Sunday, May 26, 2019

Congress' egress as a political force

"It is not necessary that the president (of INC) should be from Gandhi family" declared Rahul Gandhi in the Congress Working Committee that was discussing the poll results. Rahul was resisting the attempts (genuine or dubious?) of other members of the CWC to persuade him to continue to lead the party. P.Chidambaram took the histrionic cake by breaking down in tears when Rahul expressed his determination to resign from leadership. PC warned Rahul Gandhi that his resignation would lead to Congressmen in Tamil Nadu immolating themselves. What a blend of sycophancy and deception!

PC and his ilk require a non-thinking leader like Rahul Gandhi to save them from many criminal cases. Rahul Gandhi has faulted the leaders like PC, Kamal Nath and Ashok Gehlot for pushing the candidature of their children. Why did he allow this in the first place? Kamal Nath has ensured the victory of his son. Gehlot could not save his son from defeat. Karti Chidambaram won piggybacking on DMK. KC would now claim that the people's court has exonerated him from charges levelled by the CBI  and the ED.

Rahul Gandhi has blamed these leaders for the poor performance of the party. These leaders would blame the Congress workers who in turn would blame the voters for not supporting the Congress. 

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Lessons from the elections

The long-stretched general elections have at last come to an end. The exit polls whose reliability has always been in doubt have also made their entry. Actual results which will be available on the 23rd may or may not be what most exit polls have predicted.

Do the 2019 elections hold any lessons for us? We take pride in being a democracy and rightly so. Sustainability of a democracy depends more on effectiveness of the opposition than on governance standards of the ruling dispensation. Any government not monitored by capable opposition tends to become autocratic and undemocratic. A disjointed opposition is an invitation to dilution of governance.

The exit polls, at least most of them, point towards absence of any national party barring the BJP. This is an unwelcome development. In the parliamentary elections, the influence of the Congress party is confined to the states of Kerala and the Punjab. It piggybacks on DMK in TamilNadu and is reduced to irrelevance in most states. Communists have been virtually banished from W.Bengal and are losing ground in Kerala. Other parties like the SP, BSP, DMK and Trinamool Congress are complete non-entities beyond a state or two. Weakness and dysfunctionality of the opposition are therefore guaranteed.

If Indian parliamentary polity is becoming unipolar, it will be a huge disappointment. The blame would rest with the Grand Old Party.

Tuesday, May 07, 2019

Strange outpourings of legal luminaries

Legal profession demands that lawyers be opportunists and convenient twisters of logic. Opportunism done in excess attracts opprobrium. Reactions of legal luminaries to the outcome of the harassment charge against the CJI are a testimony to this.

In sexual harassment cases, law demands that anonymity of the complainant has to be ensured. The case needs to be concluded as speedily as possible so that agony for both the complainant and the accused is not extended over torturous time. But Prashant Bhushan has taken exception to in-camera proceedings and the 'haste' in completion. He complains, "An in-house committee of the CJI's colleagues which held informal proceedings in-camera without allowing the complainant a lawyer or a support person has given a hasty clean chit to the CJI."

Sanjay Hegde has contested Justice Bobde who is next only to the CJI  in seniority, heading the panel that enquired into the allegation. Why? The reasoning is as strange as it can get. "He will in all probability be the next CJI. Two of his immediate predecessors have come under public scrutiny of an unwelcome kind. The court has now chosen a status quoist denial over a serious exploration of the truth , regardless of risk. How will its actions be seen?" The insinuation is that Bobde is trying to protect himself against a possible complaint against him when he becomes the CJI. Activists are working overtime preparing affidavits against whoever becomes the next CJI?

Dushyant Dave makes a snide appeal to other judges of the Supreme Court. "Will the honourable judges stand up as the collective conscience of the Supreme Court?", he wants to know. Looking for a split in the court?

When eminent lawyers are keen on destroying the sanctity of courts in their attempts to denigrate a judge, the helpless citizen becomes more concerned about the future of the country.

Monday, May 06, 2019

Understanding 'dissent'

Dissent connotes disagreement. It is per se neither deplorable nor delightful. A committee or a court bench or a corporate / government department is expected to consist of persons capable of thinking differently from one another and thereby contributing variety and quality to decisional inputs. Lack of unanimity is therefore inherent in decisions made by such bodies. If these bodies are packed only with yes-men, unanimity will be the norm.

A lot has been written about 'dissent' among officials of the Defence Ministry especially regarding Rafale pricing decisions, among the three members of the Election Commission in their response to complaints against the election speeches of Narendra Modi and among the judges of the apex court regarding the harassment complaint against the CJI. It is ironic that the media which is supposed to be intellectually endowed and therefore ought to welcome different opinions has chosen to criticise the decisions of these institutions because of presence of dissent. It is a pity that what ought to be welcomed, is criticised as unacceptable.

Election Commission has three members and not two so that dissent does not lead to stalemate. The bench hearing the complaint against the CJI consists of three judges not to avoid dissent among the judges but to ensure that disagreement does not stifle conclusion.

The panel of three judges has now concluded that the harassment complaint against the CJI lacks substance. There is apparently a conspiracy against the CJI and an attempt to browbeat the Supreme Court. It is reported, though not confirmed, that Justice Chandrachud favoured inclusion of an outsider in the panel hearing the complaint. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it. But a dissenting opinion on constitution of the panel does not make the conclusion of the three judges any less valid.

An enlightened society learns to live with and even encourage dissent without deifying or demonising it. Constructive dissent adds value to democracy and does not demean it. On the other hand, motivated dissent with a hidden agenda destroys democracy.