TURNING GUJARAT RIOTS INTO A RIOT OF POLITICS

TURNING GUJARAT RIOTS INTO A RIOT OF POLITICS

By A. C. Vashishth

New claims surfacing every other day about the 2002 Gujarat riots are puzzling and, to an extent, intriguing because of the contradictory nature of the claims and the counter-claims. This game of one-upmanship is likely only to hinder the process of reaching down to the bottom of the truth. The only hope remains the Supreme Court which is sure to clear the untimely clouds of doubts raised by contradictory and conflicting statements and claims.

A Gujarat IPS officer, Sanjeev Bhatt, in his affidavit in the Supreme Court has claimed that the Chief Minister Narendra Modi in a meeting held on February 27, 2002 expressed the view that Hindus be allowed to vent out their anger.” Media reports quoting sources close to him said he was referring to the affidavit in the Zakia Jaffery case. (http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2011/04/gujarat-ips-officer-alleges-modis-complicity-in-2002-riots/)

The media has gone on to describe this disclosure as a great blow to Mr. Modi and raised finger at his involvement.

On the other hand, K. Chakrabarthi, Gujarat's Director General of Police at the time of post-Godhra riots has said: "He (Sanjiv Bhatt) was not present in that particular meeting held with the Chief Minister and other high-ranking officials. I have told this to the Special Investigation Team (probing the riots) during my deposition." (http://www.asianage.com/india/ips-officer-bhatt-not-present-meeting-modi-guj-ex-dgp-561)

Another queer allegation has been hurled by another IAS officer Mr. Pradeep Sharma, an officer suspended by the Modi government. Mr. Sharma is behind bars for his involvement in an alleged land scam case. He says that he was called by the chief minister’s office and told to ask his elder brother Kuldip, then posted as IG of Ahmedabad range, “that he should abstain from taking any proactive measures in favour of minorities”. (Mail Today, April 26m 2011, P.3)

Does it imply that Mr. Modi thought that IG Kuldip was so high an official that a chief minister dare not speak directly to him and, therefore, he had to seek the assistance of a junior officer and Kuldip’s younger brother to convey his wishes? Does it also mean that the CM perhaps thought that Mr. Kuldip may defy him but will comply with the wishes and directions of his younger brother, Mr. Pradeep Sharma?

Efforts seem to be afoot to put some words in the mouth of Mr. Narendra Modi and to prove through the evidence of certain persons who have now preferred to open their mouth, for unexplained reasons, only after nine years.

But surprisingly our media and politicians are more willing to jump at the ‘truth’ of Mr. Pradeep Sharma’s and Mr. Bhatt’s statement than giving weight to the words of latter’s boss.
GUJARAT & ANTI-SIKH RIOTS
Anti-Sikh riots broke out following the unfortunate assassination of late prime minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi but, surprisingly, remained confined only to Congress-ruled States in the country resulting in merciless killing of more than 5,000 Sikhs (almost more than double the number that died in Gujarat riots). The then Prime Minister late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi is on record having justified the Sikh genocide saying, “When a big tree falls the earth shakes around it.” The tremors will be felt all the way up to Delhi. (http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/columnists/print.php?content_id=85795)
Yet, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi continues be a great ‘secular’ icon. Nobody raises fingers at him. This also exposes the hypocrisy, morality, impartiality and fairness of our ‘secular’ intelligentsia.
That is the way of Indian politics, ‘secularism’ and system of justice. No court, so far, seems to have taken cognizance of this confession. More than half a commissions of inquiry into the anti-Sikh riots have testified to the fact that the Police administration and the then Lt. Governor had stood like a silent spectator to the orgy against Sikhs. No official has been punished. No leader is behind bars. In Gujarat numerous politicians have been convicted and many are languishing behind bars. Justice still eludes the women widowed, children orphaned and elders snatched their life support during the anti-Sikh riots even after 26 years.
Compare where do Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and Mr. Narendra Modi stand in the estimation of our ‘secular’ media, intelligentsia and human rights activists all over the world? ***

IS HAMAAM MEIN SAB NANGE -- MEDIA BHI

इस हमाम में सब नंगे, मीडिया भी

-- अन्‍तर्यामी

साप्‍ताहिक चौथी दुनिया ने अपने 25–—01 मई, 2011 के अपने अंक में ''26 लाख करोड् का महाघोटाला'' शीर्षक से मुख्‍य पृष्‍ठ पर एक रिपोर्ट छापी है जिस में कोयला मन्‍ञालय में हुये घोटाले का पर्दाफाश करने का दावा किया है। संयोगवश इस मन्‍ञालय का प्रभार स्‍वयं प्रधान मन्‍ञी डा0 मनमोहन सिंह के पास है।

साप्‍ताहिक के अनुसार इस घोटाले की जानकारी उन्‍हें मध्‍य प्रदेश के भारतीय जनता पार्टी सांसद श्री हंसराज गंगाराम अहीर से प्राप्‍त हुई जिन्‍होंने अपने पञ दिनांक 18 नवम्‍बर 2010 को कंटरोलर एवं आडिटर जनरल आफ इण्डिया (सीएजी) को इसकी विस्‍तृत जानकारी दे दी है। सीएजी कार्यालय ने भी अपने पञ संख्‍या AMG-III/Coal Blocks/MP/2010-11/216. दिनांक 8 दिसम्‍बर 2010 द्वारा इसकी पावती सांसद महोदय को भेज दी है। अब इसकी जांच के बाद सीएजी किस निष्‍कर्ष पर पहुंचते हैं और अपनी क्‍या रिपोर्ट भेजेंगे यह तो समय ही बतायेगा।

पर इतना अवश्‍य है कि अभी तक इस संसनीखेज् रहस्‍योदघाटन पर सरकार ने अपनी जुबान नहीं खोली है। न आरोप लगाने बाला ही कोई मामूली व्‍यक्ति है और न ही छापने वाला कोई थैलाछाप समाचारपञ। आरोप एक जिम्‍मेदार सांसद ने लगाये हैं और एक ऐसे साप्‍ताहिक ने छापे हैं जो ब्‍लैकमेलर नहीं माना जाता। यह सा‍प्‍ताहिक 1986 से छप रहा है जिसे एक पूर्व सांसद निकाल रहे हैं।

सांसद और पञकार दोनों ही जानते है कि इतने गम्‍भीर आरोप लगाने का हशर क्‍या हो सकता है। झूठे आरोप लगाना एक आपराधिक कुकर्म है जिस कारण उन्‍हें जेल भी हो सकती है और मानहानि के जुर्म में भारी जुर्माना भी भरना पड सकता है।

सरकार को भी पता है कि चुप्‍पी सदैव निर्दोष होने का सबूत नहीं होती। कुछ लोग इसका अर्थ दोष की स्‍वीकारोक्ति भी मानते हैं। वैसे आज निर्दोष होने के दावे की कोई विश्‍वसनीयता भी नहीं बची है। 2जी स्‍पैक्‍टरम घोटाला हो या कामनवैल्‍थ खेल घोटाला सरकार के मन्‍ञी ए राजा और सुरेश कलमाडी भी छाती ठोंक कर निर्दोष होने का डंका पीटते थे। दोष और निर्दोष का निर्णय न तो आरोपी स्‍वयं ही कर सकता है और न इस पर जनता ही अपना फतवा सुना सकती है। इसका निर्णय तो अन्‍तता अदालत को ही करना होता है।

पर इस सारे प्रकरण में मीडिया की भी पोल खुल गई है। अपने आपको सदा सतर्क, निर्भीक, निष्‍पक्ष और अपने कर्तव्‍य के प्रति ईमानदार होने का दावा भरने वाला मीडिया आज स्‍वयं कटघरे में खडा दिख रहा है।

किसी बडे नेता, विशेषकर गुजरात के मुख्‍य मन्‍ञी नरेन्‍द्र मोदी के, स्‍वामीरामदेव के विरूद्व कोई भी छुटभैयया नेता या नौकाशाह आरोप लगा दे। कोई भी कुछ बोल दे। कोई अनजान स्‍वयंसेवी संस्‍था का सदस्‍य कोई आरोप जड् दे तो यह मीडिया के लिये एक ब्रेकिंग न्‍यूज बन जाती है जिस के लिये हमारी न्‍यूज चैनल घंटों का समय दे देते है। लम्‍बी लम्‍बी चर्चाये शूरू कर देते हैं वह। हमारे समाचार पत्रों के प़ृष्‍ठ भरे पडे रहते हैं। पर अब जब कि एक साप्‍ताहिक पत्र् ने एक सांसद के हवाले से गम्‍भीर आरोप लगाये हैं तो हमारे निर्भीक, निष्‍पक्ष, स्‍वतन्‍त्र् और अन्‍वेषी पत्रकारों की तो मानों आंख पर ही पटटी बंध गई हैख्‍ जुबान बन्‍द हो गई है।

यह एक ऐसा मौका था जब हमारे पञकारों को अपनी कौशलता, निर्भीकता, स्‍वतंञता व ईमानदारी के सिक्‍के जमा सकते थे। इस समाचार व आरोप को परम सत्‍य का रूप मान लेना भी उतना ही गलत होगा जितना कि उसे सफेद झूठ कह कर नकार देनाा न मीडिया ही इस पर अपना अन्तिम निर्णय सुना सकता है। पर इतना तो अवश्‍य है कि जैसे अन्‍य समाचारों व आरोपों पर मीडिया अपना मत व अपनी टिप्‍पणी प्रस्‍तुत करना अपना नैतिक कर्तव्‍य समझता है, वैसी ही कर्तव्‍यपरायण्‍ता का प्रदर्शन व परिचय उसे इस रहस्‍योदघाटन पर भी करना चाहिये था। वह सत्‍य की तह तक जाकर या उसे नकार देता या स्‍वीकार कर लेता। मीडिया का यह तो ऐसा अधिकार है जिसे भारत सरीखे जनतंञ में कोई चुनौति नहीं दे सकता। पर इस कर्तव्‍यपरायणता से मीडिया अपना पल्‍लू भी नहीं झाड् सकता। ऐसे में तो मीडिया की चुप्‍पी भी उतनी ही रहस्‍यमयी बन जायेगी जितनी कि सरकार की। तब तो इस हमाम में सब नंगे हैं वाली कहावत ही चरितार्थ हो जायेगी--मीडिया भी।

OLD DUD versus AMUL BABY

Old dud Vs. Amul Baby Hypocrisy -- Secular India’s proud political creed By Antaryami India may be a secular country yet, it seems, hypocrisy has evolved itself into a national creed of the political life of the country, unofficially by practice. Our politicians take pride in criticizing their opponents, calling names and going sarcastic. But when their target retaliates and they are at the receiving end, they cry: “foul, uncivilized, unbecoming behaviour”. The problem with our political class is that normally it doesn’t think before it opens its mouth. Offence, this class believes, is the best form of defence. But it forgets that when it targets somebody, that person is not going to take things lying down and will retaliate in self-defence, may be more offensively, more fiercely and more forcefully. Mahatma Gandhi may have preached that if somebody slaps you on one cheek, offer him the other. But this has never worked. It never happened even in his time, nor does it today. It is natural – and human too – that if somebody hits the other, the latter is most likely certain to strike back. Therefore, if somebody calls bad names, slaps or hits the other, the aggrieved may prove to be more foul mouthed and may hit back by hurling a hundred abuses and beating him into dough. In that eventuality if the person who tried to strike first grumbles that he has been maltreated, inhumanly beaten or abused, sympathy will lie with the person who was the victim first. The golden principle is that before you venture to be on the offensive to be the first to slap a person, you should first be chivalrous and gracious to be ready for a backlash -- to bear 10 or 50 slaps in revenge. Since India won independence, when was political sarcasm and abuse absent? When Mrs. Indira Gandhi was made the prime minister, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia had dubbed her goongi gudia, a dumb doll. He had also remarked: Nehru gave his ornaments to his daughter and his ashes to the country. The late Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao was repeatedly called mauni baba (a silent saint) Late Mrs. Tarkeshwari Sinha was a deputy minister for finance in Pandit Nehru’s council of ministers. She herself reminiscenced once that when she gave a reply to a question in parliament, a member pointed out that there were discrepancies in the figures quoted by her. On this a member remarked: Let us examine the figure of the minister and then find the difference. She said everybody laughed in the house. Calling our political opponents as chor (thief), daaku (dacoit), corrupt, exploiter, etc. is order of the day. We commonly hear the slogans, “gali gali mein shore hai,…..chore hai”, “is gali-sadi sarkar ko ek dhakka aur do”. Till about five-six years back we cherished the BSP’s pet political slogan: Tilak, tarazoo aur talwar – Inko maro joote chaar”. How many and who had protested then? It is the trick of the game of politics (and election) that one must hit the opponent where it pinches (or punches) the most; touch the raw nerve. This seems what Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi did when while campaigning in Kerala elections he poked fun at State chief minister V. S. Achuthanandan’s age saying: “If LDF is re-elected, Kerala will have a 93-year old as chief minister in five years time”. Politics, somebody rightly said, is the art of making fool of as many people as one can for votes and whoever succeeds in striking the highest score, wins. It seems to be in line with this doctrine that Congress youth icon derided in Kerala Achhutanandan’s advanced age but in the neighbouring Tamil Nadu he campaigned for M. Karunanidhi for CM who is no less aged than Achuthanandan. Incensed at this remark, Kerala CM hit back: “I need not tell you that Rahul Gandhi is Sonia Gandhi’s son. Rahul Gandhi is an Amul baby. He has launched a large number of Amul babies as Congress candidates”. He further claimed that by the age of 16 he was fighting the British and questioned, "Please tell me where was Rahul Gandhi (politically) before he was 40 years." He did not spare the defence minister too. "Pakistan terrorists came through the sea route to Mumbai and mounted an attack which shocked the nation. Was the Defence Minister in deep slumber, like Kumbhakarna then?" he taunted. In the current political atmosphere, where is the justification for taking offence at such electoral flings when the Congress leaders too have not been that polite and ‘civilized’? It was, therefore, surprising when Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee called the Achuthanandan comment on Rahul Gandhi as “uncivilized” and Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi calling it “an insult to entire youth of the country”, little realizing that Rahul may be youth icon for Congress but not for the whole youth of the country. And then every leader in every party is an icon for some section or the other. In our country, as a newspaper put it, a 50-year politician is taken as a young man and Mr. Rahul Gandhi is only 40. Moreover, a bachelor is always taken as a boy. Copying the western style we even call an 80 year old person the “birthday boy” on the day he celebrates his birth. The fact is that we are very touchy when the sting hurts us. Otherwise, we enjoy it when it hurts the other person -- our opponent. When did the Congress lag behind in hurling abuses and insults on its opponents? Late Mrs. Indira Gandhi took pride in dubbing everybody who opposed her or the Congress as “anti-national”. During the last Gujarat assembly election campaign, Congress President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi had called Gujarat CM Narendra Modi as maut ka saudagar. Did she or Congress apologise? Who among the politicians has been found amiss in this game of political name calling? During the election campaign Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav had called Bihar CM Nitish Kumar as emperor Nero when Patna had been submerged during monsoons. At other time he had called Nitish a combination of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Gobbles. His wife Mrs. Rabri Devi had used the word jamai (son-in-law) for some leader. People’s Democratic Party leader had called J&K CM Omar Abdullah as “Blackberry boy”. Punjab Congress chief Capt. Amrinder Singh had branded Punjab Deputy CM Sukhbir Singh Badal (son of Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal) as balungra (kitten). At different times Mr. L. K. Advani had called Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh as a weak prime minister. Mr. George Fernandes had once called Mrs. Sonia Gandhi as jhoothi challenging her qualifications. Idioms and sayings are the very treasure of any language. These provide richness to the language and help give a better expression and understanding of a situation or a person. Joote chaatn (lick somebody’s feet), kutte ki tarah poonch hilana (wag tale like a dog), kutte ki poonchh jitni bhi seedhi karo, tedhi he rahegi (however you try, dog’s tail will never get straightened), apna ullu sidha karma (serve your purpose) and the like. But when these words and sayings are used in writing or speeches of politicians, the persons for whom these expressions are used, take objection to it. Does that mean that our political class wants all these sayings and idioms to be taken out of our dictionaries and literature? It is time our politicians either stopped hurling abuses or making fun of others. Or they should have the moral strength to put up with the counter-attacks by others if the party tried to be even with them using the same weapons of offence. When a bull will try to attack a person, the latter is sure to catch it by the horns. Nobody should then cry foul.

UPA as QUATTROCCHI's DEFENCE COUNSEL?

UPA government as Quattrochi’s defence counsel

By Amba Charan Vashishth

It was never in doubt that Congress and Bofors were real cousins, inseparable. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the main accused in the Bofors pay-off scandal had never concealed his relations with the Gandhis. An India Today report (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/125661/india/%E2%80%98quattrocchi-had-free-access-to-gandhis%E2%80%99.html?complete=1) states that Ottavio Quattrocchi's personal driver Sasi Dharan in his deposition talks about multiple meetings between Quattrocchi and the Gandhis. These meetings continued right up to May 1993, till just before Ottavio Quattrocchi fled India for good. In his testimony before the CBI, Sasi gave details of the frequent meetings between the Gandhis and the Quattrocchis.

It is important to note that the meetings between Ottavio Quattrochi and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi continued even after Rajiv Gandhi’s death in 1991. Quattrocchi came to 10 Janpath 21 times after May 1991, he adds.

But when Quattrochi was allowed to slip out of the country during a Congress government in power at the Centre, the Congress and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi claimed that they had no role to play.

During the UPA-I under the leadership of Dr. Manmohan Singh not a leaf could rattle without the implied nod of the Congress supremo Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. During this period the then Law Minister H. R. Bharadwaj made the Additional Solicitor General of India especially fly to London to get the Quattrochi bank accounts defreezed at the cost of the people. This was done in spite of the fact that a red corner notice against Quattrochi issued at the behest of the Government of India was still there at that time.

When the eyebrows were raised, the Congress once again said that it had nothing to do with the case. Yet, everybody then knew that the Law Minister Bharadwaj (later rewarded with the office of a governor) was no naïve as not to distinguish between what would send a smile on the face of the madam.

But the gin of Bofors deal, now long considered dead, appeared once again to haunt the Congress and the Congress-led Manmohan government when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) named Italian middleman Ottavio Quattrocchi as one of the beneficiaries of the kickbacks. An ITAT order dated December 31, 2010, said “payments were made illegally as the government of India’s policy did not allow middleman in defence deals”. Quattrocchi and Win Chadha are accused of receiving `41 crore in illegal kickbacks in the Bofors gun purchase scandal of the mid-1980s. “Bofors admittedly paid the amounts to AE Services, Ottavio Quattrocchi and other entities. It’s a liability for withholding tax is built in. Ottavio Quattrocchi was living in India for a considerable time. This issue about his tax residence status should have been verified,” the order said.

So far maintaining that it had nothing to do with the Quattrochi case, this time Congress, after initially refusing to comment for about a week, had to come out seeking to pick holes in the ITAT order, wondering as to how the name of Ottavio Quattrochi figures in it. But why should the party wonder and worry when it had nothing to do with Quattrochi?

"We all know that in IT proceedings, you cannot deal with third parties. This was a case about assessment of income of Win Chaddha. In the 98-page order, Quattrochi's name comes on the 94th page. Technical question arises as to how his name came," party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi told reporters. He alleged that whenever an individual's name comes up in the Bofors case, it is sought to be "mischievously and misleadingly and deliberately" linked to the Congress party and Rajiv Gandhi. "That is the most unfortunate part".

Congress embarrassment is understandable because of the close family links between the Quattrochis and Gandhis which have never been a secret. Congress Party should know that names of both Win Chaddha and Quattrochi had appeared as the two beneficiaries of the Bofors loot. Therefore, both the names are like Siamese twins, inseparable.

But, what is more surprising is the report in the media (Times of India, February 15) that the government “is readying to appeal the Delhi high court to erase an unexpected tribunal order stricturing the Income Tax department for failing to proceed against Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi for non-payment of tax on the kickback money he received from the Bofors gun deal”.

The department got a favourable order from the ITAT on December 31 last year against former Bofors agent Win Chaddha's son, Hersh Chaddha, asking him to pay up tax dues on the commission from the gun deal with interest, totalling nearly Rs 50 crore. But it turned bitter for the Manmohan government the moment Quattrochi’s name surfaced.

It will turn out to be the rarest of the rare cases when the Government will go in for an appeal against the order in its own favour because the Income Tax Department and the Manmohan government are not two different entities. It is only the aggrieved party which goes in appeal against the judgement of the court. While Quattrochi can be the aggrieved party, how can the UPA government or the Congress?

After acting as the Quattrochi counsels to get his two freezed London bank accounts defreezed, the Congress-led Manmohan government will once again be acting as Quattrochi counsel at the expense of the aam aadmi to get his name deleted from the ITAT order which, in effect will mean pleading to seek loss of revenue to the government and which appeal, in the normal course, should have been filed by Quattrochi himself.

That will only confirm the suspicions in the minds of the people of India, nothing else.

Prime Minister's Media Interaction

Manmohan’s Interaction with media<
‘Culprit’ but not that much
Caught in adharma of ‘coalition dharma’

By Amba Charan Vashishth

Prime Minister Dr. Manohan Singh went in for an interaction with editors of electronic media. In sum, he made the following important points.

Dr. Manmohan Singh admitted that he is “a culprit but not that much” as is being painted by the media.

He thinks that his duty ends with attending only to those matters that are brought to his notice by the ministers or his office. He has nothing to do with what goes on below his nose in various ministries of the government over whom he presides.

He doesn’t feel responsible for what right or wrong goes on in the PMO or the department of space research (ISRO) directly under him. He admits that he received a letter in July 2010 regarding S-spectrum and if he failed to take action, to guide the department how to act and to prevent a wrong that was committed and for which the nation, according to one estimate, is to be made to cough up a loss of about ` 2 lakh crores is not his business.

On 2G spectrum scam he forgot that he had given a clean chit to his former telecom minister A. Raja and even publicly patted his back after Raja resigned. He admits that he told Mr. Raja to do everything in a transparent manner according to his government’s policy and according to rules. He further said: “f the ministry of finance and ministry of telecom both agree…I did not feel I was in a position to insist that auctions must be insisted” an admission of helplessness. Yet he is the prime minister.

As per Press reports (The Times of India, February 17) Finance Minister P. Chidambaram wrote to Prime Minister that “…if a licensee sells his licence (including spectrum) to another person, it could be stipulated that the licensee should share with govt a part of the premium/profit gained…through the sale”.. If not PM, who was to do it? Why did PM not act and issue any direction to Mr. Raja?

Dr. Manmohan Singh did confess that a number of scams did take place under his regime but tried to explain these away as “aberration”. So many scams, yet these are all ‘aberrations’.

He refused to accept responsibility for what went on in his council of ministers. The council of ministers is individually and collectively responsible for all the acts of omission and commission. He tried to feign ignorance about the provisions of Article 75(3) of the Constitution which says: “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.

Some time back Dr. Manmohan Singh did take pride in comparing his government to that of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. But he forgot that in Nehru’s cabinet ministers resigned the moment a finger of suspicion was raised at them. But Dr. Manmohan Singh himself is bold to declare that nobody can be held guilty till convicted by a court of law. Whether it was the then finance minister T. T. Krishnamachari and others, they resigned the moment their names appeared in a bad colour. Late Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned in 1956 when 144 people were killed in a train accident. Late Shastri was not driving the railway train himself, nor was he a station master or the signal man. Yet he resigned taking moral responsibility for the mishap. But here is the Manmohan government where none, including the prime minister, has the courage to take moral responsibility for the numerous scams that have taken place under this government. Yet Dr. Manmohan Singh compares his cabinet with that of Pandit Nehru.

Dr. Manmohan Singh said that opinions can be different but “facts are sacred”. But he, or his government, did not treat the facts pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India on 2G spectrum scam. His ministers and party imputed motives to the conduct of CAG, an institution of the Constitution.

More surprising was his comparing the loss calculated in the issue of 2G spectrum with the food subsidy. Was his government extending a subsidy to those whom it gave spectrum licences at the cost of the nation? The food subsidy helped the poor to have if not two, one meal, a day. What did the 2G spectrum favours do to the aam aadmi, except filling the pockets of the rich? And that is the allegation against Raja and his government. Only thing he has so far not admitted is that a part of the ‘subsidy’ granted by Raja has percolated to the accounts of some leaders.

He was very aggressive when he put the blame on the opposition for not allowing the two houses of parliament to function during the last winter session on the issue of JPC. He tried to wipe out the impression that he stood in the way of JPC formation as he feared appearing before it. He declared he is ready to appear before both the PAC and the JPC. But now that the Congress seems to have almost conceded the opposition demand for JPC, does it not mean that had the Congress party not been that adamant and unrelenting, the whole winter session would have been saved and parliament functioned normally?

It is difficult to say how proud he felt as a prime minister when he said he did not differ with his Home Minister Chidamabaram who had said that Manmohan government suffered from a “governance and ethical deficit”.

Dr. Manmohan Singh declared that no wrongdoer shall be spared. But when did he not say that? But during the last about seven years of his prime ministership, how many people who did “wrong” have been punished?

He said that “some compromises have to be made in managing a coalition” which conduct he labeled as coalition dharma. But what is important – the interests of the nation or “compromises” to stick to power? Does his “coalition dharma” preach to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s legendary monkeys who speak no evil, hear no evil and see no evil? Does this “dharma” require promoting corruption and promoting the corrupt?

To a pointed question, Dr. Manmohan Singh said he had no plans to quit. He admitted that things were “not entirely what I would like them to be”, yet he had had a job to do and would “stay the course”.

But in May 2010 he is on record having praised Rahul Gandhi saying he had all the qualities to be a prime minister and he expressed his readiness to vacate his chair for Rahul. Dr. Manmohan is not ready to quit accepting moral responsibility for being cornered from all sides from corruption indulged in by his colleagues, but meekly surrender. ***

INDEPENDENT INDIA suffering under a SLAVE GOVERNMENT

By Amba Charan Vashishth

The various UPA constituents, including the Congress, drew satisfaction from the fact that Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi did not name any particular ally when he said that UPA government was “not able to control inflation and corruption as his grandmother and late prime minister Indira Gandhi could do” because of coalition compulsions”.

The new Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan echoing Rahul remarks said that coalition politics was sometimes a hurdle in decision making. “Coalition can be a hindrance and one has to find a way out to make things happen”, he said on January 12.

Never did the country have a government as paralysed and as benumbed to act as we have today, particularly since May 2004, called UPA-II under which the Prime Minister is not able to exercise the kind of authority and leadership he should, in the normal course, on the council of ministers, particularly those belonging to the allies.

It is an accepted principle of the parliamentary democracy that it is the unchallenged prerogative of a prime minister to choose his team in the council of ministers and to allocate portfolios. But that is not the case under the present UPA-II government wherein it is not the prime minister but the alliance party bosses who decide who should be the minister (and of what rank) and which portfolio he/she should hold. The prime minister just faithfully abides by the wishes of the allies on whose support his government subsists.

Even in the case of recalcitrant ministers, like the union minister of chemicals and fertilizer M K Azhagiri, the former communications minister A. Raja, railway minister Mamta Banerjee, agriculture minister Sharad Pawar, the prime minister has found himself helpless to act. Mr. Azhagiri has played truant from the parliament and his office for unusually long periods. Despite reports of wrongdoings in communications ministry, Dr. Manmohan Singh and Congress President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi continued to defend him till the last. Even after Manmohan government was left with no alternative but to show the door to Mr. A. Raja on the eve of presentation of CAG report, Congress had to continue to defend him, even after CBI registered a case and conducted raids on Raja’s residence and interrogated him. The question remains: If Mr. Raja was not even a distant suspect in any crime, why at all was he made to resign? Why was he humiliated by conducting raids on his premises and those of his aides? If we go by the stand of the Congress and the DMK, it appears he has been made a scapegoat and punished for no crime of his.

Whatever explanation the Congress Party may proffer, the message has been well read and taken by the people: In independent India we are at present sufferings the pangs of a government that is slave to the circumstances.

Not in control

About a year back when prices started skyrocketing unusually and the aam aadmi was crying aghast, in irritation the Agriculture and Food Minister, Mr. Sharad Pawar, shot back that “I’m no astrologer” when a media person asked Pawar when he expects the prices to fall. But he did behave as an astrologer whose predictions always go wrong when he said a number of times that prices of particular commodities will continue to rise “for another three months” or ease after some time. Our Finance Minister has, on a number of occasions, predicted that inflation and prices will come down in “three-four months” or by the end of the year or so. But each time that didn’t happen.

On January 16, 2011 Mr. Sharad Pawar said that there was a wrong perception (created by media) that the agriculture ministry was responsible for rising prices. In reality, he added, the ministry had no role to play, and that it was entirely dependent on market conditions.

People of the country have voted this government to power to govern and administer and not just to volunteer excuses for non-performance, non –functioning and failures. People are eager to see it work to make their life convenient, easy, safe and secure; they are not interested in excuses.

To rule is easy, said Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, to govern difficult. Messers Rahul, Sharad Pavar or Prithviraj Chavan have only sent out a message loud and clear: this government is not able to perform and is just drifting by various forces beyond their control. A government must anticipate things and takes corrective steps in advance to meet the situation. If price rise and inflation are “entirely dependent on market conditions”; if UPA government was “not able to control inflation and corruption” because of coalition compulsions; if “coalition can be a hindrance (in taking a decision) and one has to find a way out to make things happen”, does it not mean that at the moment there is no a government worth its salt in power in the country? If not those in power who else “has to find a way out to make things happen”?

A government irresponsible

The stance of the UPA government amounts to the government virtually abdicating its authority, right and capacity to govern and administer “entirely” to “market conditions”. Our democracy too seems to have drifted to being a government by the aam aadmi, of the “market conditions” and forces, and for everybody else except the aam aadmi.

Democracy, good governance and modernity, Emile Lahud has rightly said, cannot be imported or imposed from outside a country. And the words of Thomas Jefferson apply aptly to the present Indian conditions when he said: “Experience hath shown that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”.

The confusion has further been worse confounded by the scenario of utter sense of irresponsibility prevailing in the government. Everybody, the prime minister included, washes his hands of the responsibility for everything wrong taking place under their nose.

Atheist turns believer

About thirty years back, a joke was widely quoted in India A leader from the then USSR which being a communist country did not believe in god, on return from a visit to India told his fellow citizens that he had now come to believe that god does exist there. Curious people asked, “How?” He replied: “There was no government worth the name, yet the country was going. God must be running the government and the country”.

Coalition adharma

Of late, we have come to hear of a new terminology of ‘coalition dharma’ which means taking every constituent of the alliance along, giving weightage to each one’s point of view and respecting their feelings which many a time are in conflict with each other. But what is of supreme importance – the ‘coalition dharma’ or the need to govern and perform in the interest of the people for which they had been mandated? Whether it is fighting corruption or terrorism, bringing down prices and inflation or the like, it is the ‘coalition dharma’ that appears to be a stumbling block for any action by the government. It cannot be a dharma but only adharma that can stand in conflict with the interests of the nation and ushers in sufferings for the common people.

Government for what?

If the present UPA dispensation is not to work to solve the burning problems of the country; if it has not to help the aam aadmi come out of his present state of suffering, and the administration has just to drift on its own, what for do we need an army of ministers at the Centre and in States -- just to enjoy the fruits of power at the cost of the people for whom they are not working? In that case a political system without a government would be much more desirable, as it would, at least, save the people of thousands of crores of money which they can spend on themselves to usher in their own prosperity.

Know your Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh

KNOW YOUR PRIME MINISTER of India
Dr. Manmohan Singh

Born: Sept 26, 1932, in Gah, West Punjab (presently Pakistan)
Married: Sept 14, 1958. Has three daughters —Upender, Daman and Amrit.
Education: M.A., D.Phil (Oxford), D. Litt (Honoris Causa), Educated at Universities of Panjab, Cambridge and Oxford.

Positions Held:

1972-76: Chief Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance.
1976-80: Director, Reserve Bank of India; director, Industrial Development Bank of India; alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, Asian Development Bank, Manila; alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).
Nov 1976-April 1980: Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs): member, Finance, Atomic Energy Commission; member, Finance, Space Commission.
April 1980-Sep 1982: Member-Secretary, Planning Commission.
Sept 1982-Jan 1982: Governor, Reserve Bank of India.
1982-85: Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
1983-84: Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister.
Jan 1985-July 1987: Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission.
Aug 1987-Nov 1990: Secretary General and Commissioner, South Commission, Geneva.
Dec 1990-March 1991: Advisor to the Prime Minister of India on Economic Affairs.
March 1991-June 1991: Chairman, University Grants Commission (UGC).
June 1991-May 1996: Union Finance Minister.
Oct 1991: Elected to Rajya Sabha.
1991-95: Governor for India on the Board of Governors of the IMF and IBRD.
June 1995: Re-elected to Rajya Sabha.
1996 onwards: Member, Consultative Committee for the Ministry of Finance.
Aug 1996-Dec 1997: Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce.
March 1998 onwards: Leader of the Opposition, Rajya Sabha.
June 2001: Re-elected to Rajya Sabha.
May 2004: Appointed Prime Minister of India.
May 22, 2009: Sworn in as Prime Minister of India for the second time.
— IANS
(Courtesy: Saturday, May 23, 2009, Chandigarh, India)