|
|
|
|
|
congress
Ordinance that started it all |
|
|
30% MPs, MLAs face criminal cases
|
|
congress
The sub-text of these two broad themes includes the political ramification of Rahul Gandhi’s high-voltage attack within the Congress and outside and how by raising the issue in the manner he did, the Grand Old Party managed to retrieve large tracts of moral ground on the issue that it was conceding to the opposition-led by the Bharatiya Janata Party and others. That Rahul Gandhi’s short staccato burst has had the desired effect in the withdrawal of the controversial Ordinance to protect convicted lawmakers is now an established fact. Equally true is the candid confession by the young Congress leader — in public once again — of being ticked off by his mother and Congress president Sonia Gandhi over the choice of words in disputing the decision. In his own words the young scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family admitted: “When I voiced my opinion against it, my mother told me that I used strong words. But I have every right to express my opinion. I am young. Maybe my words were strong but my sentiments were right.” No doubt, Rahul Gandhi was articulating the sense of disgust that many were feeling over the manner in which the Ordinance was being promulgated to negate the Supreme Court order for the sake of political expediency. Yet, the manner of delivering a public rebuke to a decision by a government headed by the Congress not only reflected poor understanding of the process but also disdain for how matters of State are dealt with. Would the decision have been any different had Rahul Gandhi from the same Press Club platform expressed his strong distaste for the proposed legislation in a subtler fashion, suggesting that he was requesting the Prime Minister to reconsider and withdraw the Ordinance?
Recovering lost ground All sorts of theories are doing the rounds in the corridors of power in Delhi ever since. One that Rahul wanted to prevent a fait accompli situation since there were indications that President Pranab Mukherjee was set to take a decision. Two, that with political surveys indicating that the Congress faces an uphill task in the next round of Assembly elections in five states, the Congress leader played the role of an aggressive rebel and distanced himself from the UPA; three, heeded to a sizeable section in the party, including Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit, cautioning that the Congress would lose face in the fight against corruption; four, the Congress wanted to prevent the BJP from running away with the ball and to checkmate the growing challenge from Narendra Modi; and five, it was time to silence critics for scoffing at Rahul Gandhi for rarely taking a stand on issues. Interestingly, another question remains unanswered till date. What prevents Rahul Gandhi from articulating his thoughts at different forums — party or Parliament? In the past decade he has been in the Lok Sabha, the issues raised by the Amethi MP can be counted on fingers. According to statistics on the members’ homepage of the Parliament website, he has taken part in just seven debates, including six in the previous House, and raised three questions, all in the last Lok Sabha, in the category in which a member gets a written reply. May be he intervenes during Standing Committee deliberations but those are not in the public domain. Today the principal opposition party BJP is attempting to apportion itself credit for stalling the Ordinance by petitioning Rashtrapati Bhavan against it, while the party patriarch has given credit to President Pranab Mukherjee. Lost in the high-decibel argument is an equally strong pitch made against it to the President by the Aam Aadmi Party that promises to work for a corruption-free political system.
Taking on the system A closer analysis of what Rahul Gandhi has been stating or doing in the party since his induction into the party five years ago and elevation as party vice-president at Jaipur this January shows that while he is impulsive and impatient there is an earnest desire to bring about a difference in the political system. These attributes have the propensity to cut both ways. The September 26 attack also brought to fore the chasm between the government and the party at the level of the young in contrast with those who are part of the decision-making process. At Jaipur and subsequently, Rahul Gandhi underscored the need to decentralise decision-making. He made the critical reference that decisions are being taken for the vast multitude of the country by a select few. On Friday, he reiterated: “Most of our institutions and political parties are undemocratic. Only about 1,000 people across all parties and governments, out of a 120 crore population, now take all decisions. In the Congress also 500 people do so. A lot of the problems arise due to this centralisation.” Inherent in the statement is the disconnect between the policy wonks and planners and the ‘aam aadmi’ for whose benefit the government was elected to work.
Political cost On the political plane, the signal is clear that Rahul Gandhi has decided to assert himself in the party and the path it needs to tread. While insisting that he had the greatest respect for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he defended the issue. That in other words told the Congress top brass, including his mother Sonia Gandhi, that they had grievously erred in reading the mood of the people and telling them in no uncertain terms that there was no room to make compromises on issues of probity and transparency. Clean politics and cleaner politicians is what the country, where over 60 per cent of the voters are young, is looking for. In the process, the Congress could lose allies. “In fact, my viewpoint was detrimental to our alliance [UPA]. It is costly for us [Congress],” Rahul was quoted as having said in Ahmedabad. The statement indicates the Congress leader is acutely aware of the political costs, what with annoying the likes of Lalu Prasad's Rashtriya Janata Dal and others in an era of coalition politics. Yet, he is determined to chart a different course. The old order in the Congress will have to understand the new dynamics that Rahul Gandhi is seeking to set. Whether it bears electoral dividends or not appears to be his concern. Perhaps Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s September 7 statement “I have always maintained that Rahul Gandhiji would be an ideal choice for Prime Minister after the 2014 elections... I would be happy to work for the Congress under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi” was an indication of the octogenarian’s sagacious understanding of a 43-year-old leader who criticised his government in public and apologised in private. The landscape in the Congress stands altered.
What may work for Cong
What may not
|
ON July 10 this year, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, violates the Constitution and that it was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament to enact it. The provision stated that a sitting lawmaker cannot be disqualified from the House on conviction in a criminal case, provided the member files an appeal in an appropriate court and gets relief. The immediate effect was that any lawmaker that day on would on conviction cease to be a member. This, along with another ruling that barred people behind bars from contesting elections, set political parties buzzing, with many suggesting the government take steps to address the situation arising out of the court orders. The government introduced two Bills during the monsoon session. The second amendment and validation Bill moved on August 30 seeks to negate the apex court’s verdict and was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Law and Justice for scrutiny. The Bill allows a lawmaker to retain membership, provided an appeal against the conviction is filed before a court within 90 days and the sentence is stayed by the court. While restoring the clause, the government proposed an amendment that while a legislator could continue to take part in the proceedings of the House, the member would not be entitled to vote or draw salary/allowances until the appeal or revision was decided by the court. The member would stand disqualified if no stay was obtained within 90 days against the conviction. Similar provisions were incorporated in the Ordinance later. The BJP welcomed the judgment, as did the CPM. However, they later suggested that a review be filed for clarity, because there would be no scope for redress if a member who was disqualified immediately got an acquittal later from a higher court. With the next session of Parliament due only in winter, the government brought forward an Ordinance on September 24, a day before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh left for the US for an official visit, and sent it to Rashtrapati Bhavan for its promulgation. The BJP petitioned President Pranab Mukherjee not to give his assent to it, as did the Aam Aadmi Party. Even as Congress ministers at the Centre went about stoutly defending the move, a group of party leaders, including Digvijay Singh and CWC special invitee Anil Shastri, opposed the Ordinance, and then came Rahul Gandhi describing the ordinance as “complete nonsense that should be torn and thrown away”. Political circles were abuzz that the Ordinance route, agreed to by the Congress Core Group, was meant to protect RJD chief Lalu Prasad as also Congress MP Rasheed Masood, both of whom have since been sentenced to imprisonment and earned the dubious distinction of being the first to lose their Parliament membership.
|
||
|
30% MPs, MLAs face criminal cases In such a case, the candidate may mention that an appeal is pending, and not declare the conviction. At the same time, it is also possible that candidates may be suppressing information on a conviction altogether. As of now, there is no reliable mechanism in place to scrutinise the affidavits. A group of professors from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad, set up the ADR in 1999, the year it filed a Public Interest Litigation with the Delhi High Court asking for disclosure of the criminal, financial and educational backgrounds of the candidates contesting elections. Based on this, the Supreme Court in 2002, and subsequently in 2003, made it mandatory for all candidates contesting elections to disclose criminal, financial and educational background prior to the polls by filing an affidavit with the Election Commission.
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Rahul Gandhi
DATA collected by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), set up in 1999 to strengthen democracy and electoral reforms, on the number of pending cases and convictions declared by sitting MPs, MLAs and contesting candidates since the 2008 Parliament and state Assembly elections shows the deep malaise in the polity.
Remarking on the low rate of convictions, the ADR surmised that one reason was the slow pace at which hearings proceed in courts. Also, a candidate may refrain from declaring his conviction in affidavit if his appeal challenging the conviction is admitted in a higher court.