is the writing on the wall (that Mr Modi is going to win, regardless of everything bad he may have done) — and they also include the Chief Minister’s diehard critics (regardless of everything good he may have done) — have begun to prepare the ground to explain away the presumed victory. One theory is that the voters of Gujarat have become so polarised over the years since 2002 that there is little hope for a ‘secular’ victory, at least as of now. If that is the case, these people must explain what the ‘secular’ parties have done this past decade to ‘de-polarise’ the voters and ‘secularise’ them. Besides, it is an insult to the voters of the State to condemn them as being communally driven.
It’s true that polarisation took place in the aftermath of the 2002 violence, but the effects have since worn off. In 2007, Mr Modi fought on the development plank. The fact that the Congress had done fairly well in the State in the 2009 Lok Sabha election goes to show that voters are willing to look beyond the BJP if only they are offered a credible alternative. Polarisation of voters cannot be used in perpetuity as an excuse to explain the rise of the Modi-led BJP in Gujarat.

Valiantly holding the flag high

(First published in The Pioneer dated December 11)

RAJESH SINGH

A visitor to Gujarat will feel instantly at home in Vadodara. The city has a cosmopolitan air that comes perhaps from a large number of higher education institutions which are located in and around the town. The fabled Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad III dominates the third largest city in the State. To him goes the credit of laying the foundations for a robust education system, including a university and a library culture. The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda is named after him, as is a park in the heart of the city, and various other institutions and commercial complexes. Because the educational network, which also includes a fashion designing institute, attracts students from across the country, the cosmopolitan touch has pervaded through society. And, while not all of these youngsters are eligible to vote in the city, their outlook is in general reflective of the political mood in Vadodara. The city is for the BJP led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi, though some experts believe that the situation in the rural areas which fall in the district may not be emphatically in favour of the party.
From Alkapuri to Kothi Chaar Rasta to the MS University and beyond as one moves to the edge of the city towards the airport (dilapidated and badly maintained, leading the auto-rickshaw driver who drove me there to suggest that Mr Modi must take it over to improve its fate), people do not see an alternative to Mr Modi. In fact, it is in Vadodara (nobody in the city calls it by that name, preferring instead the more compact Baroda) that one hears the term ‘development politics’ the most often. Bharatbhai Solanki has a readymade garments’ store right opposite the university, an area teeming with mouth-watering streetside fastfood joints. He is 60 years old and claims to have voted in every election over the last three decades. Once a committed Congress supporter, he has switched sides. “2002 is past. Why are people still talking about it when we are trying to move ahead and leave the unpleasantness behind?” he demands to know rather abruptly. I had merely asked him for his opinion on the general political climate in the city and around. “Look at the development all around. The political climate you are talking of has to do with the conducive business environment. Why even discuss divisions in society when financial empowerment is
bridging divides?”
I gently remind him that economic prosperity is not everything; all sections of society must feel safe and have a sense of ownership in the prosperity which he talks of. I was playing the devil’s advocate, and he shrewdly realises it. Mr Solanki has experienced many elections and many more political leaders. “Everyone is safe. If someone feels unsafe, it is due to his mindset, and not because of ground reality. Nothing can be done about that”, he brushes aside my misgivings as he dispenses with a customer who had purchased a couple of vests and towels. My final query: Why did he dump the Congress? “Narendrabhai is better. He has performed, and the State has benefitted from the BJP rule under his leadership. The Congress does not even have a State-level leader to match his stature, let alone performance.”
An apparently well-to-do gentleman in Alkapuri is struggling to silence the alarm that had gone off in his car because someone had brushed against the vehicle’s door a little too hard. For officialdom, Alkapuri is important. The Collector’s official residence is located on the main road, and so are the Circuit House and the residence of a Principal Magistrate — all in the same row. On the other side are small but swanky commercial complexes. This is where the gentleman in question is engaged in the small technical act. After furtively pressing buttons on the key of his remote lock, he manages to silence the siren. He looks as relieved as, well, a person who has just relieved himself. “Of course I will vote for the BJP, and so will many others, only and only because of Narendra Modi. Look at the development he has done. The Congress could not do in 40 years what he has done in 10.” But Gujarat has always been a developed State. What is Mr Modi’s contribution? He looks at me like I had arrived from another planet. “Are you a Congressman?” he demands to know in a suspicious manner. “This is just what the Congress workers have been telling people in the city. If he has done nothing, why have the people voted for him in the last two elections? Why have they voted for his party in every other kind of election in the last 10 years? Are the people of the State fools to be misled by propaganda every now and then?”
But Vadodara-based journalist Hemant Vyas believes that people are also not fools to be taken in completely by Mr Modi’s claim of development. “If you go into the rural areas, you will get a different perspective”, he says. Vyas has been closely tracking politics of the State for years now, and says that the BJP and the Congress will be engaged in stiff combat in rural Gujarat. “Take Waghodia, which is some 30 kilometres from Vadodara. The BJP is facing rebellion there, with the disgruntled workers backing Keshubhai Patel’s Gujarat Parivartan Party and an independent who has quit the BJP. The Congress too is strong here because it commands the loyalty of the Patel community”, he states, adding that the contest there is between two Patels. Vyas thinks a similar game could be played out in the rest of rural Gujarat as well. The adivasi (or tribal) factor is also an important element here. “When we talk of rural constituencies around Vadodara, we cannot ignore the fact that the Congress does have a strong sway among the tribals. It’s true that the BJP has made inroads over the years, but the Congress still has an edge”, he emphasises. His analysis is that the BJP will win in the five odd seats in Vadodara and adjacent constituencies, but in the eights seats flung far away from the city, the Congress could well bag six. He again underlines that a similar game could be played out in the rest of the State, though to what extent that is going to really affect the BJP overall, remains to be seen.
Vyas, however, does not accept the general impression that the Muslims will en bloc vote against the BJP in the State. “Over the years, sections of the Muslim community — for instance the Bohras — have moved towards Mr Modi. The process began in 2007 and seems to have gained strength over time”, he claims. The Vadodara-based journalist also does not accept the argument that Mr Modi’s Sadbhavna Yatra has been a waste. “You watch, it’ll yield results”, he confidently adds. Well, December 20 is not too far away. Vyas is quick to offer his assessment of the seats that the parties will get. “The BJP will get around the same number that it won in 2007, and the Congress can win 65 plus. I do not believe that the GPP will manage more than three seats across the State.” Mr Modi is not going to be content with that tally. He is hoping to breach the so-far unbroken record that Congress’s Madhavsinh Solanki had set with 149 seats in 1985. But with the GPP breathing down his neck, the Congress refusing to yield its traditional votes in rural Gujarat and a level of anti-incumbency, he may have to wait another day.

Old warhorse fights lonely battle

(First published in The Pioneer dated December 3, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

 From measured Ahmedabad to chaotic Rajkot, the contrast could not have been starker. Motorists drive like they are determined to cause an accident, and only at the last moment do they seem to get second thoughts and screech to a halt. It’s a wonder that the town does not register a road accident every minute. This aggression spills over to the political expressions of the residents as well. Unlike in Ahmedabad, where the people are open yet refined in presenting their opinions, the voters of Rajkot do not believe in needless sophistication. It’s the home town of Mr Keshubhai Patel, once among the BJP’s tallest leaders in Gujarat and now the party’s bitter rival who has floated his own outfit, the Gujarat Parivartan Party, to take on his former colleagues (and the Congress more by way of coincidence than design). It is here, in the town and the constituencies that fall within the district — and elsewhere in the Saurashtra region — that Mr Patel hopes to perform well. That’s the hope, but do the people see it that way?
It’s barely six in the morning, but there’s already a decent crowd outside a tea stall near the town’s bus terminus. Many of those who have gathered there are travellers, but there are also those that are residents of the town and are out on their morning walk. Some of them are armed with sticks to ward off stray dogs. As I broach the topic of the State Assembly election and suggest that Mr Patel could give the BJP a run for its money, an elderly gentleman picks the cue. “You think so?” he demands to know aggressively. When I hastily clarify that that was what the general impression appears to be, he calms down. “It’s true that Rajkot has been the centre of Keshubhai’s politics. But he is no longer relevant, at least in the town and nearby constituencies. The BJP is comfortably placed.” His companion chips in, but with a more tempered view. “Keshubhai got the Patel votes into the BJP kitty in the late 90s. That cannot be denied. But for the last decade or so beginning with Narendra Modi’s rise, he has remained a marginal player. Sections of the Patel community are still loyal to him. But by and large the Patels have come to identify with the BJP. Narendrabhai has taken care of them.”
It is precisely this analysis that Ahmedabad-based senior journalist Manas Dasgupta had offered to me a couple of days before I landed in Rajkot. Mr Dasgupta, who has reported on Gujarat’s politics for close to four decades now, believes that the Patel community “is no longer aligned with Mr Keshubhai Patel. The Patels are with Mr Modi because they feel secure in his regime. They think that, if the Congress or the GPP gains leverage in the State, they will lose influence to the other communities, particularly the Muslims.”
He does accept that, if not in Rajkot proper and contiguous constituencies, Mr Patel’s party will makes inroads in the rural constituencies of Saurashtra, but that will not amount to any serious dent in the BJP’s Patel vote-bank. “You have to remember that only a few sub-sects of the Patel community could vote for Mr Keshubhai Patel. Some months, a Patel conference which he had organised had turned out to be a tame affair with most of the influential Patel community leaders keeping away. Also, the Patels do not want to waste their vote on a party (the GPP) which has no chance of gaining power, I will be surprised if Mr Patel’s party wins more than 10 seats in all”, he says.
A non-resident Indian (or more appropriately, a non-resident Gujarati) paces furiously in the lobby of a hotel located on Jawahar Road in the town. Puffing at a cigarette and upset at having misplaced his lighter, he tells me that people realise the true worth of something after they have lost it and not when they have it. “Mil jaye to mitti hai, kho jaye to sona hai” — he hums the lines sung by Jagjit Singh. “Take the case of my lighter. Now that it’s gone, I miss it desperately when I have the urge to smoke.” Manish Bhatt (not his real name) is based in London and is in the insurance business. He is planning a return to India — and home State Gujarat — to promote the insurance sector. “With Narendra Modi as Chief Minister, the business community is confident of getting the right environment. I would not have considered relocating to Gujarat (Rajkot is his home town) if people like Keshubhai were in charge. I remember Keshubhai’s regime; the governance was in a complete mess, and decisions were being delayed.”
But not everyone in Rajkot agrees with that indictment. The owner of an electronic goods store believes that Mr Patel’s Government had performed well in the short duration that it had lasted. “He had to face great opposition from within the party. There was Shankarsinh Vaghela and his band of loyalists within the BJP constantly sniping at Keshubhai’s heels. Yet, he did provide a decent administration. No one can possibly forget that he had laid the foundations for the BJP’s rise in Gujarat.” But even the electronic goods vendor accepts that Mr Patel stands little chance of making a really big mark in the coming  |Assembly election.
The other setback that Mr Patel appears to face not just in Rajkot but apparently across Saurashtra too is that the Muslim voters are unlikely to back him (just as the majority of them are yet not ready to support Mr Modi), despite all the overtures which he has been making towards the community since his rebellion against the BJP. And, it’s not just Mr Dasgupta who holds that view. Voters in Junagadh believe similarly. A two-hour drive from Rajkot, Junagadh is a crumbling town, which clings to history in a desperate bid to maintain its dignity. Mr Modi’s development wave appears to have bypassed this little town. The spirit of happiness that one comes across in Ahmedabad and the element of happening that is evident in Rajkot, are replaced by a sense of resignation in Junagadh.
Outside the Family and Civil Court within the dilapidated gates (there are many in this historic town) that once formed part of an imposing fort, a paan vendor sells his wares in his tiny stall. Miniature images of Mecca and Medina adorn the walls of his stall. “Muslims here won’t back Keshubhai. They will go with the Congress. I am a Muslim and I will not vote for Keshubhai. And I will also not vote for the BJP. Narendrabhai’s Sadbhavna fast was a sham. Muslims of the State, and certainly of Junagadh, have not been impressed by that”, he claims emphatically. Mr Keshubhai Patel, he says, will do fairly well in the interiors of Junagadh. “But do not expect miracles from him. The Patels are no longer solidly behind him. The dominant Patels in rural Gujarat are firmly with the BJP”, he says, adding, “They are not concerned with issues of development. They’ll back any party that can contain the Muslim influence in the State.”
This opinion is seconded by a lawyer hanging around the court premises. That is why, he contends, BJP legislator Mahendra Mashroo will most likely win again. “Don’t ever forget; it’s not because he has done development work here. He will win because of the fear of Muslims. Of course, Mahendrabhai is also personally likeable”, the robed man says. As for the Gujarat Parivartan Party’s performance in its stronghold, he has this to say: “Keshubhai has influence in Saurashtra. You know he is himself contesting from nearby Visavadar constituency. But I doubt if that influence will convert into more than half a dozen seats for his party in the region. After all, even the BJP has a strong line-up of Patel candidates.”

India will win in Modi's Gujarat

(First appeared in The Pioneer dated November 22, 2102)

RAJESH SINGH

Who do you think is going to win?” I asked the auto-rickshaw driver who took me on November 19 from the airport in Ahmedabad to the hotel. “India jeetega”, he responded with a confident grin. I wondered if he was right. Of course he could be right, except that England had put up a strong show in its second innings (eventually India did win). But cricket was not on my mind then. My question related to December’s Assembly election in Gujarat. I corrected him gently. He replied, “I am referring to the election. Narendra Modi will win. And, that will be a victory for India, because he stands for a proud, progressive and self-reliant India.”
It is difficult to find a contrary opinion in Ahmedabad, at least. The owner of a general provision store, who for reasons he did not elaborate, believed that Gujarat will witness a close fight. “Fifty-fifty hoga”, he claimed. And yet, even he agreed that that the BJP would win hands down in Ahmedabad and near about. “The combination of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah is unbeatable in these constituencies”, he added.
At a corner stall in Goyal Intercity, a sharp, young man in his mid-twenties, who managed an assortment of tobacco and related products, was even more dismissive of the prospects of the Congress. “What do the Congress leaders have to say? Nothing. Sonia Gandhi spoke in Rajkot recently, but had nothing to promise really to the voters. She spoke of bringing development, but development is already there under Chief Minister Modi. Even the remotest village in the State gets at least 10 hours of quality power supply. Industrial activity is booming. Agriculture is doing well too”, he stated.
The young man was equally contemptuous of the impression that the conviction of a former Minister in the Modi regime in connection with the 2002 violence, or Amit Shah’s ongoing trial in the same incident. “Those are non-issues that do not affect the livelihood of the people. Let the law take its course. Such issues are discussed by intellectuals in television studios, not on the streets by voters”, he said.
There is some truth in the assertion that the Congress has nothing to tell the voters, now that even its party leaders are keeping away from raking the 2002 incidents. They did that in 2007 and the strategy had backfired. “So, now you have Congress leaders calling Modi a monkey. Do you think that the Congress can win over the loyalty of the voters by calling the Chief Minister a monkey? This only goes to show that they do not know what those issues are that can attract the people of the State”, remarked the proprietor of a cosmetics shop located close to a Shani Dev temple near the Drive-in Cinema. “Why must I vote for the Congress? Give me one good reason”, a flower vendor selling her wares outside a Vaibhav Lakshmi Temple challenged me to respond. Does anybody offer stale flowers to the deity!” According to her, the Congress had withered under the “fruitful” leadership of Mr Modi and the BJP Government which he leads. “The Congress must sound and look fresh for the voters to consider it as an alternative.”
Clearly, the Congress has a problem in the State. If it talks of development — and it has been making half-hearted attempts — the issue does not click with the people, who point that the State is progressing fine under Mr Modi. In fact, the people add that never before as in the last decade has development been so rapid and focussed. If the party personalises the campaign, it only further raises the stature of the Chief Minister. So, what should it do? The flower vendor may have put it rather simplistically, and she may be reflecting the frustrations of people like her residing in Ahmedabad. But much the same terms of an informed analysis, is offered by a war-weary journalist. Ahmedabad-based Manas Dasgupta has covered the politics and more of Gujarat for close to four decades now. People, he says, are willing to listen to any meaningful argument on why they must exercise their option to change the BJP Government led by Mr Modi. “People are asking: ‘Give us one reason — just one reason — why we must vote for the Congress,’” Mr Dasgupta says. He points out that while Congress leaders are going about the State talking of why the people should vote out the Congress, they are unable to tell the voters what the Congress has on offer for their development. “The Congress at the Centre is steeped in corruption; the party has completely failed to check inflation and price rise across the country; and the Congress does not have a single State-level leader to take on Mr Modi. Are these the reasons that will make the people vote for the Congress!” he exclaims.
Mr Dasgupta is quick to point out that the Chief Minister has flourished as much from the good governance which he has given the State as he has through an elaborate image-building exercise. “Not everything which he claims as his Government’s achievements are true”, he says, adding, “Consider how he takes the credit for the implementation of the various Central Government schemes. But then it is also a fact that his rivals simply do not have the credentials to challenge him on the few occasions that they can do so with some level of success.” That may be so, but there is another fact that people in Ahmedabad do not fail to mention: Mr Modi has ensured that the benefits of most of the schemes, State-level or Central, have reached the people. “He has succeeded in the last mile, and that matters the most as far the voters are concerned”, Mr Dasgupta remarks.
He agrees that issues like the 2002 violence have become non-issues today, as also the allegation of arrogance that Mr Modi’s detractors have been leveling against the Chief Minister. “Of course he is arrogant and brusque with many of his Ministers and the bureaucrats. That’s why he is so unpopular in Gandhinagar, the seat of power. But he is not arrogant with the people. Moreover, the people believe that his arrogance is really his determination to get things done for the good of the people. They love him for that. They may be wrong in their analysis, but that is that”, he states.
From the vantage point of Ahmedabad then, the BJP led by Mr Modi seems to be sitting pretty. But Ahmedabad alone is not Gujarat. And, miracles do happe

Congress tries to douse fire, but slips on fire

(First appeared in The Pioneer dated October 31)

RAJESH SINGH

On October 23, The Pioneer published an editorial titled, “Kejriwal playing god?” The editorial cautioned India Against Corruption chief Arvind Kejriwal against going overboard without plausible evidence in his campaigns that targeted public figures for their alleged corrupt activities. At the same time, the editorial also commended him for the good work that he has been doing in raising the level of awareness and highlighting dubious deals of some public figures with believable material to justify the allegations.

 

The editorial drew a flurry of response from indignant readers who took exception to the criticism of the anti-corruption activist. Even readers who did not completely endorse the ‘hit and run’ methods that Mr Kejriwal has adopted, and also did not believe that the IAC leader is himself above board, jumped to his defence. The bottom line was: ‘We have had enough of nonsense from our politicians. Here is a man who has taken on the corrupt in high places, and he has our support.’ There was also a letter writer who said that, if Mr Kejriwal is indeed playing god, the country needs more gods like him. The Pioneer published many of those letters.

 

What does such support indicate? It would be wrong to personalise the confrontation as being one between Mr Kejriwal and the political establishment — more specifically the Congress-led UPA Government. Just as it would be misplaced enthusiasm to see into this a battle between David and Goliath. The support for Mr Kejriwal is in reality a manifestation of the anger that the common man feels over the manner in which the political rulers in the country, now led by the Congress, have been taking the people for granted. It is also a manifestation of the aam aadmi’s frustration at being so helpless as to do nothing while he is trampled all over.

 

Mr Kejriwal’s detractors within the UPA will of course claim that all this talk of anger and frustration is hyped-up nonsense, and that the Congress-led regime is completely tuned in to the aspirations of the people. Well, the sweeping changes that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made to his Council of Ministers on Sunday do not in any way indicate that the Congress has much regard for public opinion. On the contrary, the reshuffle appeared deliberately designed to cock a snook at such public opinion. It has provided more ammunition to the likes of Mr Kejriwal, besides the Opposition. But then, it seems that the Government is beyond caring anymore; it just wants to hang on to the rest of the tenure, even if it gets mired in further ignominy as the days go by. 

 

The Congress would like us to believe that the reshuffle will provide the much needed momentum to governance and that the new team will lead the party to success in the next Lok Sabha election. We don’t know about that. What we do know is that the Sunday exercise has exposed the party and the Prime Minister to serious charges of buckling under pressure from various lobbies. We know too that being tainted is not an obstacle for a Minister in getting promotions. And, we also know that honest Ministers can expect rewards by way of being shunted out. These are indeed strange ways for a party that swears in the name of the common man and  propriety to demonstrate its commitment to the two. 

 

The dirt over Mr Jaipal Reddy’s shift out of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry has already hit the fan, and Congress leaders have been tying themselves up in knots since Sunday trying to play down the Minister’s transfer. Yet, there are certain facts, and when they are seen in the context of the reshuffle, they do give rise to doubts that Mr Reddy, who by all accounts has been an upright Minister, was removed from the Ministry because he shared an uneasy relationship with an influential corporate house which is engaged in what the UPA regime may believe is crucial to accelerating economic growth. Mr Reddy had held up some key proposals of the corporate house which, among other things, is engaged in oil and gas exploration. He had also turned down the industrial house’s plea to hike rates in its favour. Congress apologists have rubbished the allegation that corporate lobbying led to Mr Reddy’s removal from the Petroleum Ministry. 

 

Fine, but what then explains his transfer? There can be three reasons for a Minister to be shifted out of his Ministry. Because he is incompetent. Or, because he is inconvenient. Or, because he is rewarded with something bigger. The Congress has been claiming ad nauseam since Sunday that Mr Reddy is honest and efficient and that he had done a wonderful job in the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Therefore, we can rule out the first reason. 

 

The third reason too is invalid here, because Mr Reddy did not get a promotion. As we now know, the Congress did not just decide to punish Mr Reddy by ousting him from the Petroleum Ministry but also to further humiliate him. That is how the affable but knowledgeable Minister ended up with the low-profile Science and Technology Ministry. Had the intention not been to rub in the insult, the Prime Minister could have easily given Mr Reddy a Ministry that befitted the 

latter’s stature. 

 

The only plausible explanation lies in the second reason: That, as Petroleum Minister, he was proving to be an inconvenience to some elements within the Government and outside of it. He had to be removed from the way so that these elements had their way.

 

If the Jaipal Reddy episode has exposed the Government led by the Congress for what it really is, then the elevation of Mr Salman Khurshid has left a bad taste in the mouth. It’s not that Mr Khurshid will make a poor Union Minister for External Affairs. On the contrary, he may well prove to be a most capable one. But Mr Khurshid faces serious allegations of irregularities involving a non-Government organisation which he runs, and those charges have yet to be laid to rest. 

 

His defence so far has raised more questions than it has answered. Critics of the Congress justifiably see in Mr Khurshid’s promotion a deliberate snub to the Opposition and the anti-graft activists who have been demanding a probe against the Minister in the wake of revelations in sections of the media about the NGO’s 

dubious conduct.

 

Given such questionable decisions of the Congress and the Prime Minister, can we then blame the Opposition and Mr Kejriwal for raising the pitch? Should we treat with contempt the voice of the masses that is getting increasingly strident against such skullduggery? Must we ignore the call for a new, hopefully better, order?

Shoot the messenger, trample its rectitude

(First appeared in The Pioneer dated October 17, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

Union Minister for Law and Justice Salman Khurshid must have deliberated long and hard with his associates over the strategy to adopt during the Press conference that he addressed on Sunday. As he saw it, his personal honour was at stake. We do not know what was agreed upon in those deliberations, but the country saw on that drab holiday afternoon a person shockingly different from that of his public image of a suave, sophisticated and urbane politician. Mr Khurshid was offensive, abrasive, insulting and often not in control of himself. Perhaps he had not meant the Press event to go the way it did; perhaps he was provoked by the doggedly aggressive questioning by reporters of an influential media group; or perhaps it was just that he had decided that the best form of defence is acerbic offence.
The deviation from his established image could have been justified in hindsight had it at least resulted in tangible benefits for the Minister. Sadly, for him, the Sunday episode ended in denting a persona which he had carefully cultivated over the years, and left him further exposed to charges of various wrongdoing.
It is undisputed that Mr Khurshid faced the media on that day with the express intention to dominate and control the proceedings. This is why he began the Press conference by laying down ‘rules’ of the ‘game’ and identifying the ‘core issues’ that deserved his attention. There is nothing wrong in his having done that — which politician does not want the wind to blow his way? Yet, he should have known that he would have to face hostile questions, especially from reporters of the media group which has run a robust campaign against the alleged irregularities in the functioning of a non-Government organisation that he and his wife manage.
The Minister blundered right at the start when he said that he had not wanted to invite the representatives of the ‘errant’ media group for the Press conference but agreed to do so after other media persons advised him against blocking a section of the Press out. He gave away not just his bias against but also dislike for sections of the media that dare to challenge him. He became an even more marked man for reporters of the media house concerned, who were present in full strength at the Press conference, waiting for their chance to pounce.
And Mr Khurshid continued to blunder after that. When the first question was shot at him by a representative of that very media house which he has come to despise, he offered an unconvincing reply. When the reporter persisted, the Minister lost his cool and shouted down the reporter. When asked whether he should quit to ensure a fair probe, he said he would gladly do so if the owner of the media house too resigned!
This may sound rhetorical, but it could well become the tag line of the other Ministers in the UPA Government and Congress leaders who face charges of impropriety. For them, the charges become unimportant; what is crucial is to destroy the credibility of those impertinent individuals and institutions who dare to make the accusations. The Congress has been trying its utmost to do that to the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India since the 2G Spectrum scam broke out. But, the more it has persisted in the futile task, the more shine the CAG has acquired. Another example is the manner in which the Congress members have made a mockery of the Public Accounts Committee that recently went into the report on the 2G Spectrum scam. But the PAC headed by a BJP Member of Parliament remains unsullied while the credibility of the Congress is in tatters.
Clearly rattled by the volley of questions and counter-responses by the media on that Sunday, Mr Khurshid turned not just nasty but also abusive. Displaying his elitist upbringing and the class discrimination that he appears to have nursed in his mind for years — it could not have suddenly exploded out of nowhere — the Minister mocked the persistent reporter and offered to repeat his response in Hindi in case the original English version had been lost on the latter. This was at best a cheap retort that did no good to the Minister’s image. Nor did the fact that he appealed (to no one in particular) to “shut” the reporter up, after the media hound failed to get the message. The Minister’s performance was a perfect example of how to bludgeon your own image.
Mr Khurshid’s arrogance can  be seen from the manner in which he has gone about addressing people who have questioned him and his dealings. In a recent interview, apparently referring to the likes of anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal, he said he would not bow down to “hoodlums in the streets”. Even at the Sunday Press conference, he said that he would not answer questions that had been raised by “people on the streets”. But he has to face the fact: While Mr Kejriwal may not necessarily be seen by many as a paragon of virtue, he now commands more credibility in the public eye than Mr Khurshid does — or for that matter many UPA Ministers do in the wake of the various massive scams that have taken a toll on the Manmohan Singh Government’s image. Moreover, Mr Khurshid forgets that it is the people on the streets who determine the political fortunes of this country.
The Minister himself is what he is because of the people on the streets. The questions that are being asked of Mr Khurshid are not being directed by Mr Kejriwal and company alone — nor just by a particular media group — but by voters across the nation as well. Then, why should he not answer them? Perhaps that’s because the ‘mango people’ living in this ‘banana republic’ cannot demand answers from those who have degrees from institutions like Oxford and are engaged in the ‘service of the nation’. Mr Khurshid can argue that he did offer a credible response at his Press conference to the issues which have been raised regarding the functioning of his NGO, Dr Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust. But that is far from the case. The Minister simply could not provide convincing replies on at least two — and the most contentious — matters: One, the Trust used a forged affidavit to receive clearances and thus more funds from the Government; and two, it made use of a letter supposedly written by a ‘Government official’ much after he had retired.
In a tacit admission that the letters the trust benefitted from may have been forgeries, Mr Khurshid has claimed that the matter must be probed by the Government. In other words, he appears to be saying: ‘My NGO may have used forged letters to its benefit, but since we haven’t forged them, why blame us!’ Coming as it does from a Law Minister, this is amusing stuff.

It is jeopardous when anything is everything

(First appeared in The Pioneer dated October 3, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

In the middle of August this year, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Ms Mamata Banerjee, said that judicial verdicts were purchasable. “Many times favourable verdicts are given in lieu of money. Why should that happen? This is very unfortunate”, she stated. Her remark had triggered a furious row, and it would have perhaps invited some legal action had it not been for the fact that she made the controversial statement on the floor of the West Bengal Assembly and, therefore, she enjoyed immunity from judicial arbitration.
While that issue has died a quiet death, the question of whether Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies should enjoy such absolute immunity from court action over even their most outrageous statements (or actions), remains as relevant as ever. This, despite the fact that the courts have time and again, in case after case, determined in unequivocal terms that immunity from legal action which these elected representatives have over what they say in the House is complete.
This is where things stand at present. But we do not know what the future holds. After all, the Supreme Court has over the years interpreted in fresh ways many laws that govern the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary, even going to the extent of arbitrating decisions of the Speaker of the House. Before that first happened, it had been assumed that the Speaker’s actions in Parliament and State Assemblies were supreme and unchallengeable in a court of law. But now that is no longer so.
The courts have in many instances set aside the Speaker’s rulings — for instance on matters of defection or suspension of members from the House or bar on members from voting. In fact, the courts have held that, while they will not entertain any plea against ‘procedural irregularities’ in the House, they shall most certainly admit petitions that challenge the Speaker’s action on grounds of ‘illegalities that go against the scheme of the Constitution’.
Still, there is nothing to indicate as yet that the judiciary will go to the extent of adjudicating on statements made by MPs and MLAs in the House, because that would be seen as snatching the right to free speech from these representatives. It is a right that they have been given — and in no uncertain terms at that — under Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India. Here is what the Article says, “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.”
The operative word here is anything — which has been held by the courts as equivalent to everything — and the judiciary has fallen back on that single word every time it was faced with a petition challenging a remark made by an MP or an MLA on the floor of the House.
Let’s take just one instance: The case of Tej Kiran Jain and Others versus N Sanjiva Reddy and Others, as an illustration. The verdict was delivered by a full bench of the Delhi High Court in August 1969 — yes, the issue had begun to crop up as early as that.  The plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming that, in the course of discussions in the Lok Sabha the defendants had made certain defamatory remarks against Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri, which were calculated to harm the spiritual leader’s esteem in the public eye. The issue to be dealt with was whether Article 105(2) indeed guaranteed complete immunity in respect of anything said by a Member of Parliament. The bench upheld that notion and said, “Plain reading of the Article goes to show that as regards anything said by a Member of Parliament in Parliament… the Constitution has guaranteed full protection and provided complete immunity against any proceeding in a court of law. It is significant that while clause (1) of Article 105 starts with the words ‘subject to the provisions of the Constitution’, there is no such limitation so far as clause (2) of Article 105 is concerned.” That pretty much settled the matter.
But the judiciary made an interesting and nuanced interpretation of the Article in the infamous PV Narasimha Rao versus State case in 1998, which related to allegations of bribery of certain Members of Parliament to help out a minority Government headed by Narasimha Rao. The Supreme Court was faced with a piquant situation: Can MPs claim immunity from prosecution under the cover of Article 105(2) on charges of bribery connected with their vote in a no-confidence motion against the regime? In a majority decision, the apex court held that MPs accused of taking bribe and then voting had immunity under the Article from legal action because their ‘action’ (of voting) in the House could not be questioned. However, the court added, those who allegedly took the bribe but abstained from voting, could not have that Article’s protection because they had not indulged in any ‘action’ in the House that would have given them immunity!
Why has the Constitution provided for such blanket immunity to elected representatives? It was to ensure that members are free from all limitations and constraints in raising before the House any issue that they believe assists them in better representing and serving the people who have elected them. It was believed that the fear of judicial action over what is said in the House would deter the elected representatives from taking up contentious matters that concern the people.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution was indeed beyond reproach. But then, they too must have not imagined that our Parliament and the State Assemblies would one day turn into a ring of physical brawls, where members literally try to outbox one another, uproot mikes and hurl them around like atomic weapons, snatch away important documents, tear them and scatter the bits in a show of triumph. The framers of the Constitution would never have imagined that a day would come when the vilest of comments would be made on the floor of the House by members against their colleagues and also against those unfortunate ones who not enjoy the privilege and protection that they do.
In the given situation where courts have their hands tied down by constitutional provisions, it is left to the collective wisdom of the House to take appropriate action against obvious and blatant wrongdoings that members indulge in on the floor of Parliament or the State Assemblies. Unfortunately, there are too few instances of that having happened to instil confidence in the people. There must be fetters to anything.

Judges must not lose sleep over such matters

(First appeared in The Pioneer dated  September 19, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

It is not often that the Chief Justice of India takes swipes at sitting judges of the Supreme Court over verdicts they have passed. So, when Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia remarked recently at a function that “judges must apply the principle of enforceability before propounding legal principles and passing orders”, the statement generated a great amount of buzz. He was referring to a ruling by Justice BS Chauhan that fundamental rights also included the ‘right to sleep’. Justice Chauhan and Justice Swatanter Kumar formed a two-judge bench which in its verdict on February 23 had slammed Delhi Police for its brutal midnight action against followers of Baba Ramdev who had gathered at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi. Justice Chauhan had said that a citizen had the right to sound sleep because sleep is fundamental to life.
While not criticising the judge’s interpretation that the right of a citizen to sleep is part of his fundamental rights, Chief Justice Kapadia nevertheless said, “Right to privacy had been made a fundamental right. Now we hear that right to sleep is also a fundamental right… If we lay down a policy and the Government says it cannot implement it, can we enforce it by resorting to contempt jurisdiction?” In making those remarks, the Chief Justice has re-opened a debate on the extent to which the scope of the ‘right to life’ and ‘personal liberty’ as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution can be expanded. The matter of enforceability flows from that widening canvas, because the larger and more broadbased the ‘right to life’ gets, the more difficult it can become for the new interpretations to be implemented effectively.
Interestingly, much the same apprehensions that Chief Justice Kapadia has expressed now were raised by former Union Minister, commentator and author Arun Shourie more than a decade ago in his book, Courts and their Judgments. In the chapter titled, From “life” to “life with dignity” to the pay if Imams, Mr Shourie writes, “…If orders are of such sweep that they cannot be implemented, or if no one seriously follows them up to ensure that they are implemented, the orders will boomerang on those who gave them.” It is almost as if the author is referring to the February 23, 2012, ruling on the ‘right to sleep’. In any case, his observations indeed were in the context of the growing ambit of the ‘right to life’.
It is true that the Supreme Court has been constantly expanding the reach of fundamental rights, but as Chief Justice Kapadia has pointed out, such expansion must always and necessarily connect to the core constitutional philosophy of Article 21. Any deviation from that principle is bound to result in verdicts that are not just non-enforceable but also legally suspect. In the present case, for instance, what about the right of the homeless to sleep on pavements or in public places? Justice Chauhan has said that such acts did not have the cover of the fundamental right to sleep. The question is: If indeed the ‘right to sleep’ is a fundamental right, why should the homeless — who deserve the right as much if not more than the better-off — be deprived of a sound sleep wherever they can afford to do so? Such tricky issues lay bare the difficulty of enforceability that both Chief Justice Kapadia and Mr Shourie have referred to.
Eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled on the legal enforcement of the ‘right to food’ as a fundamental right under Article 21. In response to a petition by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, the apex court in various interim orders on a host of public welfare schemes related to food such as the Mid-day Meals Scheme and the Antyodya Anna Yojana said that the ‘right to food’ and the ‘right to nutritious food’ are the fundamental rights of every citizen of the country. While there is nothing disputable about this contention, the fact of the matter is that the sweeping scope of this verdict, even if interim, has made it difficult for authorities to enforce this. This is despite the various panels that the apex court has set up to monitor the implementation of its elaborate orders.
The race to expand the meaning of Article 21 has its origin to a large extent in the Kharag Singh versus State of UP case. Mr Shourie quotes in his book from the ruling of the Supreme Court in that case to demonstrate how suddenly the meaning of life and personal liberty acquired larger and even larger proportions. To begin with, Article 21 says, “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. In the Kharag Singh case, Mr Shourie says, the judges held that personal liberty as in Article 21 is used as a “compendious term to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to make up the personal liberties of man other than those within the several clauses of Article 19 (1).”
The author then goes on to say that soon after, ‘speedy trial of cases’ came to be added to the scope of Article 21. It did not end there; a succession of judgements — right to a protected (clean and eco-friendly) environment, right against solitary confinement, right against delayed execution, right against public hanging, and also the right to expeditious police investigation — emphatically enlarged and gave a brand new interpretation to the matter of fundamental rights as envisioned under Article 21.
But if we look back dispassionately and study the situation, very few of these rulings have been effective in practice. For example, speedy trials are still a chimera and delayed executions (especially of terrorists) are the norm.
Similarly, while dealing with the Unnikrishnan case of the early 1990s, the Supreme Court had opined, “Though right to education is not stated expressly as a Fundamental Right, it is implicit in and flows from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21…” This is yet another classic instance of a ruling that not only tested the flexibility of the scope of Article 21 but also came to be observed in breach more often than not. What else can explain the arrival, despite this verdict, of a special Act to serve the purpose — the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, better known as the Right to Education Act — which came into force earlier this year? The Act in fact accords primary education a legal status which is on par with the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Clearly, the Supreme Court has over the years come to conclude that it is not just the personal liberty and life that have cover under Article 21, but nearly everything else that is needed for these two to be effectively implemented. In other words, as Mr Shourie remarks in the book, the state has progressively come to be “under a constitutional mandate to provide facilities that are needed for citizens to be able to partake” the new expanded rights. Mr Shourie puts it succinctly when he comments, “From what was intended to protect persons against arbitrary arrest and restraint, against physical coercion by organs of the State, Article 21 has become the device… for requiring the state to provide in effect every thing that would make a person’s life a life of dignity and fulfillment… The point is about liability, about enforceability.” Precisely so.
Thus, we are back to square one. The ‘right to sleep’ is destined to turn out to be as uneforceable a ruling as the many others made by the Supreme Court in the preceding years to enlarge the scope of fundamental rights.

With face blackened, UPA tries whitewash

(First published in The Pioneer dated August 22, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

The Congress-led UPA Government has developed a visceral dislike for the terminology, ‘presumptive or notion loss’ to the exchequer, after the massive 2G Spectrum scam broke out in the public domain. So, out of respect for the regime, let us for the moment keep aside the figure of Rs 1.86 lakh crore that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has computed as the notional loss to the public coffer because the Government distributed a number of coal blocks to private players without going in for competitive bidding. That may be an approximately true enough figure or it may not. Instead of thus getting into an argument over this number, let us look at the Government’s justification for not having opted for the auction route.
The first defence of the UPA regime — and that of the Congress in particular, since the Prime Minister is directly under attack as he held the coal portfolio during the period when the Government decided to distribute the blocks like one-time feudal lords gifted away property to their favourites — is that the auction route would have taken a tortuously long time to materialise because auction would have needed changes in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Since the Government was keen to enhance coal production at the earliest, it decided on the direct allocation, goes the argument. This is a flimsy explanation to cover up for the fact that the Government was pre-disposed to the non-auction route, and that is why it dragged its feet on bringing about the changes in the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act. A look at the sequence of events will expose the regime’s lie. But first, let’s see how the facts played out.
Within six weeks of coming to power in May 2004, the UPA Government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made public the concept of competitive bidding for captive coal blocks. The Government went to great lengths to publicise its intent as part of its ‘determination’ to revamp and professionalise the coal sector. Two weeks after the declaration of this noble intent, the Coal Secretary prepared a comprehensive note on the subject.
The impression that gained ground was that the competitive bidding process would be approved. But, suddenly and mysteriously, a note materialised from the Prime Minister’s Office that detailed the ‘disadvantages’ of allotting coal blocks through competitive bidding.
The brave Coal Secretary (unusual for a bureaucrat) rubbished the note and drew attention to some ‘pressures’ that were being applied on the steering committee formed to study the issue. But his courage came to naught. The Union Ministry of Coal had made up its mind against auctioning the blocks on the pretext that competitive bidding would need changes in the law, and that such changes would be a long-drawn process. By the end of 2004 and early 2005, it had become clear that coal blocks would be awarded directly by a panel constituted by the Government and that competitive bidding would be considered on a prospective basis at a later date.
Having arrived at such a conclusion, the Government showed no hurry in moving to amend the MMDR Act. Had the UPA sincerely worked from the start of its first innings in office to bring about change in the legislation, it had a good chance of success. It took an entire two years for the Government to move on the issue of amendments. It was only in March 2006 that the Prime Minister’s Office, after having virtually cleared the route for direct and less than transparent allocation of coal blocks to a bunch of private players, decided to put in place the process of competitive bidding. Had the regime been serious, in the two year period (2004-06), it could have pushed through the needed amendments. But it used up the time to promote allocation of the valuable natural resource without competitive bidding. It began bolting the stable after the horses had escaped.
Even so, it was another two years before the Government brought to Parliament the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Bill. It was only towards the latter half of 2010 that the Bill became law. In other words, it took two years from the time amendments were proposed to their becoming law. It is clear from these facts that the Congress-led regime was less than enthusiastic for whatever reason in selling off the coal blocks to the highest bidder.
The Government can now argue that the delay in getting the amendments passed by Parliament was because it was busy ironing out differences among various stakeholders. But that does not sound convincing. The fact is that even today industry is unhappy with the amendments. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry has, for instance, said the new provisions would make mining of coal and minerals “unattractive”. This, it claimed, is because of the rule that coal mining firms have to contribute 26 per cent of their profits to a development fund. FICCI also said that the tax burden on the coal sector as a result of the changes in law could rise to 61 per cent.
The other defence put forth by the Government has been that the allocation of blocks without an auction had been taken in the larger national interest. We are yet to be told what that ‘larger national interest’ was that has been adequately served. But the CAG offers us a glimpse of how the ‘larger interest’ has not been served. Three brief quotes from its report will tell the story:
1. The process of bringing in transparency and objectivity in the allocation process of coal blocks got delayed at various stages and the same is yet to materialise even after a lapse of seven years.
2. Out of 28 producing blocks as on June 30, 2011, in case of 10 blocks, there was time overrun ranging from one to 10 years.
3. The Coal Controller’s Organisation did not conduct any physical inspection of allocated coal blocks to ascertain the actual progress as per the MMDR Act, 1957.
To top it all, even the avowed purpose of the Government in directly allotting coal blocks to private parties without competitive bidding, does not seem to have been achieved. There is no indication that the UPA’s action has boosted coal production in any way, since many of the blocks are reporting little output. In fact, the CAG notes that the “de-reservation of Coal India Limited blocks did not yield desired results.”
Neither the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India nor the people in general are opposed to  private players having a major role in the development of the coal sector. Indeed, without the wholesome participation of the private players, the coal industry has no future. As the CAG notes, “Captive coal mining is a mechanism envisaged to encourage private sector participation in coal mining.” But such participation must happen in an environment of transparency and without loss to the public exchequer.

Justice neither done, nor seen to be done

(First published in The Pioneer on August 8, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

Thirteen years ago, on a late chilly January night, a BMW car moving at reckless speed runs through a group of people in Delhi, killing six, including three policemen. The car was driven in an inebriated state by a youth in his early twenties, belonging to an influential family. The accused was brought to trial and convicted. The sentence: Jail term of a mere two years. The Delhi High Court passed this verdict and the Supreme Court upheld it. Will you call this justice? Ask any sane person and the answer will be in the negative. But for the learned judges of our courts, it certainly is.
Now, look at the gruesomeness of the incident to realise how the court rulings were not justice, but a joke in the name of justice — in fact, a farce. The prosecution laid it all before the courts: The car comes charging at breakneck speed towards the group which included three policemen on patrol who had stopped some people for checking their identities. It is midnight or thereafter. The vehicle hits them all. The impact is so terrible that the unfortunate persons are flung into the air. Some fall on the bonnet of the car; others dash against the windscreen. Some roll down and come under the car.
After a while, the accused halts the car, inspects the damage and rushes away, ignoring the cries of help from the injured and the dying persons. There are still some victims trapped underneath the vehicle; they too are dragged for a distance. The accused then takes the vehicle to the house of a friend. The car is washed there and evidence allegedly destroyed.
Now, study the submission of a witness who details the scene of the crime. He finds the head of one person crushed and the abdomen of a policeman ripped completely open, with blood flowing on the street. The mangled body of another constable too is noticed, with his right leg severed and lying at a distance of some 10 feet.
The perpetrator of this horrific crime, the one who snuffed out the lives of policemen performing their duty and innocent citizens, gets all of two years in prison. He is out today, having served his term. But there is no release from the trauma for the families of the victims. Have the courts done them justice? Go ask the surviving members, and you will know. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ridiculously low two-year prison term also sends across a disturbing message to those who have lost their beloved ones to rash and drunk driving and are fighting a legal battle in the courts. Take a recent case: Some three months ago, a pregnant Kshama Chopra was returning home in a car after a routine medical check-up along with her husband and parents. Her vehicle was hit by a speeding BMW. The car she was in was tossed in the air and she died on the spot. The killer vehicle drove away from the site of the accident. While the legal trial is yet to begin, her shattered husband has already lost hope in the wake of the delays and the allegedly lackadaisical manner in which the police has been investigating the incident. In the end, even if the accused is convicted, he may well get away with a couple of years behind bars.
Let’s again return to the incident of three years ago. It’s important to trace the contours of the legal course that the case has taken to fully understand how justice (or the lack of it) has played out. The gruesome accident happened on the intervening night of January 9-10, 1999. The youth driving the car was Sanjeev Nanda, then 21, son of an influential businessman.  After the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. He was charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 304. The trial court judge performed admirably by all accounts. Although the material witnesses presented by the prosecution turned hostile — let’s not get into the reasons, though we can well guess and the courts know it only too well — there was one who valiantly stood by his account and corroborated the prosecution’s claim. The trial court judge considered that witness as reliable. Moreover, the judge concluded that the accused should be held guilty under the more stringent Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC and sentenced him to five years in prison.
Aggrieved by the five-year prison term verdict, Sanjeev soon after approached the Delhi High Court in 2008. The High Court did two things: It set aside the statement of the lone witness — who had admirably not turned hostile — as being unreliable, and it converted the conviction from under Section 304 (Part II) to the less stringent Section 304A. Now, while the latter provision deals with ‘causing death due to negligence’, the former — which the trial court had applied — deals with ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. The maximum sentence under the provisions of Section 304 (Part II) is 10 years imprisonment. In changing the Section under which he was convicted, the High Court slashed his term to two years. The prosecution was naturally unhappy and the matter arrived before the Supreme Court.
The apex court in its ruling subjects us to high-flowing rhetoric about the horrible nature of the crime, and upholds the trial court’s decision to convict Sanjeev under section 304 (Part II) of the IPC. But then, it also upholds the absolutely shocking two-year jail term the High Court had awarded. The Supreme Court says it was persuaded by certain ‘mitigating circumstances’ to maintain the small prison sentence, and that those were heavier than the ‘aggravating circumstances’ of the crime. And, what are those ‘mitigating circumstances’? Among others, Sanjeev has already served his two-year term; he is now married and the couple is blessed with a daughter; his conduct in jail had been exemplary. But, how does all this matter to the crime that he has committed? How does it even one bit justify his criminal conduct? Can these factors mitigate the loss and the grief that the families of the victims feel? Is this a fit closure for them?
It’s a good lesson for all would-be-convicts: Meet such criteria and you can be let off with a light punishment even if you have killed people and are convicted under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC — or for that matter under any provision, however harsh it may be. Of course, the apex court has hastily added that the ruling need not be considered a precedent for similar cases in future, and that it has upheld the small sentence strictly on account of the ‘mitigating’ circumstances.
Well, crimes and criminals will always have some mitigating circumstance laced with heavy emotional quotient to quote in their favour. At times these may be reasonable; often they are diversionary in nature and succeed in their aim — as they did in the Sanjeev Nanda case.

Fame is a bee. It has a sting. It also has wings

(First published in The Pioneer dated July 25, 2012)

RAJESH SINGH

Rajesh Khanna died a week ago but he will live on with us forever. Numerous heartfelt tributes have been paid to him, and among them is the remark that an era had come to an end with his death. That is not true. He did not represent an era; he was himself the era. He created what was his own and he has taken it away with him. There is no ‘Rajesh Khanna legacy’, because a legacy is meant to be carried forward, to be promoted. Which actor has the capability — and more important, the charisma — to do that? The country’s first superstar was like a joker in the pack; he fitted into several roles but was essentially a solo performer standing out on his own strength. Others borrowed from him but were in no position to pay back even the interest amount, let alone the principal.
He lived in a world that was both real and illusionary. The reality was that Rajesh Khanna was a national rage, that he gave more than 15 super-hit films in a span of just over two years, that he had the Midas touch. The illusion was that all this fame and the superstardom would never end. He was not a babe in the woods, so it is difficult to understand how Rajesh Khanna could believe in this illusion. But he did — at least for a while — until he came crashing down. Like flies swarm around a piece of sweet, courtiers fawned over him and fed him stories of his invincibility. Rajesh Khanna, who had so brilliantly connected with millions of people across the world through his films, was hopelessly out of touch with the simple philosophical (and physical) reality that what goes up always comes down. Well-known qawwal Aziz Nazan had sung, “Chadta sooraj dheere dheere dhalta hai, dhal jayega”.
When the sun sets on fame, cohorts disappear, only to rearrange before a new rising star. Rajesh Khanna saw that happen and it took him years to come to terms with the harsh reality. But when he did that, it was too late. Not just the courtiers in the film industry but also his fans had migrated. He did his best, tried to turn on his legendary charm and mannerism, but nothing worked. The film industry is ruthless. It does not spare the fallen, not even demi-gods, unless it finds something of value in doing so. In Rajesh Khanna’s case, it sadly found no value. He had begun to fade. As Sheryl Crowe crooned:
Well, there was a time I would have
Hung around just to be seen
Hey man, it’s a shame when you start to fade
Diamond rings and sparkly things
Won’t make your shine stay
Yet, he need not have faded for good. Lesser stars have made comebacks. But Rajesh Khanna must have felt uncomfortable in returning as a commoner to a kingdom that he once ruled, in being referred to a ‘has-been’, in getting a lesser share of the limelight — and that too given condescendingly by those who only some years ago were lying at his feet. He did a few ‘comeback’ films like Amardeep towards the end of 70s, but the spark was gone. The one-time superstar seemed to have given up, and soon thereafter he retreated from the arc-lights.
In later years, he appeared to have come to terms with reality more effectively, mentioning on more than one occasion: Woh bhi ek daur tha, ye bhi ek daur hai. But the truth is that he could never overcome the grief of a fallen star. He dabbled half-heartedly in politics, desperately sought refuge in personal relationships that led more to turmoil than stability and allowed his persona to deteriorate. By the time he was persuaded to do an ad film for a fan manufacturer only months before his death, Rajesh Khanna was a pale shadow of his glorious self. What stood out in the film was his one-liner: Mere fans mujhse koi nahin chheen sakta. True. His fans may have shifted loyalty or lost the ability to count at the box office, but the country’s first superstar always resided in a corner of their hearts — if nothing, at least as nostalgia. He had become an antique; to be gazed at but not touched or used.
I never had the occasion to meet him but I had seen him on a few occasions. As a youngster in Mumbai, I would like many star-struck fans hang out at the Mahim traffic junction hoping to catch a glimpse of him if he were passing by. Across the signal was Bandra where he resided. Every time that his car stopped at the signal, fans would go wild waving at him and shouting out to him. He would wave back with that magical smile and a tilt of his head which had left the country swooning. His famed arrogance was apparently reserved for others; his fans were god to him, and he pampered them heartily.
A myth is being perpetuated in the wake of his death that Rajesh Khanna was a great actor. He was not. ‘Kaka’ was a competent actor, given more to dramatics than understatement. In many of his films such as Anand, Safar and Amar Prem, he was really good. But he wasn’t a great actor in the sense that Dilip Kumar or Sanjeev Kumar was. But the shortcoming was made up by his superstardom status. Perhaps that superstardom also served to constrain him from venturing into dramatically newer genres of acting. Perhaps if he had tried to break the mould and did something innovative, he might have touched greater heights. But, then, what ‘greater height’ was left for him to reach?
The other myth is that he was the film industry’s greatest romatic hero. That honour goes to the evergreeen Dev Anand, though Rajesh Khanna does come a close second.
Along the way, ‘Kaka’ was helped by the magical combination of RD Burman, Kishore Kumar and Anand Bakshi. It is difficult to say who complemented whom the most between Kishore Kumar and the superstar. It is even unnecessary to know that, because in the end magic was created. But, other singers like Mukesh and Mohammed Rafi also gave voice to Rajesh Khanna and their songs were major successes. In terms of quality if not in quantity, these songs were as good (and at times better). Take, for instance, Mukesh’s soulful Jis gali mein tera ghar na ho balma from Kati Patang or the mesmerising Rafi number, Akele hain chale aao from Raaz or Manna Dey’s exquisitely rendered Zindagi kaisi hai paheli from Anand.
Written some 100 years before Rajesh Khanna became a phenomenon, and then a pariah for the film industry, American poet Emily Dickinson had written:
Fame is a bee.
It has a song -
It has a sting -
Ah, too, it has a wing.
Life too has a wing. Ironically, in his death, Rajesh Khanna appears to have got back all the fame and the superstardom that had deserted him. Look at the tributes that keep pouring in, and it is difficult to believe they are for an actor who had ceased performing decades ago and had slipped out of public life since many years. Well, once a superstar, always a superstar.

Chidambaram is competent, but under a cloud

(First published in The Pioneer dated July 11, 2012)


RAJESH SINGH

Union Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram had an opportunity to somewhat redeem his image when the Prime Minister recently appointed him as the head of the newly constituted Empowered Group of Ministers that is tasked with looking into the forthcoming auction of 2G Spectrum. Mr Chidambaram could have politely declined the position taking the high moral ground that it would be inappropriate for him to head a ministerial panel on an issue over which he is under a cloud of suspicion. But he did not do so. By his acceptance, he has not just set the ground for a confrontation with the Opposition but has also come across as an obstinate politician who cares two hoots for popular perception and for propriety which is expected of senior leaders such as him. For bipartisan observers, his act is not just of obstinacy but also of arrogance.
Just why is Mr Chidambaram so determined to continue denting his own image remains a mystery. Perhaps he very strongly believes that he has done no wrong and that any action of his that seems like a retreat will be interpreted as an acknowledgement of his complicity. He may not agree with this, but the fact is that his credibility among the people is getting severely affected by such intransigence. The more he refuses to exercise caution the more the impression that he is in the wrong gets strengthened.
This is sad, given the fact that Mr Chidambaram is allowing some good work that he has done as Home Minister to be eclipsed by the controversies that have been raised about his alleged complicity in the 2G Spectrum scam that happened when he was the Union Minister for Finance. Of course, there are also allegations that Mr Chidambaram as Home Minister has failed to contain either terrorist attacks or the rising Maoist menace. Among the many Maoist strikes, two stand out: Seventy six Central Reserve Police Force personnel were massacred by Maoists in Chhattisgarh in 2010; and, Maoists derailed a train in West Bengal the same year that led to the death of close to 100 civilians. Still, the fact also is that he has managed to bring a sense of direction in the Home Ministry after he took charge post-26/11 Mumbai attacks. During the disastrous tenure of his predecessor Shivraj Patil, the internal security structure of the country had all but collapsed. Mr Chidambaram has rescued that structure, streamlined it and made it more responsive by ensuring effective coordination among the various security agencies.
The establishment of the National Investigation Agency, the various NSG hubs and the strengthening of coastal security can be cited as his achievements. It was under his supervision that the Indian intelligence agencies managed to collect substantive proof of the involvement of Pakistani state and non-state actors in the 26/11 Mumbai attack. The several dossiers that have been provided to Islamabad contain solid evidence which has been acknowledged even by the West and quoted to coerce Pakistan into action.
Mr Chidambaram has been the only senior Congress leader in the Union Council of Ministers who has spoken out unambiguously and strongly on both Maoist violence and cross-border terrorism. He has backed the drive of the security forces to flush out Maoists and has been critical of the attempts by people — including those from within his party — to glorify the Maoists as martyrs fighting for a social cause. His determined stance on Pakistan-generated terror is in sharp contrast to the meekness of Union Minister for External Affairs SM Krishna who has failed to stand up to Islamabad’s attempt to bully India and who continues to believe in the lies fed by Pakistan. Mr Chidambaram has never minced words on the issue. Very recently, in the backdrop of the Foreign Secretary-level talks between the two countries, he angered Islamabad by categorically (and correctly) stating that Pakistan’s “state actors” were deeply involved in the Mumbai attack. Such plain talk is rare among Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Ministers, who have mastered the art of not calling a spade a spade.
Therefore, given his largely commendable, if not stellar — remember the National Counter-Terrorism Centre fiasco — record as Home Minister, a person of Mr Chidambaram’s intellect would have been expected to steer clear of issues that would obfuscate his achievements. Yet, he has decided to head an EGoM which he should have avoided like the plague. His supporters may say that his alleged complicity in the 2G Spectrum scam is a figment of imagination of his rivals and that a Delhi Trial Court had dismissed a petition seeking to investigate his role as the Finance Minister in the disbursement of 2G licences without going through the auction route. But, hard as the Minister’s defenders may try, they cannot deny the following four facts:
First, as Finance Minister, Mr Chidambaram had all along been aware of the fraud that Union Minister for Telecommunication A Raja was involved in. Second, Mr Chidambaram had the authority to prevent the licences (and the spectrum that came bundled with it) from being distributed at throwaway rates when the matter came up before him.
Third, he made no effort to counter Raja’s scam, which he must have known given his incisive understanding of issues, would lead to a massive loss to the national exchequer. Fourth, not only did he not prevent the fraud from taking place, Mr Chidambaram went a step ahead and endorsed before the Prime Minister Raja’s dubious action. Before doing that, he had many meetings with Raja.
Thus, it cannot also be assumed that the then Finance Minister was not fully briefed about the matter when he proposed to the Prime Minister that Raja’s action should be okayed.
Mr Chidambaram’s supporters have not disputed these facts, but they have maintained that nothing in them points to any mala fide intent on Mr Chidambaram’s part, and that being a party to a wrong decision does not automatically mean being criminally complicit or culpable. But that can only be determined through a proper inquiry, which is what the Opposition has been demanding.
There is another very strong reason why Mr Chidambaram should not have agreed to even be a member of — let alone head — the EGoM on spectrum pricing. There is a petition pending before the Supreme Court against him. The plea seeks to make him a co-accused in the 2G Spectrum scam, and the apex court has reserved its verdict on it.
By not heeding common sense, the very articulate Home Minister has rendered many of his admirers speechless.