The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

EDITORIALS

CVC loses battle
A setback for UPA government

The Supreme Court judgment quashing the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner P.J. Thomas was not entirely unexpected, given the questionable manner in which the High-Powered Committee (HPC) had selected him. A Bench comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar has ruled that the appointment was null and void because Mr Thomas was tainted by dint of being an accused in the palmolein import case in Kerala and the HPC had failed to consider relevant material. It found merit in the two petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution giving rise to a substantial question of law and of public importance and said that while adjudicating the case, it had to consider the difference between legality and merit as also between judicial review and merit review. Specifically, the Bench has ruled that the HPC did not peruse the six notings of the Department of Personnel and Training between June 26, 2000 and November 2, 2004, which had recommended initiation of penalty proceedings against Mr Thomas. Despite these notings, how was vigilance clearance given to Mr Thomas, it questioned.

Taking due note of the Leader of Opposition’s dissent to Mr Thomas’ selection (the Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister were the HPC’s two other members), the Bench ruled that since the legality of the choice or selection was open to judicial review, the CVC’s selection by the HPC must be transparent, based on rational criteria and be above suspicion. This alone would help maintain the integrity of the decision-making process, it ruled.

Significantly, the apex court observed that the CVC fell within the category of “integrity institutions” as in countries like the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and Hong Kong. While not questioning Mr Thomas’ “personal integrity”, the Bench made it clear that it was more concerned about the CVC’s institutional integrity, competence and functioning. Referring to its ruling in the Vineet Narain case, it observed that the CVC’s independence and impartiality had to be maintained and preserved to uphold the rule of law.

There is no denying that the Supreme Court ruling is a major blow to the UPA government at the Centre and strikes at the root of the credibility of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh which has been his strongest asset. When the apex court questioned Mr Thomas’ eligibility to be CVC in the course of the hearings, asking how he could be impartial in regard to the 2G spectrum allocation scam both because he was a former telecom secretary and also because a probe was pending against him in the palmolein case, the writing was on the wall. An embarrassed government then directed Mr Thomas to “recuse” himself from inquiring into the spectrum scam. Even at that stage the government should have realised that the moral authority of Mr Thomas stood eroded and he could hardly be expected to function as an effective CVC, but it chose to persist with him.

The apex court ruling in the Thomas case refocuses attention on the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. In a veiled reference to the separation of powers and perception on judicial activism, the apex court observed that though the Centre was not accountable to courts for the selection of persons to important constitutional posts, it was accountable to courts with regard to the legality of the decisions when examined under the judicial review jurisdiction.

In the light of the controversy over the CVC’s selection, the court’s guidelines are instructive which the Centre will hopefully factor in while making such appointments in future. In line with the letter and spirit of the 2003 Act, it has suggested that while selecting the CVC, the zone of consideration should not necessarily be restricted only to civil servants. Since the legality of selection is open to judicial review, the selection panel can impart fairness to the process by explicitly giving reasons for and against the selection, if any. It has reiterated that while all those empanelled must be persons of impeccable integrity, such empanelment should be carried out on the basis of rational criteria duly recorded in notings. While the court has fixed criteria for the selection of persons to constitutional posts, this may impinge upon the executive’s prerogative and go beyond its power of judicial review.

The political ripples from the Thomas case judgment are bound to leave the government bruised. It is crucial that the Manmohan Singh government draws the right lessons from it and puts systems in place to ensure that key constitutional appointments are made with due application of mind.

ARTICLE

Prospect in burning Libya
Gaddafi will fight but can’t win
by Inder Malhotra

IN the midst of region-wide mass upsurge in West Asia and North Africa for change — already successful in Tunisia and Egypt — attention is now focused on Libya whose tyrannical, ruthless and megalomaniac ruler, Muammar Gaddafi, has already turned it into an inferno. The writing on the wall is clear: Gaddafi has got to go. But the longest lasting dictator who has ruled his country for four decades, together with his sons, is determined to stay put and fight apparently because, in a tribal milieu devoid of any pluralist element, he seems confident of the total loyalty of his own Gaddafa tribe. Evidently the man is also delusional. For, he had the temerity to tell the BBC in Tripoli: “No street protests in Libya have taken place. There had been only foreign attempts to colonise the country.” He added that since all Libyans “loved” him, there was no question of his quitting.

Yet the stark realities are totally opposite of Gaddafi’s hallucinations. The eastern part of the country is wholly out of his control. Benghazi, the Libyan capital until the 1969 coup by Gaddafi himself, is now the bastion of the forces arrayed against him. Ironically, the soldiers he sent to Benghazi to teach the protesters a lesson turned their guns on him. More importantly, the protesters are more numerous and more confident today than before. They are fearlessly on the march to Tripoli, the dictator’s last bastion. A strategic town to the west of Tripoli is also under the control of the protestors. Those arrayed against the hated Gaddafi regime have formed a coordination committee and have had the good sense to declare that it is not Libya’s interim government. The plight of the migrant workers fleeing the country while being plundered and even roughed up by Gaddafi’s police and thugs advertises what kind of government he has been running. The world’s main worry now is how many more people he would kill before bowing to the inevitable.

Against this brutal backdrop, it is no surprise that the world opinion is enraged and the relevant institutions have started taking necessary action against Gaddafi’s monstrous ways. The UN Security Council has unanimously condemned him, declared an arms embargo on him, and threatened to drag him and his equally bellicose sons to the International Criminal Court for their crimes. The 27-nation European Union has frozen the bank accounts and assets of the Gaddafi family and deprived them of their diplomatic immunity. In the United States, there is even talk of “military intervention”, but official sources are trying to discourage it. However, two American warships have already been deployed in the Mediterranean close to Libya.

The international community hasn’t yet taken the obvious step of enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent continued use of warplanes to bomb innocent people. For this there are two reasons. The first and the obvious one is that many countries need to send their aircraft to evacuate their stranded and tormented nationals. Secondly, and no less importantly, all concerned are pondering what might have to be done should the reckless ruler isolated in Tripoli defy the no-fly restrictions.

Oil and geopolitics have sometimes driven western nations to making shabby compromises with Gaddafi. They did so, for instance, even after he had sent his terrorists to blow up a PanAm aircraft over Lockerbi in Scotland and bomb a nightclub in Berlin. They pampered Gaddafi even more after he gave up his nuclear weapons programme and spilled the beans on the Pakistan-based nuclear Walmart, run by A. Q. Khan. Such grubby deals are no longer possible, whatever Gaddafi’s expectations.

A major difference between the situation in Egypt and Tunisia on the one hand and Libya on the other is that in the latter there is no steadying hand of the army. After attempted coups by army officers in 1975 and 1980, Gaddafi saw to it that the army was undermined and hollowed, like all other institutions that could possibly be a threat to him. He has organised instead a militia fiercely loyal to him personally. It is well trained and well equipped. He also has a large contingent of mercenaries and thugs recruited from Africa. Together they would be his last line of defence, and though their strength should not be underestimated, their capacity to withstand the popular surge should not be exaggerated either.

At the Security Council, India voted along with all other members, and Indian Ambassador Hardeep Puri explained this country’s position well.

Hopefully, this would continue to be the Indian stand. For, in the case of the Jasmine revolution in Egypt, New Delhi remained silent for a long time before saying the right things. Policymaking can and should be better than that.

So much for Libya, but what about the rest of the region that is in the midst of turmoil to seek reform and change? The era when it was generally accepted that Muslims of the Arab world were not interested in democracy, and that dictators of the various countries in the region were the necessary guarantee against Islamic radicalism is over. Given the volatility of the situation, it is difficult to forecast the likely scenario in each country with certainty. But some trends are evident.

In Tunisia, for instance, the apparently unwanted Prime Minister in the interim government has resigned. Even more importantly, in Egypt, the pacesetter in the Arab world, things seem to be moving in the right direction. The army, which had been wise enough to stay neutral during the uprising, seems to be keeping its word. It is working out amendments to the constitution in consultation with all concerned. Unless the entire army leadership has taken leave of its senses, it must know that it cannot entrench itself in power with a civilian façade. The status quo ante just cannot be maintained.

It is perhaps accurate to say that monarchs of the region have a better chance of survival than military-backed dictators, provided they try to do so with reform, not repression. Even so, the nervousness of the Saudi royal family is manifest. At first King Abdullah, back from the United States after medical treatment, distributed billions of dollars to the population. But the turmoil in Bahrain — where a 30 per cent Sunni minority has been governing the 70 per cent Shia majority — is worrying the Saudis. For, there is a substantial Shia majority in the oil-bearing Saudi areas. It is no exaggeration to say that the sectarian divide could have a major impact on the Gulf area.

MIDDLE

“Blackout”
by Ravia Gupta

It was just another regular sunny day. All the men in my area were ready for their work, all the ladies were running against time to “pack” and “pack well” for their husbands and kids, and not so happily the kids were pushing themselves to their schools. It was just the way I start my day looking at this race for life. I was out of my bed and even before my morning tea, I wanted to see it once, to hear its sound, to touch it so as to feel alive, but this time there was something unusual about its behaviour. It was not responding in the bright and contrasting manner like earlier.

I was scared if my black and white nightmare of “losing a friend” was going to come true again this time.

For once I wanted my sixth sense to be wrong, wanted the love-hate relationship that I have with luck to be by my side. But like always everything that I feared came true and my life came to a standstill again. I didn’t know what to do, and felt so helpless when my best buddy stopped showing. Suddenly my best friend left me in the lurch and vanished. For me the road to life had no “right turn” and I felt shattered when the only “livewire”, the only hope, the ultimate crazy thing ever happened to me. My “laptop”, my dearest possession, crashed and believe it or not I didn’t know how to move on in life without its support.

Strange as it may sound to several others, but in times like today when everything is so “Chinese”, when “trust” in relationships is fading away and when everyone seems to be humming the same song “Everything I do, I do it for me”, I lost the only reliable thing I could count upon anytime, anywhere both in my highs and lows.

The most trendy, workable, best package and practical love I could ever imagine was my “lappie” and trust me my life “rocked” with my notebook and Internet together. Life was more like an open facebook. Sitting in front of the “Google guru”, the world was my oyster and made me confident of knowing almost everything. After a long time impossible for me was “I-Am-Possible”, but damn “Yeh zindagi” just when something good happens and exactly when you start thinking that you are living in a “perfect world”, the darkness clouds your happiness. Now, I feel life was a lot better when it was simple and not so high-tech, relationships were more real and honesty did pay back. At least, there was some “whiteness” in those black days!

OPED BOOK EXTRACT

In this exclusive excerpt from his latest book, I K Gujral gives a first-person account of his becoming India’s 12th Prime Minister
‘First Servant of the Nation’

Prime Ministers all: Left to Right: V P Singh, I K Gujral, P V Narasimha Rao and Chandrashekhar in a 1998 photograph.

A challenging new chapter in my life had begun! At this stage, it would be apt to quote Winston Churchill: ‘It seems I have spent a whole life to prepare for this moment.’ Though not directly seeking the top post, I assumed the office of Prime Minister of India on 21 April 1997 at 10 a.m. when the president, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma, swore me in as the ‘First Servant of the Nation’ in the magnificent Ashoka Hall at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in the presence of a vast array of dignitaries.

Physically, the entire procedure was strenuous. I had hardly slept for the past two nights, caught up as I was in tying up so many loose ends. The president had summoned me to Rashtrapati Bhavan at 9 p.m. on 20 April to hand over the formal letter of appointment as the Prime Minister of India. He informed that the swearing-in ceremony had been fixed for the very next day at 10 a.m. Earlier in the afternoon, the leaders of the constituent parties of the UF had met the president to endorse my name as the Prime Ministerial nominee.

I drove from Rashtrapati Bhavan to Andhra Bhavan where the aforementioned leaders joined me. In our prolonged meeting, it was all smooth sailing, except for Mulayam and Lalu, who created obstacles. Mulayam wanted to be named as the deputy Prime Minister, but Naidu was able to persuade him to put off his demand for a while. On the other hand, Lalu was too hard a nut to crack. Till 4 a.m. (22 April) he insisted that I drop Union ministers Devendra Yadav, Srikant Jena, C. M. Ibrahim and Ram Vilas Paswan for no other reason except for his personal feuds with them. Ultimately, at 4.30 a.m., I succeeded in persuading him to relent and replace only Devendra Yadav. Then I had to rush back to Rashtrapati Bhavan, where I asked the cabinet secretary to notify the entire Council of Ministers under Deve Gowda, except Devendra Yadav, that they had been retained. Eventually, on 22 April 1997, at 10 a.m., the new cabinet was sworn in.

The Business Advisory Committee of the Lok Sabha decided that I should seek, on 22 April, a vote of confidence that the president had mandated.

After a brief post-lunch nap at home, I made my debut as Prime Minister by addressing the Confederation of Indian Industry’s (CII) annual conference. In my speech, I assured the audience that additional economic reforms, which the industry so keenly awaited, would be brought about. The event was reported favourably by both the electronic and the print media and the stock market also responded positively.

*******************

My second day in office (22 April) was mostly devoted to a long and gruelling debate in the Lok Sabha prior to seeking a vote of confidence for the new government (as stipulated by the president). The debate, began at 11 a.m. and concluded at 9 p.m. I made two speeches: the first at the beginning and the second at the end. Mulayam Singh had suggested – and rightly, I felt – that since my first speech as Prime Minister in the Lok Sabha was being telecast live, it must be in Hindi. The concluding one, of course, was in English.

On both occasions, I refrained from going into the nitty-gritty of policy matters and governance and, in my own way, tried to rise above party politics and concentrated instead on our legacy of the freedom struggle and its relevance to the contemporary era as the country was just a few months away from celebrating its fiftieth anniversary of independence (on 15 August 1997). I talked about the Gandhian principles that had spelt out our social agenda and about the Nehruvian ‘tryst with destiny’. I pointed out that many crucial tasks still remained unfulfilled: more specifically, they pertained to delivering social justice to the poor, ensuring employment for all sections of society (especially the downtrodden) and providing food and shelter for the destitute. I finally highlighted a wide range of issues including the status of women, the need for uplifting the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and the significance of cooperative federalism (in other words, cordial Centre–state relations).

The motion of confidence was passed in our favour by a voice vote a little after 9 p.m. Only the BJP members registered their ‘nays’. Thereafter, I went over to the Rashtrapati Bhavan and presented to the president the decision of Parliament. It was 12.15 a.m. (on 23 April) when I completed this formality.

I began 24 April by meeting a large number of people: both at home and also those who had gathered at the Prime Minister’s official residence on Race Course Road. There, I spent an hour or so with Deve Gowda, who had not yet moved out. (He had sent a message a day earlier that he wanted to meet me.) I found him struggling to come to terms with himself after his fall from the lofty office. The main target of his wrath was Lalu Prasad Yadav. Though not unjustified, he was turning the matter into a bitter feud. The former Prime Minister was keen that I avoid getting close to Sita Ram Kesri, the Congress president, who was primarily responsible for toppling his government. He was insistent that I should refuse to attend any meeting with the All India Congress Committee (AICC) leaders, even if I were invited, which I found to be a rather odd demand, particularly given the inescapable reality that the government I headed depended heavily on cooperation and support from the Congress. Deve Gowda had a long list of unaccomplished tasks, in which I was not particularly interested; I had my own priorities. I wanted to strengthen the institutions created by Jawaharlal Nehru, which had lost their lustre over a period of time.

*******************

Relations between the United Front and the Congress had improved substantially after my becoming Prime Minister. Sita Ram Kesri sought a meeting with me. As per the mutually agreed-to formula, ‘the PM and the Congress president would meet periodically for summit-level coordination’. Consequently, I invited him (on 24 April 1997) for lunch at Hyderabad House (a palatial mansion situated near India Gate). He apprised me of his two meetings with G. K. Moopanar, who, along with P. Chidambaram and a few others, had broken away from the Congress to form his own party: the Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC). (As mentioned earlier, Moopanar was not willing to join the UF Government, but did offer outside support.) In these meetings, Kesri had asked him to join the government for a ‘more intimate participation in governance’. For running the government efficiently, I needed the services of Chidambaram – who had held the vital finance portfolio in the Deva Gowda Government.

Kesri told me that he had noticed that the relationship between Chidambaram and Moopanar was no longer close or intimate. Hence, Moopnaar had not encouraged Chidambaram to participate in his meetings with Kesri. The growing rift between the two leaders had been brought to my notice the previous day by Jayanthi Natarajan, a former Congresswoman who too had joined the TMC. She blamed Moopanar for this development.

Kesri tried to sell me the idea of setting up a five-member composite committee consisting of representatives from the UF and the Congress. (Both Kesri and I would be members.) Such a proposal had been earlier rejected by the UF (during the Deva Gowda regime) since it would catapult Kesri into a position of parity with the Prime Minister as chairman of such a committee. I too rejected this idea though Kesri was fully convinced about its efficacy. He wanted to discuss this topic once again with me after a ‘talk with the Congress Working Committee’.

*******************

Ever since I had taken over as Prime Minister, I had not been able to devote the needed amount of time to the nitty-gritty of administration because I just could not avoid a seemingly unending series of meetings with people from all walks of life. But I was determined to make up for lost time.

The attorney general of India, Ashok Desai, and the Union law minister, Ramakant Khalap, apprised me of the various pending cases in different courts against high-profile politicians. They also underlined the government’s helplessness in the face of recent judicial activism. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had been thinking of appealing in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s verdict (in the third week of April 1997) in favour of former Union ministers, including L. K. Advani, V. C. Shukla, Madhavrao Scindia and Kamal Nath, in what came to be known as the ‘Hawala scam’. This was a Catch-22 situation. Either way, I stood to lose politically.

The situation regarding a case against Prabhakar Rao, son of the former Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao, was similar. Prabhakar was alleged to have been involved in a massive urea scam. He was then out on anticipatory bail and the CBI was planning to appeal against it.

I was also apprised of the case against media baron Ashok Jain who headed the Times of India group of publications. This case was started at the behest of C. M. Ibrahim during the Deve Gowda regime to show him (Ashok Jain) his place. According to N. K. Singh, the then revenue secretary, the case was based more on vendetta on the part of the Enforcement Directorate rather than any substantive evidence. The judiciary had ordered the secretary to report directly to the court, which meant bypassing the political hierarchy. I decided that the best course for me would be one of total non-interference and allowing the law to take its own course, despite the political pressures mounting from all directions.

*******************

Meanwhile, the Moopanar-led component of the UF finally decided that four of its members would rejoin the government. The return of the finance minister, P. Chidambaram, was of particular importance at that stage because the Left parties were objecting to some features of his previous budget. As soon as Moopanar conveyed this news to me over the telephone (while the cabinet meeting was going on), I asked the cabinet secretary (T. S. R. Subramaniam) to request the president to swear in the new incumbents on 30 April 1997. I had also decided to induct Jaipal Reddy, a reliable ally, from Andhra Pradesh as the minister of information and broadcasting after getting the support of Naidu, since Reddy was not a Member of Parliament. (He eventually became a Rajya Sabha MP.) The swearing-in could not take place on 30 April because Chidambaram requested me for a postponement till 1 May since the chosen day was not auspicious. Though his request sounded a bit bizarre to me, I complied with it.

*******************

Mulayam Singh Yadav, the new defence minister, called on me on 1 May 1997 soon after the swearing-in of the new cabinet and assured me of his complete loyalty and support. As he put it in Hindi: ‘Aapki buddhi aur mera sangharsh mil kar chale, to bahut kuch ho jayega.’ (Your intelligence and my efforts together can achieve a lot.) He told me that though his name had been sponsored for the office of Prime Minister, he had himself withdrawn it since he was keen to ensure that I occupy the post, particularly because of my grasp of diplomacy. As he was secular in his outlook, he wanted to take on the BJP (known for its pro-Hindu stance), for which he sought my support. Mulayam Singh then came up with some ‘requests’. He wanted Romesh Bhandari, a former foreign secretary and a Congress appointee, to be retained as the governor of Uttar Pradesh (his home state), basically to keep the state government (headed by his archrival Mayawati of the Bahujan Samaj Party) in check. He also wanted a gubernatorial berth for a party colleague and a seat for another in the Rajya Sabha from the nominated quota.

Deve Gowda too met me that evening and once again spewed venom against Lalu. He was keen to end Lalu’s influence over the Janata Dal, for which he wanted my cooperation, as he wanted to take over the reins of the party by proxy by making me the party president. I did not oblige him. The next morning (2 May), J. H. Patel, who had succeeded Deve Gowda as the chief minister of Karnataka, called on me and openly denigrated his predecessor as he evidently wanted to distance himself from Gowda!

Excerpted, with permission, from Matters of Discretion: An Autobiography, by I K Gujral, published by Hay House, New Delhi