Bury The Congress

The current crisis over the Ordinance controversy impels one to recallevents.

On May 16, 1999 The Statesman carried a report which said that formerPrime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had attempted to set up a joint training programmebetween Indian and Italian intelligence agencies. The original proposal camefrom the Italians. Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s Italian brother-in-law had links withItalian intelligence. He put up the proposal. RAW officials shot down the idea.They pointed out that Italy was a conduit for nuclear technology to Pakistan.Therefore the proposed venture contained security risks. The information in thenewspaper report came from Mr B Raman who had served in the cabinet secretariatas a senior official. Today Mr Raman is recognized as a distinguished authorityon security affairs.

When the present UPA government assumed office, media outlets trumpeted thatSonia Gandhi had declined the post of Prime Minister. She was compared toMahatma Gandhi, the Buddha and Mother Teresa. Outlook's coverpage wondered if she could be called 'Saint Sonia?'. I questionedthe fact that she had declined the post. I suggested that she received no offer.I quoted the B Raman report in The Statesman. According to sources thePresident on the basis of intelligence reports sought assurance that no securityrisks would be involved if she became Prime Minister. He wanted someclarifications from Mrs Gandhi. According to some media reports at that timesome sections in the armed forces enquired whether as PM she could accessinformation about the nation’s nuclear programme. Mrs Gandhi decided not tobecome PM. She echoed Mahatma Gandhi to say that she had heeded her "innervoice".

In Outlook weekly, dated June7, 2004, I wrote: "Why should the President have held back? Is it becauseshe could have been a security risk? And hence she could not be given access toIndia’s nuclear secrets – making her thereby untenable as PM? WillRashtrapati Bhawan tell us?"

Rashtrapati Bhawan said nothing. It did tell off others who had raisedquestions about Mrs Gandhi being debarred because of her foreign origins.However, even if too much is not read in Rashtrapati Bhawan’s silence, thereis the question of Mrs Gandhi’s subsequent conduct. Apparently her inner voiceremained silent after that first one message. As Congress President she amendedthe party constitution, created an extra-constitutional post of Chairperson in anewly created National Advisory Council to oversee the government’s work, andremained Chairperson of the UPA alliance. She got cabinet rank. At firstCongress leaders claimed she would have access to all government files. Legalimpediments prevented that. In short, through these measures and the supineacquiescence of her senior colleagues Mrs Gandhi concentrated all power in herown hands. She became the Prime Minister’s remote control. Mahatma Gandhi, itmight be recalled, never accepted any post in party or government.

Very soon the UPA government ran into trouble. First, there was theunconstitutional dissolution of the Bihar Assembly. The cabinet took a panicdecision and promulgated an ordinance to pre-empt Mr Nitish Kumar from forming agovernment. In a wholly inadequate Supreme Court judgment the Bihar Governor wascastigated. The judgment failed to elaborate on its observation that the cabinethad acted with undue haste. In fact both the PM and the President were as muchresponsible as the Governor. The Court failed to state this in clear terms. Iwrote then suggesting that both the President and the PM should resign.

Then came release of the VolckerReport. The Oil-For-Food scam erupted inwhich was involved the Congress party’s name, and therefore the CongressPresident’s culpability. Mrs Gandhi’s close confidant, former ForeignMinister Natwar Singh, had to resign. Soon the government’s decision tounfreeze the frozen London bank accounts of Mrs Gandhi’s close family friend, Mr Ottavio Quattrochi, became public. The Volcker affair and Mr Quattrochi’scase are still under scrutiny. Before they could be disposed of the Scorpenesubmarine scandal erupted. In that deal once again a family friend of Mrs Gandhihas allegedly received illegal commission on behalf of the Congress Party. TheDefence Minister’s denial in Parliament of any wrongdoing by government inthis deal notwithstanding, this affair is likely to escalate.

By any standard this is a formidable record for less than two years of power.And now the system has been clobbered by the government’s decision to suddenlyadjourn Parliament in mid-session to allow an Ordinance intended to protectSonia Gandhi and other luminaries from disqualification as MPs. This was done toavoid the fate that befell Mrs Jaya Bachchan who was disqualified as MP becauseshe occupied an office of profit. The contrast between the glee of Congressleaders over Mrs Bachchan’s disqualification and their panic over applicationof the same law to themselves was nothing short of contemptible.

At the moment of writing Mrs Jaya Bachchan’s plea before the Supreme Courtto clearly define an office of profit awaits consideration. The Constitution hasnot defined it. Article 102(1) (a) of the Constitution which debars MPs fromholding an office of profit states that an office of profit need not bestowpecuniary advantage. It is sufficient if it bestows administrative and executivepowers. In the absence of further clarification in the Constitution it isSupreme Court rulings on the subject that determine what constitutes an officeof profit. Successive SC rulings have created an exacting definition. All perksare considered equivalent to remuneration. Apart from executive or judicialpowers even influence and patronage accruing to a government appointment rendersit an office of profit.

Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s resignation from Parliament to pre-empt disqualificationwas meaningless. It was similar to her rejection of the PM’s post. Mrs Gandhi’sattempt to seize the high moral ground by making virtue out of necessity becametransparent from the sequence of events. She stayed put while Parliament wasadjourned and the Ordinance was being planned. Then the President forwarded allpetitions against MPs to the Election Commission. The CEC said the law was equalfor all. Mrs Gandhi knew the game was up. She played the script of renunciationshe had learnt earlier. After she resigned the Congress denied it had plannedthe Ordinance. This lie was transparent. If no Ordinance was intended why wasParliament’s recess converted to an adjournment? The Congress had egg all overits face. Mrs Gandhi challenged the opposition and announced she would seekre-election from Rae Bareilly. Will she contest a by-election or a mid-termpoll? Time will tell.

Meanwhile all Indians should reflect. How much longer can they tolerate thepresent political culture? It has polluted all parties. But the Congress is itsfountainhead. India’s economic and diplomatic breakthroughs have beenjeopardized by misgovernance and destruction of democracy. Mrs Sonia Gandhi andDr Manmohan Singh alone are not responsible. A century of Congress culturebrought this about. The seeds of the decadent and dynastic Congress culture wereplanted a century ago. From Allen Octavian Hume to Sonia Gandhi, spanning iconslike Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, it has been a history of decline andabject subservience to foreigners. The Congress degenerated from a movement to aparty, from a party to a dynasty.

Today India stands on the threshold of a new multipolar world. To play itsrightful role it will have to undo the spirit of the Partition. Can theCongress, the very instrument of imperialist Britain to partition thesubcontinent, summon the mindset to undo its own work? It has outlived its role.It must be consigned to the dustbin of history. India needs a new party, a newpolitical culture and a new freedom struggle.

(Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri2000@yahoo.com)