Indra’s Drishtikona (Viewpoint)

Sonia Sacrifices: Political Mileage or Loyalists’ Scandal

Posted : March 25, 2006 at 7:15 pm [IST]

Views of TCA Srinivasa-Raghavan, the columnist for the ‘Business Standard’ on March 25 about Sonia Gandhi’s resignation are as follows:

Once word of the proposed Ordinance, which the Prime Minister says was not under “active consideration”, leaked, the game was up. To say that she resigned to save the nation will not cut much ice. Saving the nation calls for a lot more, like not allowing what happened in the Goa assembly and in the Jharkhand assembly, or dissolving the Bihar assembly, or even, letting Ottavio Quattrochi’s accounts to be unfrozen on the say-so of the government. One resignation, I am afraid, does not balance the books. People say she does the right thing in the end. But why do something in the first place when you know it is wrong? There is only one reason. You think you can get away and, if there is a protest, you can quickly say sorry and try to appear dignified.

A few months ago, I thought she had begun to turn over a new leaf. She allowed Natwar Singh to be dropped, saw to it that no one interfered with the Election Commission during the Bihar election and got the PMO to issue the directive in respect of the Right to Information Act.

Now I am beginning to think I was wrong to think that I was wrong about her. It seems she does the right thing only when the sum of her own political and personal gains is greater than the loss. All this talk of sacrifice and ‘tyag’ is therefore inspired humbug.

Then there is the larger question of the notion of offices of profit. The correct answer is to repeal the law, not to include more exemptions in it.

I am of the firm opinion that no politician should hold two positions.

However, it is surprising that all her loyalist legal brains couldn’t foresee the obvious trouble, when the post of Chairperson of NAC was given the perks of cabinet minister rank. It was done in past for the leader of opposition in Morarji Government, for the heads of the national Commission for Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes, national Commission for Women, and also for thee National commission for Minorities was made out of the reach of the office of profit rule. As late as in 1999, Bajpai government protected the positions of leaders and chip whips of all recognized political parties and groups in parliament from the rule. Who should be blamed for that but her great law minister?

Congress must be more mature and better managed. But how can a party of sycophants be that?

PS-Parties join hands for some profit. After a meeting with Advani and leaders of Left parties separately, Dasmunsi said that “everyone wants an amendment to the parent law comprehensively so that it is not required to be amended frequently”.
Why now, why not before the drama?
When office is profit, profit is office
Enjoyer of an office of super-profit
The real conflicts of interest

- Indra

Category: Indian politics |