The Myth and Reality of
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
By A. C. Vashishtha
Words: 1506
Not-so- far-codified parliamentary privileges of our elected representatives have always been in the news and a matter of controversy. Like the mother who every other moment hurls the "I'll slap you" threat to his errant child, we also hear our parliamentarians threaten a privilege motion against every Tom, Dick and Harry. The latest has been the case of Indian Muslim League Member of Rajya Sabha, Mr. Abdul Wahab from Kerala who was made to leave the Air India aircraft before takeoff from Kozhikode on April 7 after a tiff with the pilot. The MP is reported to have threatened to move a privilege motion against the erring airline staff.
Whether the incident involves breach of privilege is a question that is the unchallenged discretion of the Rajya Sabha Chairman or Lok Sabha Speaker. But for academic interest, it is useful to understand what, in effect, can amount to a breach of parliamentary/legislative privilege although during the last sixty years no effort – and perhaps deliberately! – has been made to define it.
Our public representatives, honourable as they are, are yet human beings. And to err is human. An error whether of words or actions, can invite criticism and reproach from the people who bestow the aura of 'honour' on our public representatives on the strength of their vote. It is the people who make and unmake our elected representatives; the latter derive all their power and privileges from the people.
Yet, our public representatives seem to be growing more and more zealous and protective of their rights and privileges. They overlook their duties. The thin attendance at the time of important debates in our legislatures, at times having to be adjourned a number of times for want of quorum because the members had more important business other than legislative to take care of – the legislative business for which they are paid hefty pay, perks, allowances and, above all, the privileges. Any criticism of theirs, exposure of their activities these days invariably inviting motions of breach of privilege guaranteed.
The privileges are, no doubt, necessary for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution "to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament", according to famous authority on parliamentary business Mr. M. N. Kaul,. These are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and the vindication of its authority and dignity. The privileges have been granted to members so that "they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament without let or hindrance". (Report of Committee of Privileges in Captain Ramsay case House of Commons (H.C. 164(1939-40) p vi, para 19)
Yet, privileges "do not discharge the member from the obligations to society which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in that capacity, as they apply to other subjects" (H. C. 1951 Lewis case). These "do not place a member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of laws." (Committee of Speakers 1956).
Even after winning an election, a public representative does not lose his individual identity and personal existence – a person with his own profession, vocation and a circle of his own relations, friends and acquaintances. The one facet of his personality as a private individual engrossed in his personal affairs and business promotion cannot be made a part and parcel of his other facet of a public representative. Nor can – and should – both these aspects come into clash with each other. A respectable distance and dichotomy between the two has to be maintained for a harmonious functioning. The powers, functions and duties of the one should not transgress into the field of the other.
A public representative may come to have a clash of interests and, in the process, there could be some infringement of civil or criminal law even. But that does not provide a privilege to him against his spouse, brothers, parents and other relatives because these have nothing to do with his duties, functions and powers as a public representative. There may, at times, be a hot exchange of words or a brawl between two individuals without the other knowing even that the other is a public representative. That is why no person can – and should – claim privilege or immunity in anything said or done in his personal capacity as a private individual, whether in matters concerning himself, his family or profession. And that is why the Constitution gives the members of Parliament and of State legislatures the privilege and immunity only from "any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof" and not in any of their other functions or speeches delivered outside the House. Protected by the security ring of "proceedings in Parliament" and in State legislatures) these privileges do not extend beyond the legislative building, except when they are prevented from attending the session of Parliament or Assembly.
The concept of parliamentary privileges has been adopted by us in India on the pattern of the one prevailing in the British Parliament and is, more or less, governed and guided by the famous treatise May's Parliamentary Practice. The contempt of the House, according to May, is "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House, in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results…"
Breach of privilege means a disregard of any of the rights, privileges and immunities either of members of Parliament individually, or of the House in its collective capacity. Referring to various debates in the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha in Procedure and Practice of Parliament M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdhar state that "in order to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member of Parliament must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member of the House and must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Reflections upon members otherwise than in their capacity as members do not, therefore, involve a breach or privilege or contempt of the House. Similarly, speeches or writings containing vague charges against members or criticizing their parliamentary conduct in a strong language particularly in the heat of a public controversy without, however, imputing any malafides are not treated by the House as a contempt or breach of privilege".
Every activity of a member of Parliament does not attract the privilege. The House of Commons in 1958 rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges "that a particular letter written by a member to a Minister relating to a Nationalised Industry was a proceeding in Parliament".
Privilege of freedom from arrest "cannot extend or be contended to operate, where the member of Parliament is charged with an indictable offence". (Case of Venkateswarlyu, AIR 1951, Madras 272). Further, "the House will not allow even the sanctuary of its walls to protect a member from the process of criminal law" (May, p. 101)
The Constitution, the law and the parliamentary practice in India and the United Kingdom, therefore, clearly draw a distinct dividing line between the duties and functions of a public representative as a parliamentarian in the House and those outside, the latter bereft of the element of privilege.
In the Import Licence Case that surfaced about 15 years back, allegations of bribery and forgery of signatures of other MPs for promoting the cause of certain applicants were made. But the question of privilege was disallowed since the conduct of the member, although improper, was not related to the business of the House. At the same time it was held that as the allegations of bribery and forgery were serious and unbecoming of a member of Parliament, he could be held guilty of lowering the dignity of the House (Kaul and Shakdhar, ibid p. 231)
On the contrary, on the conduct of certain JMM MPs who voted for the Narasimharao Government during a vote of confidence in the House after allegedly receiving money, the Supreme Court held that trial must proceed against the alleged ``bribe-givers'' but not against the alleged ``bribe-takers'' since they enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution which states that ``no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.''
There is a very thin line dividing the two facets of an individual's personality – personal and the one as a representative elected by the people. During the course of one's life one has to come face to face with the realities of life. One must be ready to face such situation. What is important is not whether it involves parliamentary privilege or not, but the truth and the truth alone. A public representative should fight for truth, for the unearthing of it. And the truth prevails; it must always prevail.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Thursday, August 9, 2007
We've Sonia at Rajiv's 'request'
We’ve Sonia at Rajiv’s 'request’
By Amba Charan Vashishth
“Myself and Rajiv (Gandhi) were never interested in politics. Rajiv joined politics on the request of Indiraji, while I joined it at Rajiv’s request”.
This is what INDIA TODAY (August 13 2007 issue) quotes Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi as having said.
There is no dispute as far as the first part of the statement of both Sonia and Rajiv “never (being) interested in politics” is concerned. But it is the second part that “Rajiv joined politics on the request of Indiraji“ and me “at Rajiv’s request” that rattles the ears.
It is true that after the death of Sanjay Gandhi whom Mrs. Indira Gandhi had groomed as her political heir in preference to the ‘disinterested’ Rajiv, she did make the latter reluctantly agree to quit his Indian Airlines job as pilot and join politics as she wanted the mantle of political leadership fall on her own son and none else. But to say it was at his mother’s “request” may be too much given the Indian traditions and culture. The word “request” she used may be because of her not being that much acquainted with the Indian traditions and ethos. In India mothers do not request their sons, the former only wish or desire which need not be expressed in so many words. Sons come to understand their parents’ wish in the normal course because of the family chord of understanding. It is the sons who act to fulfil the wishes of their parents.
But her claim that she joined politics “at Rajiv’s request” looks quite incongruous.
Those who know the facts know that immediately after the unfortunate assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi refused to jump into politics join and lead the Congress Party despite the likes of Arjun Singh and others making numerous pleadings before her at 10 Janpath. If it genuinely was Rajiv’s ‘request’, nothing could have been a better tribute from her than to instantly ‘join politics’ in fulfillment of his ‘request’ and enrol as a Congress worker (leader) to accomplish the work left unfinished by Rajiv’s sudden and untimely death.
On the contrary, it was only in March 1996 (about five years after Rajiv’s death) that she ultimately relented and joined as an ordinary Congress worker. It was a different matter that immediately after that she was catapulted to the centrestage of Congress politics and became the Congress President consequent upon the then Congress President, Sitaram Kesri, having been made to make a departure most humiliating for a person of his stature.
So the question still remains: When did Rajiv “request” her to join politics?
If he did ‘request’ her in his life time, she should have given Rajiv the pleasure of acting as per his ‘request’ when he was alive. Did she have some reservations then? Further, why did she wait for five years after his death to accede to his ‘request’?
Therefore, it remains a mystery as to when did Rajiv ‘request’ her to join politics and whether her decision to join politics was genuinely prompted by Rajiv’s ‘request’.
At the time of resigning as MP as also Chairman of the National Advisory Council after some opposition parties had filed a memorandum with the President of India for her disqualification on account of her holding an office of profit, she said: 'I have stated earlier also that I am in politics and public life not for my selfish ends …I have taken a pledge to serve the people of the country and to protect secular ideals. “
To cherish and realize these high ideals, she should have joined politics much earlier and, at least, the moment Rajiv made a ‘request’ to do so. Why she didn’t is anybody’s guess! ***
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
My inviolable right to hypocrisy
My inviolable right to hypocrisy
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 922
Delivering a lecture on “Living Politics: What India has Taught Me?” at Tilburg (The Netherlands) on June 9, 2007 Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, said: “The plain fact is that power for itself has never held any attraction for me”. Explaining why she turned down the prime ministership after being unanimously elected as the party leader in Parliament, she said”…I always knew in my heart that if I ever found myself in that position I would decline the post of Prime Minister…..it was dictated by my inner voice…Indeed that voice has been my wisest guide in my political life”.
So far so good, if the lecture was meant for foreign consumption only. But since the text of the speech has trickled down to India, it is difficult to stomach the stuff.
One cannot help recall the events. When the NDA government led by Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was defeated by one vote on the floor of Lok Sabha in May 1999, it was the same Mrs. Sonia Gandhi who as leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party had declared that her party would form a government. According to a BBC report on May 17, the senior Congress leader, Mr Arjun Singh added that Mrs Gandhi had shown "no displeasure or hesitation or protest" at the prospect of becoming prime minister.
Claiming majority she did go to the then President K. R. Narayanan, with a list of her supporters to stake claim to form a stable government. Her family members from Italy had all landed in New Delhi to witness the epoch-making oath taking ceremony. But it was the Samajwadi Party leader. Mulayam Singh, who put a spanner in Mrs. Gandhi’s designs by declaring that he could not support a person of foreign origin to be the Prime Minister. That dashed to the ground all the hopes and dreams of Mrs. Gandhi to be the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy.
Not only that. There was a revolt within the Party on the issue. Three very senior
Congress leaders, Sharad Pawar, P. A. Sangma and Tariq Anwar wrote a joint letter to Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator and on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi on May 16, 1999 that:
-- “It is not possible that a country of 980 million, with a wealth of education, competence and ability, can have anyone other than an Indian, born of Indian soil, to head its government.
-- “We believe that it is our responsibility as Congressmen and political leaders to formally place on record our view and request the CWC and you to consider the … suggestion (that) the Congress manifesto should suggest an amendment to the Constitution of India, to the effect that the offices of the President, Vice President and Prime Minister can only be held by natural born Indian citizens.”
In response to this letter, had Mrs. Sonia Gandhi then declared what she stated at Tilburg now after eight years, she could easily have saved the Congress of the turmoil and split. Perhaps history and outcome of 1999 Lok Sabha elections would have been different. On the contrary, as a counter-offensive she resigned from the post of Congress President in a huff. Her resignation skirted the real issue. This is what she wanted.
The issue raised by these senior Congress leaders was never discussed and instead, the trio was expelled from Congress.
During 2004 Lok Sabha election campaing, Mrs. Gandhi was projected as the Congress candidate for the post of Prime Minister. The people rejected her and did not give Congress an absolute majority to make her Prime Minister. Congress tally of seats (145) was just 7 more than BJP’s (138) while its percentage of votes fell from in 1999 to . Yet Congress did succeed in gobbling up a majority by bringing in those very political groups against whom it had waged a bitter electoral battle. On May 15 she was unanimously elected the Leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party which is the sine qua non for being invited to form a government. Later, on May 16, according to The Hindu, she was unanimously "elected" the alliance's prime ministerial candidate at a meeting of the allies and other supporting parties.
On May 18 she met President, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam staking her claim to form a government when the President made some queries about support to her. After a 20-minute meeting with President she declared she would meet him tomorrow again. And then after meeting the President, she stunned her supporters and opponents alike by announcing her refusal to be PM. Rest is history.
What made her “inner voice” vocal and know “in my heart that if I ever found myself in that position I would decline the post of Prime Minister” only after meeting President on May 19 is known only to her or the President.
It would be too much to assume that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was so innocent and ignorant that she didn't know what it meant to be unanimously elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party and leader of the alliance which staked claim to form government. If “it was dictated by my inner voice…", why did she not "decline" to get herself elected as leader? On the other hand, she got the Congress constitution amended to provide for the post of a chairperson of Congress Parliamentary Party, an office over and above the leaders of Congress in the two houses of Parliament.
I have an inalienable, fundamental right to hypocrisy. I won’t allow anybody however high or low he/she may be to encroach upon my right! ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 922
Delivering a lecture on “Living Politics: What India has Taught Me?” at Tilburg (The Netherlands) on June 9, 2007 Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, said: “The plain fact is that power for itself has never held any attraction for me”. Explaining why she turned down the prime ministership after being unanimously elected as the party leader in Parliament, she said”…I always knew in my heart that if I ever found myself in that position I would decline the post of Prime Minister…..it was dictated by my inner voice…Indeed that voice has been my wisest guide in my political life”.
So far so good, if the lecture was meant for foreign consumption only. But since the text of the speech has trickled down to India, it is difficult to stomach the stuff.
One cannot help recall the events. When the NDA government led by Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was defeated by one vote on the floor of Lok Sabha in May 1999, it was the same Mrs. Sonia Gandhi who as leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party had declared that her party would form a government. According to a BBC report on May 17, the senior Congress leader, Mr Arjun Singh added that Mrs Gandhi had shown "no displeasure or hesitation or protest" at the prospect of becoming prime minister.
Claiming majority she did go to the then President K. R. Narayanan, with a list of her supporters to stake claim to form a stable government. Her family members from Italy had all landed in New Delhi to witness the epoch-making oath taking ceremony. But it was the Samajwadi Party leader. Mulayam Singh, who put a spanner in Mrs. Gandhi’s designs by declaring that he could not support a person of foreign origin to be the Prime Minister. That dashed to the ground all the hopes and dreams of Mrs. Gandhi to be the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy.
Not only that. There was a revolt within the Party on the issue. Three very senior
Congress leaders, Sharad Pawar, P. A. Sangma and Tariq Anwar wrote a joint letter to Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator and on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi on May 16, 1999 that:
-- “It is not possible that a country of 980 million, with a wealth of education, competence and ability, can have anyone other than an Indian, born of Indian soil, to head its government.
-- “We believe that it is our responsibility as Congressmen and political leaders to formally place on record our view and request the CWC and you to consider the … suggestion (that) the Congress manifesto should suggest an amendment to the Constitution of India, to the effect that the offices of the President, Vice President and Prime Minister can only be held by natural born Indian citizens.”
In response to this letter, had Mrs. Sonia Gandhi then declared what she stated at Tilburg now after eight years, she could easily have saved the Congress of the turmoil and split. Perhaps history and outcome of 1999 Lok Sabha elections would have been different. On the contrary, as a counter-offensive she resigned from the post of Congress President in a huff. Her resignation skirted the real issue. This is what she wanted.
The issue raised by these senior Congress leaders was never discussed and instead, the trio was expelled from Congress.
During 2004 Lok Sabha election campaing, Mrs. Gandhi was projected as the Congress candidate for the post of Prime Minister. The people rejected her and did not give Congress an absolute majority to make her Prime Minister. Congress tally of seats (145) was just 7 more than BJP’s (138) while its percentage of votes fell from in 1999 to . Yet Congress did succeed in gobbling up a majority by bringing in those very political groups against whom it had waged a bitter electoral battle. On May 15 she was unanimously elected the Leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party which is the sine qua non for being invited to form a government. Later, on May 16, according to The Hindu, she was unanimously "elected" the alliance's prime ministerial candidate at a meeting of the allies and other supporting parties.
On May 18 she met President, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam staking her claim to form a government when the President made some queries about support to her. After a 20-minute meeting with President she declared she would meet him tomorrow again. And then after meeting the President, she stunned her supporters and opponents alike by announcing her refusal to be PM. Rest is history.
What made her “inner voice” vocal and know “in my heart that if I ever found myself in that position I would decline the post of Prime Minister” only after meeting President on May 19 is known only to her or the President.
It would be too much to assume that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was so innocent and ignorant that she didn't know what it meant to be unanimously elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party and leader of the alliance which staked claim to form government. If “it was dictated by my inner voice…", why did she not "decline" to get herself elected as leader? On the other hand, she got the Congress constitution amended to provide for the post of a chairperson of Congress Parliamentary Party, an office over and above the leaders of Congress in the two houses of Parliament.
I have an inalienable, fundamental right to hypocrisy. I won’t allow anybody however high or low he/she may be to encroach upon my right! ***
Sunday, August 5, 2007
My Inviolable Right to Hypocrisy
My inviolable right to hypocrisy
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 922
Delivering a lecture on “Living Politics: What India has Taught Me?” at Tilburg (The Netherlands) on June 9, 2007 Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, said: “The plain fact is that power for itself has never held any attraction for me”. Explaining why she turned down the prime ministership after being unanimously elected as the party leader in Parliament, she said”…I always knew in my heart that if I ever found myself in that position I would decline the post of Prime Minister…..it was dictated by my inner voice…Indeed that voice has been my wisest guide in my political life”.
So far so good, if the lecture was meant for foreign consumption only. But since the text of the speech has trickled down to India, it is difficult to stomach the stuff.
One cannot help recall the events. When the NDA government led by Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was defeated by one vote on the floor of Lok Sabha in May 1999, it was the same Mrs. Sonia Gandhi who as leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party had declared that her party would form a government. According to a BBC report on May 17, the senior Congress leader, Mr Arjun Singh added that Mrs Gandhi had shown "no displeasure or hesitation or protest" at the prospect of becoming prime minister.
Claiming majority she did go to the then President K. R. Narayanan, with a list of her supporters to stake claim to form a stable government. Her family members from Italy had all landed in New Delhi to witness the epoch-making oath taking ceremony. But it was the Samajwadi Party leader. Mulayam Singh, who put a spanner in Mrs. Gandhi’s designs by declaring that he could not support a person of foreign origin to be the Prime Minister. That dashed to the ground all the hopes and dreams of Mrs. Gandhi to be the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy.
Not only that. There was a revolt within the Party on the issue. Three very senior
Congress leaders, Sharad Pawar, P. A. Sangma and Tariq Anwar wrote a joint letter to Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator and on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi on May 16, 1999 that:
-- “It is not possible that a country of 980 million, with a wealth of education, competence and ability, can have anyone other than an Indian, born of Indian soil, to head its government.
-- “We believe that it is our responsibility as Congressmen and political leaders to formally place on record our view and request the CWC and you to consider the … suggestion (that) the Congress manifesto should suggest an amendment to the Constitution of India, to the effect that the offices of the President, Vice President and Prime Minister can only be held by natural born Indian citizens.”
In response to this letter, had Mrs. Sonia Gandhi then declared what she stated at Tilburg now after eight years, she could easily have saved the Congress of the turmoil and split. Perhaps history and outcome of 1999 Lok Sabha elections would have been different. On the contrary, as a counter-offensive she resigned from the post of Congress President in a huff. Her resignation skirted the real issue. This is what she wanted.
The issue raised by these senior Congress leaders was never discussed and instead, the trio was expelled from Congress.
During 2004 Lok Sabha election campaing, Mrs. Gandhi was projected as the Congress candidate for the post of Prime Minister. The people rejected her and did not give Congress an absolute majority to make her Prime Minister. Congress tally of seats (145) was just 7 more than BJP’s (138) while its percentage of votes fell from in 1999 to . Yet Congress did succeed in gobbling up a majority by bringing in those very political groups against whom it had waged a bitter electoral battle. On May 15 she was unanimously elected the Leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party which is the sine qua non for being invited to form a government. Later, on May 16, according to The Hindu, she was unanimously "elected" the alliance's prime ministerial candidate at a meeting of the allies and other supporting parties.
On May 18 she met President, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam staking her claim to form a government when the President made some queries about support to her. After a 20-minute meeting with President she declared she would meet him tomorrow again. And then after meeting the President, she stunned her supporters and opponents alike by announcing her refusal to be PM. Rest is history.
What made her “inner voice” vocal and know “in my heart that if I ever found myself in that position I would decline the post of Prime Minister” only after meeting President on May 19 is known only to her or the President.
It would be too much to assume that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was so innocent and ignorant that she didn't know what it meant to be unanimously elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party and leader of the alliance which staked claim to form government. If “it was dictated by my inner voice…", why did she not "decline" to get herself elected as leader? On the other hand, she got the Congress constitution amended to provide for the post of a chairperson of Congress Parliamentary Party, an office over and above the leaders of Congress in the two houses of Parliament.
I have an inalienable, fundamental right to hypocrisy. I won’t allow anybody however high or low he/she may be to encroach upon my right! ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 922
Delivering a lecture on “Living Politics: What India has Taught Me?” at Tilburg (The Netherlands) on June 9, 2007 Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, said: “The plain fact is that power for itself has never held any attraction for me”. Explaining why she turned down the prime ministership after being unanimously elected as the party leader in Parliament, she said”…I always knew in my heart that if I ever found myself in that position I would decline the post of Prime Minister…..it was dictated by my inner voice…Indeed that voice has been my wisest guide in my political life”.
So far so good, if the lecture was meant for foreign consumption only. But since the text of the speech has trickled down to India, it is difficult to stomach the stuff.
One cannot help recall the events. When the NDA government led by Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was defeated by one vote on the floor of Lok Sabha in May 1999, it was the same Mrs. Sonia Gandhi who as leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party had declared that her party would form a government. According to a BBC report on May 17, the senior Congress leader, Mr Arjun Singh added that Mrs Gandhi had shown "no displeasure or hesitation or protest" at the prospect of becoming prime minister.
Claiming majority she did go to the then President K. R. Narayanan, with a list of her supporters to stake claim to form a stable government. Her family members from Italy had all landed in New Delhi to witness the epoch-making oath taking ceremony. But it was the Samajwadi Party leader. Mulayam Singh, who put a spanner in Mrs. Gandhi’s designs by declaring that he could not support a person of foreign origin to be the Prime Minister. That dashed to the ground all the hopes and dreams of Mrs. Gandhi to be the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy.
Not only that. There was a revolt within the Party on the issue. Three very senior
Congress leaders, Sharad Pawar, P. A. Sangma and Tariq Anwar wrote a joint letter to Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator and on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi on May 16, 1999 that:
-- “It is not possible that a country of 980 million, with a wealth of education, competence and ability, can have anyone other than an Indian, born of Indian soil, to head its government.
-- “We believe that it is our responsibility as Congressmen and political leaders to formally place on record our view and request the CWC and you to consider the … suggestion (that) the Congress manifesto should suggest an amendment to the Constitution of India, to the effect that the offices of the President, Vice President and Prime Minister can only be held by natural born Indian citizens.”
In response to this letter, had Mrs. Sonia Gandhi then declared what she stated at Tilburg now after eight years, she could easily have saved the Congress of the turmoil and split. Perhaps history and outcome of 1999 Lok Sabha elections would have been different. On the contrary, as a counter-offensive she resigned from the post of Congress President in a huff. Her resignation skirted the real issue. This is what she wanted.
The issue raised by these senior Congress leaders was never discussed and instead, the trio was expelled from Congress.
During 2004 Lok Sabha election campaing, Mrs. Gandhi was projected as the Congress candidate for the post of Prime Minister. The people rejected her and did not give Congress an absolute majority to make her Prime Minister. Congress tally of seats (145) was just 7 more than BJP’s (138) while its percentage of votes fell from in 1999 to . Yet Congress did succeed in gobbling up a majority by bringing in those very political groups against whom it had waged a bitter electoral battle. On May 15 she was unanimously elected the Leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party which is the sine qua non for being invited to form a government. Later, on May 16, according to The Hindu, she was unanimously "elected" the alliance's prime ministerial candidate at a meeting of the allies and other supporting parties.
On May 18 she met President, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam staking her claim to form a government when the President made some queries about support to her. After a 20-minute meeting with President she declared she would meet him tomorrow again. And then after meeting the President, she stunned her supporters and opponents alike by announcing her refusal to be PM. Rest is history.
What made her “inner voice” vocal and know “in my heart that if I ever found myself in that position I would decline the post of Prime Minister” only after meeting President on May 19 is known only to her or the President.
It would be too much to assume that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was so innocent and ignorant that she didn't know what it meant to be unanimously elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party and leader of the alliance which staked claim to form government. If “it was dictated by my inner voice…", why did she not "decline" to get herself elected as leader? On the other hand, she got the Congress constitution amended to provide for the post of a chairperson of Congress Parliamentary Party, an office over and above the leaders of Congress in the two houses of Parliament.
I have an inalienable, fundamental right to hypocrisy. I won’t allow anybody however high or low he/she may be to encroach upon my right! ***
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Not only anybody, even nobody can be President!
Not anybody, nobody too can be President
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Now that only two candidates – UPA-Left nominee Mrs. Pratibha Patil and NDA-supported independent incumbent Vice-President Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat – are left in the fray for election to the office of the President of India and the nature of allegations that are surfacing each day against Mrs. Patil, the call of Mr. Sheikhawat to the electoral college consisting of MPs and MLAs that they should “vote according to their conscience” has become all the more topical and relevant.
The election, according to Mr. Shekhawat, is not “contested on a party symbol …..no whip can be issued” and “therefore there is no question of cross-voting” as the election is conducted through “a secret ballot”.
The Congress spokesperson, Mr. Abhishek Singhvi joined issue with Mr. Shekhawat and dismissed as “misapplied and inapposite” NDA’s plans to seek a conscience vote in favour of Vice-President Shekhawat in the presidential election as had happened in 1969. According to him, “1969 was a case when the ruling party was itself divided and conscience vote was sought because of the division.” To buttress his argument Shri Singhvi claimed that this time the ruling UPA “was completely united and all constituents had signed the nomination papers for Pratibha Patil”.
Perhaps, Mr. Singhvi is himself not aware of the fact – or he wishes deliberately to gloat over it – that in 1969 the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who had, later, called upon Congress MPs and MLAs to vote “according to their conscience” had, earlier, herself signed the nomination papers of the official Congress candidate, Mr. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy for the office of President. In these circumstances, Mr. Shekhawat’s call for a “conscience vote” is as much morally right -- or wrong -- as was then the call of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
There remain two elements of similarity in the present Presidential election. At that time the person at the helm of affairs was Mrs. Indira Gandhi and this time it is her daughter-in-law. Then also, the choice of candidate by Mrs. Indira Gandhi was motivated, as it is today, not by merit or interests of the nation, but by personal ego, individual whim and self-interest. There was hardly anything against Mr. Reddy except Mrs. Gandhi’s personal dislike of him.
By coincidence, the individual for whom Mrs. Gandhi sought Congressmen’s “conscience vote” was the incumbent Vice-President, Mr. V. V. Giri.
By contrast, the independent candidate, Mr. Shekhawat, commands a stature, political standing, maturity, vast riches in experience and a much cleaner image than does his opponent possess.
On the contrary, Mrs. Pratibha Patil cannot be ranked as a model personality with an ideal image, given the kind of allegations that have been hurled against her own self and family. Unfortunately, the candidate herself has, so far, failed to come out with convincing rebuttal as concretely as are the allegations, except for dismissing these as “malicious, frivolous, unsubstantiated and politically motivated”. This is the stock claim and reaction of every politician accused of a crime. Mr. Shibboo Soren too claimed – and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh support him as do they stand by other tainted ministers – himself ‘innocent’ till he was sentenced to life imprisonment on the charge of murder by a court of law.
Surprisingly, the UPA and the Left parties are vocal in defence as against the mute voice of the person accused of. It appears, as if these parties and leaders know more than does the person accused. They are taking the shelter that she cannot be held responsible for the conduct of her brother or husband going to be the “First Gentleman” if she gets elected.
While Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, from whom Mrs. Patil claims to draw inspiration, is proud of her Nehru-Gandhi family legacy, Mrs. Patil herself wishes, strangely, to wash her hands off of her own family legacy – that of her husband and brother disclaiming their acts of omission and commission. If she wins, will they -- or will they not -- join her in the Rashtrapati Bhawan? Nobody explains.
That our politicians are lacking in the moral courage is also explained by the fact that those who are claiming her or her family ‘innocent’ -- the way they argue in favour of the ‘tainted’ ministers as none of them has been convicted by a court of law, so far, – nobody has solemnly declared that she will quit Rashtrapati Bhawan if she herself, her husband or her brother were to be found guilty by a court of law.
Once in Rashtrapati Bhawan, the incumbent President cannot be proceeded against in any court of law. Neither can any law enforcing agency effect arrest as long as the person is sheltered in Rashtrapati Bhawan. In this way, is the UPA – and inversely, the nation -- not going to provide protection against law to a person who if not found guilty has also not been exonerated of a volley of charges she and her family is confronted today?
Let the UPA and the Left declare – if they are on so high a moral ground -- that her election will not turn the allegations against her own self, her husband and brother, into acts of virtue the moment she enters the Rashtrapati Bhawan! ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Now that only two candidates – UPA-Left nominee Mrs. Pratibha Patil and NDA-supported independent incumbent Vice-President Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat – are left in the fray for election to the office of the President of India and the nature of allegations that are surfacing each day against Mrs. Patil, the call of Mr. Sheikhawat to the electoral college consisting of MPs and MLAs that they should “vote according to their conscience” has become all the more topical and relevant.
The election, according to Mr. Shekhawat, is not “contested on a party symbol …..no whip can be issued” and “therefore there is no question of cross-voting” as the election is conducted through “a secret ballot”.
The Congress spokesperson, Mr. Abhishek Singhvi joined issue with Mr. Shekhawat and dismissed as “misapplied and inapposite” NDA’s plans to seek a conscience vote in favour of Vice-President Shekhawat in the presidential election as had happened in 1969. According to him, “1969 was a case when the ruling party was itself divided and conscience vote was sought because of the division.” To buttress his argument Shri Singhvi claimed that this time the ruling UPA “was completely united and all constituents had signed the nomination papers for Pratibha Patil”.
Perhaps, Mr. Singhvi is himself not aware of the fact – or he wishes deliberately to gloat over it – that in 1969 the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who had, later, called upon Congress MPs and MLAs to vote “according to their conscience” had, earlier, herself signed the nomination papers of the official Congress candidate, Mr. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy for the office of President. In these circumstances, Mr. Shekhawat’s call for a “conscience vote” is as much morally right -- or wrong -- as was then the call of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
There remain two elements of similarity in the present Presidential election. At that time the person at the helm of affairs was Mrs. Indira Gandhi and this time it is her daughter-in-law. Then also, the choice of candidate by Mrs. Indira Gandhi was motivated, as it is today, not by merit or interests of the nation, but by personal ego, individual whim and self-interest. There was hardly anything against Mr. Reddy except Mrs. Gandhi’s personal dislike of him.
By coincidence, the individual for whom Mrs. Gandhi sought Congressmen’s “conscience vote” was the incumbent Vice-President, Mr. V. V. Giri.
By contrast, the independent candidate, Mr. Shekhawat, commands a stature, political standing, maturity, vast riches in experience and a much cleaner image than does his opponent possess.
On the contrary, Mrs. Pratibha Patil cannot be ranked as a model personality with an ideal image, given the kind of allegations that have been hurled against her own self and family. Unfortunately, the candidate herself has, so far, failed to come out with convincing rebuttal as concretely as are the allegations, except for dismissing these as “malicious, frivolous, unsubstantiated and politically motivated”. This is the stock claim and reaction of every politician accused of a crime. Mr. Shibboo Soren too claimed – and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh support him as do they stand by other tainted ministers – himself ‘innocent’ till he was sentenced to life imprisonment on the charge of murder by a court of law.
Surprisingly, the UPA and the Left parties are vocal in defence as against the mute voice of the person accused of. It appears, as if these parties and leaders know more than does the person accused. They are taking the shelter that she cannot be held responsible for the conduct of her brother or husband going to be the “First Gentleman” if she gets elected.
While Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, from whom Mrs. Patil claims to draw inspiration, is proud of her Nehru-Gandhi family legacy, Mrs. Patil herself wishes, strangely, to wash her hands off of her own family legacy – that of her husband and brother disclaiming their acts of omission and commission. If she wins, will they -- or will they not -- join her in the Rashtrapati Bhawan? Nobody explains.
That our politicians are lacking in the moral courage is also explained by the fact that those who are claiming her or her family ‘innocent’ -- the way they argue in favour of the ‘tainted’ ministers as none of them has been convicted by a court of law, so far, – nobody has solemnly declared that she will quit Rashtrapati Bhawan if she herself, her husband or her brother were to be found guilty by a court of law.
Once in Rashtrapati Bhawan, the incumbent President cannot be proceeded against in any court of law. Neither can any law enforcing agency effect arrest as long as the person is sheltered in Rashtrapati Bhawan. In this way, is the UPA – and inversely, the nation -- not going to provide protection against law to a person who if not found guilty has also not been exonerated of a volley of charges she and her family is confronted today?
Let the UPA and the Left declare – if they are on so high a moral ground -- that her election will not turn the allegations against her own self, her husband and brother, into acts of virtue the moment she enters the Rashtrapati Bhawan! ***
Friday, June 29, 2007
Voting in Presidential Poll out of bounds for defection law
Voting in Presidential Poll
Out of bounds for defection law
By Amba Charan Vashishth
On June 28, 2007 Congress sought disqualification from membership of Rajya Sabha of suspended Congress Member, Mr. K. Natwar Singh, on the ground that he had proposed the name of Vice-President, Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as a candidate for the post of President of India.
Congress had throughout been playing politics with him. It suspended him about a year back but did not expel him from the membership of the Congress Parliamentary (Legislature) Party just to keep a tab on his activities within the House, because even as a suspended member he has to fall in line with the whip issued by the Party. It turned a blind eye to Mr. Natwar Singh releasing, alongwith Mulayam Singh Yadav, the Samajwadi Party’s election manifesto for Uttar Pradesh. He extensively campaigned for Mulayam Party against his own Congress Party.
The Congress plea is not likely to stand the test of law in view of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule (Articles 102(2) and 191(2) of the Constitution of India. In the case of Mr. Natwar Singh, only provision No. 2 in the Tenth Scheduled can be invoked: that “..a member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House –
(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs ….”.
Firstly, proposing the name of Mr. Shekhawat does not amount to “voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party (Congress in this case)”. Even otherwise, till the time he proposed the candidature, no “direction” had been issued by the Congress Party to any member of the House, not to speak of, to Mr. Natwar Singh.
It also needs to be understood that MPs and MLAs are just voters to the election of the President as they constitute the “electoral college” for the purpose in terms of the provisions of Article 54 of the Constitution. Exercising their right to vote for the office of the President does not constitute “voting in such House” as it is through a secret ballot.
The voting takes place not in the Parliament in a meeting presided over by the Speaker of Lok Sabha or by Chairman of Rajya Sabha or respective Speakers of State legislatures. It is the Election Commission -- and not the Speaker or the Chairman -- who appoints the Presiding Officer for election to the post of President. It is, again, not the Speaker or the Chairman, who declare the outcome of the voting and the final result. This is done by the Presiding Officer who is, normally and as a matter of precedent and convenience, the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
Since the electorate consists of MPs and MLAs, it is but natural that the polling booth too should be within the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha premises. As the Presiding and Assistant Presiding Officers are all officers of the Parliament or Vidhan Sabha, there is no difficulty in identification of the voters also.
Therefore, not to speak of the act of Mr. Natwar Singh proposing the name of Mr. Shekhawat, even taking part in voting for election to the office of President cannot, in any manner, be construed as “voting in such House”. To attract disqualification in terms of the provisions in the Tenth Schedule, the “voting in such House” has to be “voting in” Lok Sabha. Rajya Sabha when the Central and State legislatures are having a sitting of their respective houses presided over by the respecting presiding officer.
At the same time one needs to distinguish between the election of President and that of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House. The former is not elected in a sitting of any House, the latter is elected in a sitting of that particular House. In the latter case, the provisions of Defection Law do get attracted.
Any “direction” issued by any political party for voting for a particular candidate in election to the office of President cannot, therefore, attract the provisions of the Tenth Schedule.
Out of bounds for defection law
By Amba Charan Vashishth
On June 28, 2007 Congress sought disqualification from membership of Rajya Sabha of suspended Congress Member, Mr. K. Natwar Singh, on the ground that he had proposed the name of Vice-President, Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as a candidate for the post of President of India.
Congress had throughout been playing politics with him. It suspended him about a year back but did not expel him from the membership of the Congress Parliamentary (Legislature) Party just to keep a tab on his activities within the House, because even as a suspended member he has to fall in line with the whip issued by the Party. It turned a blind eye to Mr. Natwar Singh releasing, alongwith Mulayam Singh Yadav, the Samajwadi Party’s election manifesto for Uttar Pradesh. He extensively campaigned for Mulayam Party against his own Congress Party.
The Congress plea is not likely to stand the test of law in view of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule (Articles 102(2) and 191(2) of the Constitution of India. In the case of Mr. Natwar Singh, only provision No. 2 in the Tenth Scheduled can be invoked: that “..a member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House –
(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs ….”.
Firstly, proposing the name of Mr. Shekhawat does not amount to “voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party (Congress in this case)”. Even otherwise, till the time he proposed the candidature, no “direction” had been issued by the Congress Party to any member of the House, not to speak of, to Mr. Natwar Singh.
It also needs to be understood that MPs and MLAs are just voters to the election of the President as they constitute the “electoral college” for the purpose in terms of the provisions of Article 54 of the Constitution. Exercising their right to vote for the office of the President does not constitute “voting in such House” as it is through a secret ballot.
The voting takes place not in the Parliament in a meeting presided over by the Speaker of Lok Sabha or by Chairman of Rajya Sabha or respective Speakers of State legislatures. It is the Election Commission -- and not the Speaker or the Chairman -- who appoints the Presiding Officer for election to the post of President. It is, again, not the Speaker or the Chairman, who declare the outcome of the voting and the final result. This is done by the Presiding Officer who is, normally and as a matter of precedent and convenience, the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
Since the electorate consists of MPs and MLAs, it is but natural that the polling booth too should be within the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha premises. As the Presiding and Assistant Presiding Officers are all officers of the Parliament or Vidhan Sabha, there is no difficulty in identification of the voters also.
Therefore, not to speak of the act of Mr. Natwar Singh proposing the name of Mr. Shekhawat, even taking part in voting for election to the office of President cannot, in any manner, be construed as “voting in such House”. To attract disqualification in terms of the provisions in the Tenth Schedule, the “voting in such House” has to be “voting in” Lok Sabha. Rajya Sabha when the Central and State legislatures are having a sitting of their respective houses presided over by the respecting presiding officer.
At the same time one needs to distinguish between the election of President and that of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House. The former is not elected in a sitting of any House, the latter is elected in a sitting of that particular House. In the latter case, the provisions of Defection Law do get attracted.
Any “direction” issued by any political party for voting for a particular candidate in election to the office of President cannot, therefore, attract the provisions of the Tenth Schedule.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
UPA has now patent on 'innocence'!
UPA has no patent on 'innocence'!
By Amba Charan Vashishth
A very important news failed to get the media attention it deserved: When UPA government celebrated its three years in office over an official dinner in the third week of May 2007 in which the elite high dignitaries exclusively invited, among others, included UPA’s former ‘honourable’ minister and JMM chief Shiboo Soren presently in jail for over seven months undergoing a life sentence for the crime of murder.
The invitation may be correct politically, but cannot be right morally, legally and constitutionally.
How could a convict find his name in the honours list of invitees to an elite official dinner? It is beside the point that he could not have joined this noble gathering without the jail authorities being permitted by a competent court of law. And an invitation to dinner by the head of government in the country, in the eyes of law, could be no justification for grant of a parole, in public interest, to a convict. It is also a fact that no permission was sought even. The dinner passed off without the glitter of Soren's presence.
Affront to Constitution
The invitation to an official dinner to a convict by a government constituted as per provisions of the Constitution is an affront to the word and spirit of law as also against the oath the Prime Minister and his colleagues had taken at the time of being sworn to office: “to do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.
The former minister and MP Shibboo Soren and the convict Shibboo Soren are not two different identities; both are one and the same individuals in body and soul. Even if motivated by considerations of political expediency, the solicitation extends an honour to a person convicted of a heinous crime.
On assuming office the UPA invented a new alibi to save itself of the embarrassment and also its government -- the alibi that every person is 'innocent' till convicted by a court of law. This it did because without propagating this high principle, it could initially neither garner majority to form a government nor could the government subsist for a moment
Shibboo Soren stands condemned for the crime of a murder. If UPA wishes to stretch the argument that he continues to be 'innocent' as the highest court of the country, the Supreme Court (his case is as yet pending in Delhi High Court), has not as yet given the final word, it could be accused of being illogical just to stick to power. Despite the glare of reality, UPA continues tosee this reality as accepting Soren as a convict as per court verdict has disastrous political ramifications for its life in power.
Harshad Mehta 'innocent'?
Surprisingly, UPA invokes this 'innocent' doctrine only when it serves its political purpose. Not otherwise. In numerous cases has it demanded resignation – or dismissal -- of chief ministers and ministers of non-UPA governments and politicians even where no criminal case had been registered against them, not to speak of their having been charge-sheeted or convicted, like Shibboo Soren and many others in UPA, for any crime by any court of law.
Congress hasn't have got, as yet, this alibi of 'innocence' patented in its name that no one else can use it. Tomorrow late Harshad Mehta's family can, with the equal vehemence of moral force, also claim that he was 'innocent' because although convicted by a lower court, the Supreme Court had not said the final word in his case because his appeals against conviction were pending consideration in courts at the time of his death.
By Amba Charan Vashishth
A very important news failed to get the media attention it deserved: When UPA government celebrated its three years in office over an official dinner in the third week of May 2007 in which the elite high dignitaries exclusively invited, among others, included UPA’s former ‘honourable’ minister and JMM chief Shiboo Soren presently in jail for over seven months undergoing a life sentence for the crime of murder.
The invitation may be correct politically, but cannot be right morally, legally and constitutionally.
How could a convict find his name in the honours list of invitees to an elite official dinner? It is beside the point that he could not have joined this noble gathering without the jail authorities being permitted by a competent court of law. And an invitation to dinner by the head of government in the country, in the eyes of law, could be no justification for grant of a parole, in public interest, to a convict. It is also a fact that no permission was sought even. The dinner passed off without the glitter of Soren's presence.
Affront to Constitution
The invitation to an official dinner to a convict by a government constituted as per provisions of the Constitution is an affront to the word and spirit of law as also against the oath the Prime Minister and his colleagues had taken at the time of being sworn to office: “to do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.
The former minister and MP Shibboo Soren and the convict Shibboo Soren are not two different identities; both are one and the same individuals in body and soul. Even if motivated by considerations of political expediency, the solicitation extends an honour to a person convicted of a heinous crime.
On assuming office the UPA invented a new alibi to save itself of the embarrassment and also its government -- the alibi that every person is 'innocent' till convicted by a court of law. This it did because without propagating this high principle, it could initially neither garner majority to form a government nor could the government subsist for a moment
Shibboo Soren stands condemned for the crime of a murder. If UPA wishes to stretch the argument that he continues to be 'innocent' as the highest court of the country, the Supreme Court (his case is as yet pending in Delhi High Court), has not as yet given the final word, it could be accused of being illogical just to stick to power. Despite the glare of reality, UPA continues tosee this reality as accepting Soren as a convict as per court verdict has disastrous political ramifications for its life in power.
Harshad Mehta 'innocent'?
Surprisingly, UPA invokes this 'innocent' doctrine only when it serves its political purpose. Not otherwise. In numerous cases has it demanded resignation – or dismissal -- of chief ministers and ministers of non-UPA governments and politicians even where no criminal case had been registered against them, not to speak of their having been charge-sheeted or convicted, like Shibboo Soren and many others in UPA, for any crime by any court of law.
Congress hasn't have got, as yet, this alibi of 'innocence' patented in its name that no one else can use it. Tomorrow late Harshad Mehta's family can, with the equal vehemence of moral force, also claim that he was 'innocent' because although convicted by a lower court, the Supreme Court had not said the final word in his case because his appeals against conviction were pending consideration in courts at the time of his death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)