No Profit, Only Loss

It is like being stuck in a bad Mumbai fllm with a tired, unimaginativescript hammed away to glory. Unfortunately, in this one, even the actors don'tchange. It isn't as if they have just lost the plot, they seem to be lost in theplot itself, which revolves around the fine art of first arrogantly indulging incynical and myopic politics that effortlessly culminates in painting oneselfinto a corner and then, in sheer panic, desperately trying to project thepainful process of trying to extricate oneself as a heroic, nay, saintly virtueof self-less sacrifice in the service of the nation.

That, in short, is the story of the Congress party, particularly in its UPAavatar. And its handling of events leading upto the disqualification of JayaBachchan under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act 1959 ongrounds of holding an 'office of profit' was (surprise surprise) a sad andmiserable rerun of the same sequence of events, of history repeating itself notjust as tragedy but as farce. One did not really have to be anEinstein to know that the same standard would be sought to be applied to SoniaGandhi or Somnath Chatterjee, among many others, holding the amorphously defined'office of profit'.

But the possibility of being hoist by one's own petard was arrogantly andnonchalantly dismissed out of hand. The opposition too had seemed to beexhausted perhaps from the very idea of yet another communally divisive yatra,but as the campaign with similar complaints to the Presidentagainst Sonia Gandhi gathered momentum, the government appears to have panicked. Andpanicked big time. On Wednesday, the Indian Express broke the story in its front-paged storyon how the UPA was proposing to being out an ordinance, withthe express purpose of ensuring that the 'office of profit' charge would not beapplicable to Sonia Gandhi.

The confirmation was available by late Wednesday evening when theChairman of the Rajya Sabha, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, declared that he hadreceived a request from the government to adjourn the house sine die. It is easyto dismiss 'political morality' as an oxymoron, but constitutional obligationscannot be wished away, nor can this 'fiddling with Parliament' and'fraud on the Constitution' as Constitutional expert Rajiv Dhavan put it,be simply shrugged off as yet another in the series of cynical improprieties.While a somnolent, issue-less, bankrupt and confused BJP hemorrhaging under theassault from its erstwhile mass-based leaders, suddenly foundyet another political lollipop handed over to it in on a platter, andunderstandably and rightly stepped up the heat, the echoes of support cutting acrossparty lines was not surprising at this blatant attempt to once again brazenlyride roughshod over parliamentary democracy.

Faced with mounting pressure, the response from the panicking Congress was predictable.Even in the most charitable readings of the situation, even if one grants thatSonia Gandhi herself may not have had anything to do with the Jaya Bachchandisqualification or the brainwave of an ordinance that led to the adjournment(perhaps we should believe the conspiracy theory that she was kept in the dark?!),one has to seriously question the political acumen of the 'grand strategists' surroundingher, who, it would appear, excel in breathing life into a moribund opposition. The'political masterminds' who had earlier been gloating over thedisqualification of Jaya Bachchan, do not seem to have even paused to ponder howtheir too clever by half ploy would be transparent to one and all and would blowto smithereens whatever little is left of the halo of the Sainthood they hadbestowed on their leader the last time she tried making a virtue out of apolitical necessity.

So Sonia Gandhi had to do what worked for her the last time around: adopt the moralhigh-ground. Frankly, what other option did she have? This was the only optionleft available to her, and as and by itself, it is only the right thing to havedone, as she claims, and relative to the brazen behaviour of those within and without her party, itcould appear to be a graceful act, viewed in isolation. But given the context and thecacophony being generated by her assorted minions seeking to project her as the Great Renunciator, it is difficult to see it as anything other thanyet another resignation inthe grand tradition of Jagdish Tytler, Natwar Singh, Buta Singh et al, yet again packaged as a self-lesssacrifice in the service of the nation. Much water has flowndown the Yamuna since circa 2004. Compounding the whole crisis are the controversies surrounding theCongress-appointed UP governor and the Election Commissioner Navin Chawla. Thesaint had been tainted (from Volcker and Quattrocchi), and the halo which had been dissipating with the ravages of Jharkhand, Goaand Bihar,has only been hollowed even more with this latest episode. Charges ofwitch-hunting and vindictiveness against the Bachchans (and never mind thecompany they keep) in particular would not appear to be baseless anymore.

More importantly, this whole exercise of having made a non-issue to thefront-pages that has not only forced the Congress president to resign, whom herbrilliant strategists apparently wanted to protect, but also substantially dentedthe recent assertive initiatives by the prime minister himself. The whole episode also begs the question that if the 'office ofprofit' is such a technicality, which it would appear to be, that it can easily be by-passed by a mereordinance, and another election for Sonia Gandhi at the cost of theexchequer, why not simply sort out the definitional confusion? Why adjournParliament sine die?

Without goinginto the merits of the specifics of the Jaya Bachchan case, it isobvious that clarity and transparency is needed on the 1959 law. Is thechairperson of the U.P. Film Development Council a more lucrative 'office ofprofit' than various others on various boards, councils and corporations andcommittees? Do they suddenly become offices of no profit if a bunch of peopledecide that it isn't so? What objective criteria is applied? And what is one toinfer from the activities of those four 'cash on camera' Lok Sabha MPs busydispensing bounties from their MPLADfunds, for example, who were not dismissed but were merely 'reprimanded'and suspended effectively for mere three days? Surely, we expect that our righthon'ble representatives can discuss and debate such anomalies instead of tryingto save one individual whose main claim to fame, in addition to her surname, seems to be her 'saintly sacrifice'. Besides, would itbe too cynical to argue that the very office of an MP is seen as an office ofprofit?

With Sonia Gandhi's resignation, the Congress party, true to itsbrazen ways, may like to thinkthat it has taken the wind out of the BJP's sails, which it certainly has, but those suddenly in thedock now are not only Amar Singh, but also the speaker Somnath Chatterjee andmany other stalwarts of the ruling alliance as well. Effectively, apartfrom having ensured the resignation of its own MPs, and mini elections at tax-payers' expense, and causing political turbulence in various state legislatures, it has only left more than a substantial and stinky egg on the faceof the party, its president and the prime minister - and in thesedays of the deadly H591, it could go far beyond embarrassment, when all that wasrequired to be done when the Jaya Bachchan case hung fire for many months was asimple discussion in the relevant parliamentary committee.

The Congress should thank its stars that its main opposition comes from those who are not only equally morally and ideologically bankrupt, but also deeply divided. For now, while the comrades mull how best to deal with Mamata dee's fresh ammo-charged attack, while the Congress seeing short-term electoral gain brazenly goes to town on the theme of sacrifice and how it has raised the bar in upholding political morality, and while the BJP goes into yet another funk and sulks, it is time to underline that the real loser in this whole sorry episode has only been parliamentary democracy.