Political charlatan

Headlines Today featured Arvind Kejriwal and Mani Shankar Aiyar in a programme yesternight. The former referred to massive unlawful acquisition of land in Rajasthan by Robert Vadra and subsequent amendment of state laws to legitimise the acquisition retrospectively. Details of lands and transactions were provided.

Mani Shankar Aiyer's response was shocking. He claimed that being more intelligent he became an IFS officer rather than an IRS official which Kejriwal was. Aiyer's arrogance is atrocious. One may remember that the super-intelligent Aiyer predicted victory for Congress + DMK combine in the last state elections in Tamil Nadu. On the specific complaint of land acquisition spree by Robert Vadra aided and abetted by the state, Aiyer observed that proof was absent (this is exactly what Pakistan says about Indian allegations of Pak involvement in terrorism) and it is Arvind Kejriwal's duty to investigate fully (as if Kejriwal has the wherewithal and will be allowed to do what even the CBI is prevented from doing) and then come back. Such insolence is typical of M S Aiyer's boorish behaviour.

That is not all. When Kejriwal opined that Caesar's wife must be above board, Aiyer's brilliant response was he does not know who is Caesar and who is Caesar's wife. This only betrays the tragic frustration of Aiyer who has been denied ministership and even party spokesmanship inspite of his shameless defence of the Gandhi family whatever the allegations be. M S Aiyer is articulate but articulation is not the same as intelligence. Standing Defence Counsel for the first family pretends to be unable to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong; this is what a political charlatan does.

Tit for Tat?

Justice Katju wrote an article in The Hindu on Narendra Modi's lack of fitness to become our prime minister. Well, that is his opinion and he is entitled to it.

Arun Jaitley questioned the propriety of a quasi-judicial authority (Chairman, Press Council of India) actively participating in the political process. He also asked if this was the retired judge's way of expressing thanks to the Congress party as the government nominated him for the post.

Katju responded by asking Jaitley if he was not trying to convey his gratitude to Modi for nominating him to the Rajya Sabha. Tit for tat.

Jaitley demanded that Katju should resign for violating the propriety of his office. Katju's tit was that Jaitley should take sanyas from politics inasmuch as he was twisting facts. Isn't the learned judge aware that the more one twists facts, the more one is fit to be in politics?

Jaitley says judges may not be given post-retirement jobs by the government. Katju replies why Jaitley did not follow this principle while he was the law minister. Score: even.

Katju also quotes the names of other retired judges who have accepted post-retirement jobs. He also assures that he will continue to voice his political views because it is his duty! How blessed we are!

As the war of words hopefully escalates, it is worth pondering whether The Hindu did well in publishing Katju's political article. The newspaper had earlier claimed that it was not publishing the name of the girl who succumbed to the gruesome tragedy in Delhi because it was a principled newspaper. Many other newspapers which also abstained from reporting the name did not make any such self-righteous front-page declaration. By publishing Katju's article, does the newspaper think it is proper to encourage a retired judge who is holding a quasi-judicial post to publicise his political views including a tendentious comment on the judiciary?

Appalling Brazenness

The CAG Vinod Rai has spoken the truth and therefore has committed an impropriety. This is the sum and substance of the response of Congress party.

Manish Tewari has discovered that Vinod Rai was also a bureaucrat in the government and therefore he is also guilty of what he is accusing others of. Abhishek Singhvi has gone one step further and wants to know how the CAG would feel if another constitutional authority, the Supreme Court makes an adverse observation about him! Tewari and Singhvi outdo each other in their instantaneous and predictably nonsensical reactions.

Is it Tewari's logic that anyone who was once part of the executive should never make any observation on its working? Singhvi ought to know that judiciary has every right and in fact duty to pass strictures on whoever plays foul. If the CAG does something inappropriate and thereby invites court's comments, the CAG would not be so touchy as to carry on a crusade against the judiciary. It is time the Congress spokesmen grew up and realised they need not act like buffoons to be in the good books of their netas.

Why should Salman Khurshid resign?

CNN-IBN reports that Salman Khurshid has demanded the resignation of Aroon Purie and Arvind Kejriwal (apparently from India Today and India Against Corruption respectively.) This demand is perplexing. We are entering a new world where the ministers self-bestow the right to decide who should occupy what post in the private sector also. Vinaasha Kaale Vibhareeda Buddhi.

A minister especially the one in charge of Law and Justice ought not to go berserk. He has called Arvind Kejriwal and others "rabble rousers", "blackmailers" and "guttersnipes". The minister known for his felicity in English is aware that blackmailing involves  coercion by threat of public exposure or criminal prosecution. Arvind Kejriwal and India Today group have not threatened any exposure or criminal prosecution. They have disclosed the misdeeds of the Trust run by the honourable minister and his wife. His own patrician background has misled the minister to accuse Arvind Kejriwal a guttersnipe. Yes, Kejriwal was not born in a palace. His ancestors were not Presidents and Ministers.

Despite all this, Salman Khurshid is considered as one of the more decent elements in the central cabinet. Therefore, he has an obligation to maintain whatever remains of the dignity of his ministry.

Let us now see what the allegations against his Trust are. 1) The Trust has claimed money from the government by filing affidavits signe by government officials. The officials have provenly told India Today channels that their signatures are forged. 2) Camps supposedly held for distribution of materials to differently abled were not held. 3) Mrs. Khurshid produced an affidavit to prove the Trust's bonafides. The affidavit itself was forged. Thus there is prima-facie evidence that unlawful and unethical acts have been committed by a Trust whose Chairperson and Project Director are the Minister and his spouse.

The allegations are evidently provable or disprovable. All that was required of the patrician minister was to state facts and if possible to disprove the charges. On the contrary, he and his wife are behaving like guttersnipes calling the accusers unsavoury names. They are filing cases for defamation in multiple courts to immobilise the truth-seekers. This is not becoming of a minister. Therefore, he should resign from the cabinet, try to prove his bonafides and if successful claim damages from the accusers. Any other course of action is admission of guilt, misuse of power and trivialisation of democratic principles.

The prime minister cannot remain a mute bystander. He has a responsibility to uphold the decorum of his cabinet. He should not allow the nasty show to fester long. He should ask the minister to step down, prove his innocence and then if appropriate take him back in his cabinet.

In contemporary zeitgeist, any logical argument is only whistling in the dark. The future is indeed bleak.