Rahul Impact: Congress Leaders Shaken: Will PM Resign

Shaken by the strong statement of Rahul Gandhi, Congress leaders are scratching their heads how tino handle the situation. The man worried most is in the United States. Will he, will he not resign? This is the moot question agitating the minds of not only senior Congress leaders but other leaders across the political spectrum of the country and some political pundits in the media. But given his track record, Manmohan Singh is highly unlikely to demit office of Prime Minister. His reaction in Washington on Friday soon after Rahul Gandhi’s remark that the Ordinance protecting convicted MPs/MLAs  cleared by the Union Cabinet presided over by the Prime Minister and sent to the President Pranab Mukherjee for the promulgation of the same was, “The ordinance cleared by the Cabinet pertaining to the Representation of the People Act has been a matter of much public debate. The Congress Vice President has also written to me on the issue and also made a statement. The Government is seized with all these developments. The issue raised will be considered on my return to India after due deliberations of the Cabinet”.

It is to be noted that Prime Minister in his statement has mentioned Rahul Gandhi as ‘Congress Vice President’ and not by his name with a suffix of ‘ji’ as he normally does. Manmohan Singh appears to be peeved but not angry. Even if he supposedly is angry he lacks the guts to resign as Prime Minister. Only a couple of weeks back he had said that he would be too willing and glad to serve under the leadership of ‘Rahulji’.

Here, the question is not of Manmohan Singh, an individual. It is the question of Prime Minister of India. Can a Prime Minister function or does the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has any moral right to continue as the Prime Minister? The answer is a big ‘NO’. The Congress Vice President who is set to succeed his mother Sonia Gandhi as the Congress President has not only rejected the Union Cabinet’s decision on the Ordinance but has trashed the Prime Minister authority as well. Already, Manmohan Singh has worked as the weakest Prime Minister of India ever. He was not able to resist or raise his voice against some highly controversial decisions and scams of his ministers and MPs; be it 2G, CWG or Coal. He has been a silent supporter of the loot of public money although his stint as Prime Minister of the country. To me it appears that the Prime Minister’s chair is dearer to him than the interests of the nation. We have to wait and watch how he reacts on the entire issue when he comes back from New York after addressing the UN General Assembly.

There are speculations that Prime Minister will resign and advance the general elections to the Lok Sabha along with the state assembly polls in five States due in November this year. Alternatively, Manmohan Singh should quit and pave the way to someone else to take over the reins of the government till 2014 when the Lok Sabha elections are originally due. The fact that Sonia Gandhi was very much present at the crucial meeting of the ‘core committee’ of the Congress where the decision to bring Ordinance to protect convicted MPs/MLAs was cleared throws onus on the Congress President to share the responsibility for pushing an unconstitutional and politically motivated ordinance to reverse the Supreme Court judgment on the R P Act. If Manmohan Singh goes, Sonia Gandhi too should quit as the Congress chief and let her son Rahul Gandhi takes the full control of the Party apparatus. The million dollar question is- will it happen?

~R. K. Sinha  

President Questions Govt. on Ordinance To Protect Convicted MPs/MLAs

Dr. Manmohan Singh, PM

Mr. Pranab Mukharjee, President

While experts say that the Ordinance to amend the Representation of the People Act in order to give protection to the convicted MPs and MLAs will fail to stand the scrutiny of the Indian Constitution, the President Pranab Mukherjee has raised questions on legal validity of the Ordinance sent to him by the government for promulgation. The President has sought clarifications from the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Ministers on the subject.

In the mean time as I write this piece, I am told that there was a high drama at the Press Club of India on Raisina Road. Congress General Secretary Ajay Maken was there at ‘ Meet the Press’ programme of the Club. Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi learnt that Maken was defending the Ordinance on convicted MPs/MLAs. Rahul barged into the Club and took the mike. He declared that the ‘ordinance was completely a nonsense and it should be torn and thrown away”. A slap on the Prime Minister and the Law Minister of the government! I will react to this story in my next blog.

The proposed ordinance provides among other things that even if a Member of Parliament or State Legislature is convicted of crime and is sentenced for two years or more imprisonment, he or she shall not lose the Membership of the House. The Ordinance provides that such Member would not be able to cast vote when the House is put to division on any motion or debate and shall not be able to draw salary till the convicted Member is exonerated by higher court.

The general opinion is that Parliament draws its power and functions from Chapter 2 of the Indian Constitution. If a person is a Member of Parliament or State Legislature he or she can’t be debarred from voting in the Heouse as per the Constitutional provisions. How can an ordinance tamper with any provision of the Constitution? For any such conditional Membership of the House, tand he Constitution has to be amended first. For this the government requires two thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament to get the bill to amend the Constitution passed. With the BJP, the main Opposition in Parliament being against the Ordinance, the Government just can’t succeed in its immediate goal of shielding Lalu Yadav and Rasheed Masood who are facing trial and awaiting judgment soon.

The BJP which took the lead in opposing the ordinance route to mollify the Supreme Court decision on convicted MPs and MLAs now finds voices of support from the Congress Party. The latest to join the chorus of opposition against the proposed ordinance is Union Minister Milind Deora who has crticised the government for trying to bring in ordinance to protect criminal politicians. Deora has said in a statement, “..Legalities aside, allowing convicted MPs/MLAs to retain seats in the midst of an appeal can endanger already eroding public faith in democracy”.

Delhi chief minister Shiela Dixit too has come out against any such move by the government. She has her own reasons to oppose the government action that would reverse the Supreme Court verdict on convicted MPs/MLAs. In fact she spoke to the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi telling the two leaders that the move will send “wrong message” to the people on eve of Assembly Elections. She is already facing anti-incumbency besides the growing ground support for the BJP has made the Delhi chief minister insecured as she fears to lose the elections.

~R. K. Sinha

Government Ordinance Route to Protect Convicted MPs & MLAs

RASHID MASOOD, MP

LALU PRASAD YADAV, MP

There is a saying ‘leopards don’t change their spots’. So, the Congress led government at the Centre has finally decided to protect convicted MPs and MLAs by clearing an Ordinance that would reverse the earlier decision of the Supreme Court according to which an MP or an MLA would have lost the membership of the House he or she was elected to on being convicted for two years or more for crime.

Now, even if an MP or an MLA is convicted by the trial court for two years or more, the Member will not lose his or her seat if an appeal lies in the higher court. The ordinance as a token of punishment provides that the MP or the MLA convicted would, however, will not be entitled to vote in division of the House on any motion or debate nor the convicted MP/MLA would be able to draw salary. But the convicted MP or MLA can participate in all the proceedings of the House.

The immediate reason for this backdoor move of the government is essentially because of political reasons. Lalu Prasad Yadav is expecting a verdict by the special designated CBI court in Ranchi on fodder scam by the end of this month. He did try to delay and even scuttle the judicial process of pronouncement of the judgment by moving the Supreme Court that the judge concerned carries bias against him since his relative is a Minister in the JD(U) Government in Bihar. Eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani represented the case of Lalu Yadav. However, the Supreme Court rejected the plea and refused to give any reprieve to the accused Lalu Yadav in this matter.

Though the nature of the verdict will be known only after the judgment is pronounced, from the argument and evidences placed by the prosecuting agency, the CBI it is likely that the court would hold Lalu guilty of crime in the fodder scam. In case he is sentenced for two year or more imprisonment Lalu would not only lose his Lok Sabha seat but will not be able to contest 2014 general elections to the Lok Sabha.

The Government has come to Lalu’s rescue by recommending the Ordinance to the President for its promulgation.

The second man Congress wants to protect is Rashid Masood, Rajya Sabha MP who was tried for manipulating admission in medical colleges while a Minister. Masood too is expecting a verdict shortly. Should he be convicted in the case and if the punishment runs for two years or more, he too would have lost his Rajya Sabha seat. Once the ordinance is promulgated, he is saved from losing his membership of the House.

Under the provisions of the Indian Constitution, the Ordinance once promulgated by the President has to be ratified and adopted as a bill by Parliament within six months from the date of the promulgation. The next session of Parliament would be held sometime in November that is winter session of Parliament. It is likely that the Government would be able to pass the relevant bill that amends the Representation of the People Act with the help of political parties like the Communists. Surprisingly, the CPI(M) and the CPI have thrown their weights behind criminal politicians and are set to support the Bill once it is table in Parliament.

It is a sad commentary that a golden opportunity provided by the Supreme Court to cleanse our Political system and free our Parliament and State Assemblies from criminals has been lost. Thanks to our political parties to espouse the monster of criminality in legislature.

~R. K. Sinha 

Pre-Poll Surveys Give BJP Edge: Gets it Wrong in Delhi

From what has been given out in two pre-poll surveys for 4 States that are going to elect a new Assembly in November next, the BJP has a definite edge over the Congress which is the main rival. In Rajasthan the survey has given a clear victory to the BJP with Vasundhara Raje as the popular name for the chief minister’s office. In Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh too, the BJP has been shown to retain power with Shivraj Singh Chauhan and Raman Singh being the clear favourites despite anti-incumbency factor. 

 However, the pollsters have got it wrong, so I believe, in Delhi where two surveys have given two pictures of the poll prospects. One can give 5 to 10 percent plus or minus of the seat projections but one is disinclined to accept that the Aam Admi Party will win 21 out of total of 70 seats in Delhi. The agency HT- C Fore survey has done this. Apart from giving Arvind Kejrival 21 seats, the agency has put the Congress ahead of the BJP with 34 seats being the single largest party in the House, just two seats  short of majority. The agency has even predicted that present incumbent Shiela Dixit is set to return to power for the fourth time in a row.

The second survey conducted by C-Voter and Times Now gives the BJP the position of single largest party in Delhi Assembly with 30 seats, short of 6 seats from the halfway mark of 36 to get absolute majority in the House of 70. It has given Congress 29 seats and 7 seats to AAP.

First, I would like to share some information with you about how the surveys are conducted. It suffers from infirmities. I am not suggesting that the trends can be rejected or dismissed outright. But take the case of one survey that was carried out with 39,000 voters spread over four poll bound States. The number of sample is very small given the fact that there are hundreds of millions of voters in the four States. Secondly, a poll survey agent of one agency was approached by a voter in Delhi. He was shown the form and asked to respond. The voter replied that he had no time for all these things. To this the survey agent said that he should just sign on the form and the rest of the work will be done by the agency. If this is the method of collecting sample of opinion poll one wonders how much credence one should attach to these surveys. This may be an exception, but there are grey areas where all the samples collected may not be authentic.

In Delhi, the general mood is against the Congress government. The people who were asked to respond to a particular question responded that the UPA Government at the Centre and the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should be removed immediately. Such is the anger of the voters. How then the surveys show Sheila Dixit as the winner? Not oly that, one survey says that 55% voters want Shielas Dixit to go. Yet, the survey put Dixit as most popular chief minister. These contradictions defy logic.

It is being argued that when the BJP can announce its Prime Ministerial candidate much in advance of the Lok Sabha elections due only next year, why the Party fights shy of naming its chief ministerial candidate for Delhi who can be seen as an alternative to Shiela Dixit. In Rajsthan too, the voters have been given a choice to elect between present chief minster Ashok Gehlot of the Congress and Vasundhara Raje of the BJP. The fact remains that naming a person as chief ministerial candidate of the BJP is not going to change the popular mood of the voters; that is to oust Congress government.

~R. K. Sinha 

Narendra Modi: The Face of BJP’s PM Candidate

Whatever little confusion that prevailed over the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections was over by Monday evening. The resistance or reservations over Narendra Modi being formally declared as the Party’s Prime Ministerial candidate ahead of the assembly elections in five states in November next ended after the RSS appeal to the senior leaders of the Party notably L K Advani and Sushma Swaraj to accept the decision that favoured Modi for the top post in case the BJP wins the polls in 2014.

Resistance from certain quarters to delay the formal announcement of Modi’s name was due to obvious reasons. Some Party leaders wanted the field to remain open till the outcome of the polls. But after having Modi appointed to head the Elections Campaign Committee at the Goa meet, there was no point in delaying the decision since it was creating confusion in the rank and file of the Party besides giving the Opposition, the Congress Party in particular a platform to attack Modi and the BJP. Once the decision is announced formally, it is matter of time, the air will be clear.

It is interesting to note that the Congress leaders have been saying that they are not worried or bothered about Narendra Modi being the BJP’s face of Prime Minister. Jairam Ramesh, a Minister in the UPA Government and a strategist of the Congress Party says that in India “..it is political parties that fight elections and not individuals. Indian electoral system is not like America”. Everyone knows it. We don’t have Presidential form of government ours is Westminster Parliamentary system that we adopted after independence from the British democracy. One may ask Ramesh if that be the case then why this hue and cry by the Congress over Narendra Modi? There is a chorus of criticism and all out offensive against Modi whenever  he says something. This only shows the sign of nervousness in the ruling Party camp.

I think it is the right decision of the Sangh Parivar to put the seal of approval on one name to be projected as the BJP’s future leader of the Parliamentary Party.

Name and individuals do matter in elections. A year ahead of 1996 Lok Sabha elections, it was L K Advani who had publicly declared that Atal Behari Vajpayee would be the Prime Minister in case BJP was voted to power at the Centre. In the successive three Lok Sabha elections of 1998, 1999 and 2004 it was Vajpayee again the Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP. In the last Lok Sabha elections in 2009, L K Advani was formally declared the Party’s Prime Minister in waiting. The entire campaign ran with Advani as the leader. Why then this ambiguity over the name this time? Why the BJP should hold the name of its candidate for the Prime Minister office?

There are many able leaders in the Party who are competent and qualified to become Prime Minister. Nobody can deny the contribution and role of leaders like Atal Behari Vajpayee, Murli Manohar Joshi and L K Advani in building the Party brick by brick taking it to the Centre of power in New Delhi. But in the present context, Modi is by far the most popular leader of the BJP. It is in the larger interest of the Party that he is officially named as the BJP candidate for the Prime Minister’s Office.

~R. K. Sinha

Ugly Face of Communal Violence in UP

News from Uttar Pradesh is distressing. More than 26 people were killed in the communal violence in the western part of the state- Muzafarnagar. It is shameful for the Samajavadi Party Government that was voted to power with the promise to improve law and order in the state has proved to be encouraging criminals to turn UP into a land of Wild West of 18^th century.

The violence has spread to rural areas that were never known for communal strife.

What has gone wrong in the state? The answer is everything. There is not even a semblance of administration under the SP rule.

The riots started with a petty brawl. Two people of a particular community were hacked to death. The local Police and the administration did not take any action against those involved in the crime. The violence spread taking a heavy toll. Even a Tv journalist working for IBN7 news channel was not spared. Young Rajesh Verma was murdered by the rioters. According to one report, Verma was shot dead not by accident but in a planned manner; the autopsy report of the bullet that pierced his chest says.

There has been alarming rise in the incidents of communal violence in UP. This year alone there have been 17 incidents of communal violence, according to a Union Home Ministry’s report. The SP government headed by Akhilesh Yadav is being run by a syndicate of relatives, friends and political confidants of Mulayam Singh Yadav.

There are instructions to the Police and the administration to go soft on the members of the minority community while enforcing law and order. Criminals have no religion, caste or colour. Criminals are criminals. But in its zeal to become the sole champion of the cause of the Muslims, the SP Government has bent rules. As a result, criminals of other community also take advantage of the situation. The Police is either a helpless onlooker or accomplish.

Honest and efficient Police and civil officers are punished while the corrupt and inefficient officers are rewarded by the UP Government. Take the case of Durga Shakti Nagpal, an IAS officer who was summarily suspended by the Yadav Government for acting against the sand mafia of UP. She was charged by the government that her administrative actions were causing communal tension in Guatham Budh Nagar (NOIDA & GREATER NOIDA). The fact remained that there was no tension whatsoever in the region communal or otherwise. The District Magistrate who officially communicated to the state government that there was no communal tension was shunted out within a month of suspension of the woman IAS officer. Durga Shakti Nagpal’s husband who too is an IAS officer was also transferred to some remote area of the state as a punishment for being the husband of Durga Shakti.

Today, chief minister Akhilesh Yadav has come out with statement that “officers are free to act” to enforce law and order in the state. If that was the case then why Mr. Chief Minister you suspended and punished Durga Shakti Nagpal?

The Samajvadi Party has come out with statement on the beaten track that the BJP is behind communal strife. BJP is nowhere in the picture. On the contrary it is the policy of over the board appeasement of the minorities that has vitiated the communal atmosphere in UP. Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav is on record to admit that smaller and petty incident are turning into communal riots. Better look into your style of administration; people are eagerly waiting to give their verdict in the general elections to Lok Sabha  which is only a few months away from now.

~R. K. Sinha

BJP Takes Lead: Case of Criminal Netas

The BJP has taken the lead in stalling the UPA Government’s move to amend Representation of the People Act to nullify the Supreme Court verdict that disqualifies any elected Member of Parliament and State Legislature if the Member is convicted for crime by the trial court with a punishment of two years or more.

It is a welcome move by the BJP and I hope leaders of other political parties who genuinely believe that criminals have no place in Parliament and State Legislature should join hands with the BJP in saying no to any move that dilutes the decision of the Supreme Court.

On Friday September 6, last working day of the monsoon session of Parliament, the government wanted to move amendments to change clause 4 of Section 8 of the R P Act so that the Supreme Court judgment becomes void a convicted Member is allowed to enjoy the perks and privileges of an MP or an MLA/ MLC by retaining seat till the pendency of appeal in higher court is disposed of.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday September 5, 2013 has rejected the government’s review petition challenging its earlier verdict that disqualifies convicted Member from the House. The disqualification would end only after the higher court absolves the accused of the crime for which he or she is convicted by the trial court.

We know that some political parties are desperate to nullify the SC judgment since they have good number of MPs and MLAs who are convicted by the trial court but continue to be Members of the House since their appeal is pending in higher courts for adjudication.

In the past, several attempts were made by the Election Commission to end the growing cases of criminalization of politics in India. The Commission invited opinions from all political parties on the subject. It was suggested that Political parties should take initiatives and deny party nomination to tainted or criminal netas to contest elections.

In every elections in the past, all political parties fielded some candidates with criminal records saying that others have also such candidates so why not ‘us’.

The BJP has now come out with its decision to oppose any amendment to the R P Act that gives protection to the convicted MPs. MLAs and MLCs.

The Congress and its allies are now exposed in the game. The government earlier argued that it was bringing amendments to the R P Act since all political parties wanted it and that it had received written petitions from many leaders and Members of Parliament supporting the government’s move.

I can’t say for others, but the Central leadership of the BJP has taken a conscious decision not to support the Congress led government to protect criminals in politics.

A nationwide survey conducted by a private agency found that 97 % of the people of the country want criminals out of politics. The survey found that people want”.. those convicted of serious crime should not be allowed to govern and rule the country”.

The Director of the Global network ‘Awaz’ Ricken Patel has said in a statement, “This poll could not be any clearer: India’s democracy to be distinguished. Politicians love big majorities and 97% of people want convicted MPs forced out of office. The Supreme Court ruling should stand”.

~R K Sinha

SC Rejects Govt. Review Petition on Criminal Netas

I begin with my earlier observation made immediately after the historic judgment of the Supreme Court of India on July 10, 2013 on convicted politicians elected to Parliament and State Assemblies. I had commented in my earlier blog that History would never forgive the government of the day in particular and the law makers (Members of Parliament) in general should they try to nullify the Supreme Court verdict on the matter. The SC ruled that any elected Member of Parliament and State Assemblies if convicted by a trial court for a crime with sentence of two years or more imprisonment would cease to be member of the House to which he or she was elected even if a review petition against the conviction lies in higher court.

As feared, the UPA Government moved a review petition before the Supreme Court challenging the earlier verdict. The Government defended its decision saying that it received petitions from all political parties to challenge the verdict on disqualification of elected representatives.

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising justice A K Patnaik and justice S J Mukhopadhyaya rejected the government’s petition saying that, “Even the government and others appear to agree with the interpretation we have given in this case”.

However, the apex court agreed to give a fresh look to the second petition of the government seeking review of the judgment that barred a jailed politician from contesting elections since a jailed person is not entitled to cast vote.

One wonders what makes the government or for that matter political parties to come in defence of criminal elements in politics. Only recently, a big scam on highly inflated air fare claimed by some MPs has come to light. There are as many as 176 MPs who are facing criminal cases in different courts. There is a police report in Delhi that many MPs flats and residences in Lutyen’s Bungalow Zone in New Delhi run tent houses and other sundry trade which is not only illegal but also a security threat to the occupants. There are instances when MPs and MLAs have claimed TA (travelling allowances) for a tour in which they were present in more than one place at the particular day and date. Such acts of the elected representatives only undermine the institution of Parliament and State Legislature besides eroding the values of democracy.

In its earlier judgment on July 10, 2013, the Supreme Court had struck down, “Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act which allowed a Member of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies to retain their Membership of the House they were elected to for three months to enable them to file an appeal in the higher court. The Act also allowed the Members convicted of crime by trial court till their appeal was adjudicated by the higher court”.

The government is unlikely to accept the verdict on the criminal politicians since it has decided to move amendments to the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act in Parliament to nullify the apex court verdict. It is again a sad commentary on the government who is determined to protect and in the process encourage criminal elements in politics to occupy the temples of democracy – Parliament and State Assemblies.

~R. K. Sinha

Vanzara Letter Lacks Credibility

There is complete lack of credibility of what the jailed police officer D. G. Vanzara says in his letter. An IPS officer of DG rank Vanzara says that he acted on the orders of the chief minister of Gujarat and Minister of State for Home Affairs. The law is clear in its terms. No individual, whosoever he or she may be and irrespective of position or post held by him or her can take shelter under the pretext or fact that he or she acted or executed the order of his superior if the act and execution is bad in law.

For instance, X is an officer and his superior may be a minister, or chief minister or even the Prime Minister orders him to kill ‘A’ and if he kills the target he is guilty of murder and is liable to be prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Any government officer can’t take the alibi that he committed a crime by executing the order of the government. If the order is illegal he should refuse to follow or execute it. This is what the rule book says.

Vanzara’s grievance is that the chief minister did not protect him from the law. How can a chief minister protect a person facing criminal charges? The only person who can defend Vanzara is his defence counsel.Vanzara in his letter says, “… I simply acted and performed duties in compliance of the conscious policy of the government”. The government never adopted a policy to eliminate people in false encounter.

Vanzara must have been a self seeker and careerist who saw an opportunity in going overboard to please his political masters. He did something that he was never asked to do. If any officer says that he treats his political boss like a God, he is a dangerous person. Such individuals would not hesitate to harm and even kill his boss if the later goes against him.

The language of the letter speaks of the deep rooted frustration of Vanzara. It also betrays some degree of mental instability.

The whole thing appears to be engineered to target once again Narendra Modi who is emerging as a big challenge to the Congress Party and its leaders. The Congress leaders are excited over Vanzara’s letter knowing little that such letter has no meaning. The Supreme Court of India has supervised the investigations into the Gujrat riots, the apex court has also handled petitions against Narendra Modi who has been given clean chit by the investigating agency.

Congress leaders are said to be busy trying to explore possibilities if Vanzara can be made approver in the case and if a fresh inquiry can be set up to probe the charges. Such dirty tricks don’t pay.

~R. K. Sinha