Rahul Gandhi’s outburst on tearing and throwing away a
certain ordinance has created a buzz. There are columnists and journalist
perhaps making their Diwali bonus on just this one topic. So what to make of it?
Is the stand correct, but the way it has been expressed, not? Does the stand
have more merit because it came from the heir apparent and not from some other
member of parliament from some god forsaken corner of India?
I think it runs much deeper than that. Never has our
country been on such scary crossroads of corruption as it stands today. Not even
at the time of declaration of emergency was the situation so bad. Never has the
political class been so privileged and at the same time so vulnerable. And never
has the challenge been so unique.
Let us step back to the ninth standard class of Civics –
how the bill becomes a law. No, I won’t bore you with the intricate details, but
the (honorable) parliament of India has asserted this right several times. More
often than not, it has asserted this right for all the wrong reasons – be it the
office of profit bill or watering down the provisions of the Lokpal bill. They also occasionally give themselves a raise
and enjoy benefits of free electricity, free phone calls, free travel,
accommodation, hefty pension and so on. While a government servant can’t as much
get a passport made without the approval, the political class has started
resembling more like the community of pigs in Animal Farm.
So back to the original question – what to make of Rahul
baba’s tantrum?
Is he against corruption? Then he had ample opportunity to
voice his opinions and concerns in appropriate forums.
Is he against nepotism? He could have led by example and
not come into politics at all. In fact, if he were so true to this principle, he
should have stayed away from India altogether and could have avoided the
inevitable.
Does he abhor sycophancy? Certainly there is a hint of it
in his half-hearted attempts to show he is different. What message then, did he
pass to the Congress workers who defaced my city and caused much eye sores of
placards and hoardings welcoming the “future prime minister of India”?
Is he just against the tainted members of various
legislative bodies in India? He could have voiced his opinions, as publically as
he did, at the time of elections and before party tickets were given to these
questionable people.
However, there is no record of Rahul having done any of
this.
Now the way in which he expressed his reservations to the
ordinance…I hope Rahul understands the intricacies of how the government works –
especially the executive and legislative branches. For a bill to become a law,
it needs to be passed in the parliament. There needs to be a debate weighing
pros and cons of a bill and there needs to be an assessment of the long and
short term effects of the laws. If the parliament is not convened at the time
and an important law needs to be made, the government has an option of passing
an ordinance and then getting it approved in the parliament the next it
convenes. At best, an ordinance is a stop-gap measure.
Given the shady nature of the ordinance, the government
must have felt some urgency in passing the ordinance in the cabinet meeting.
However ill-conceived it may have been, it was the decision of the cabinet. And
if the cabinet took the decision, then the party which has a majority in the
cabinet must have supported that decision. In a Westminster style democracy, a
cabinet decision is considered important and only the president has the
prerogative to send it back.
I am not aware of the inner workings that led to the
decision. And however moralistic stand any political party may take (or has
taken for right reasons) there can be no denying that everyone was in cahoots of
passing the ordinance. More importantly, a decision of the cabinet, at this
stage, cannot be disassociated from the party views. As the majority party in
the government, the decision is also Congress’.
At this stage, baba walks in and says the ordinance must
be torn and thrown away. How is this no disrespect to the government and the
cabinet, of which he is a part? What constitutional authority does Rahul have to
do this?
Does he disagree with the ordinance? Then why not vote
against it the next time it comes up for discussion in the parliament? But wait,
he can’t. That would be tantamount to defection; and Rahul does not intend to
defect from the INC, does he? Individual dissension is not permitted in the
parliament and the MPs vote as per the party whip. So that route was not
possible. In a true sense, it is not the parliament, but the political party
that is supreme. So in India, it is faux democracy at best.
Could he have lobbied the MPs of his own party to vote
against the ordinance when it would come for discussion in the parliament? But
that would be against the majority decision of his own party. So is he ready to
leave the party on moral grounds?
Could he have started a coup – simplistically speaking –
in his own party, to replace the leadership? But that is also not possible
because the leadership is appointed and not elected (Anyone reading this and old
enough to know what happened to Margaret Thatcher would understand this better.
Moreover, Rahul is better placed than Michael Heseltine. Like Heseltine he is
also a back bencher, but unlike him, Rahul’s status of heir apparent cannot be
taken away.).
Some of Rahul’s generation ministers have voiced opinions
and concerns about the ordinance. It would be interesting to know if they voiced
those in the cabinet meeting (given they are ministers of state, I am not sure
if they have a say in the cabinet decisions) or any executive forum. But they
are still part of the cabinet and therefore part of the decision. However, their
public outpouring now means they do not have a moral right to be in the cabinet.
Why aren’t they citing irreconcilable differences and resigning? If not, why
aren’t their bosses sacking them for insubordination?
Caught between a rock and a hard place, aren’t we? And
yet, it does not answer the question, what does Rahul stand for?
If you have a grand vision of correcting everything that
is wrong with the Indian democracy, Rahul, we would like to hear it. But
privileged temper tantrums are not a sign of a visionary and a leader. Even if
the Times of India takes all the credit for arousing the public opinion (last I
heard it was some 5lakh+ and counting), we would be happy to give that credit to
you, if you give us some substance.
