Washington Post report raises furore in Congress

The latest despatch of New Delhi-based correpondent of the Washington Post Simon Denyer, calling Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a "failure", has severely shaken chamchas and apologists of the PM in the Congress party and the government. The PM's Office claimed that the Post had already apologised for its report; this has been promptly denied by the US daily and its New Delhi representative. An angry Information & Broadcasting Minister Mrs Ambika Soni asserted that the Indian Embassy would take up the matter with the Washington Post for an apology.

An apology for what? Whatever Denyer has reported is not original or something new, unheard or unwritten earlier. He was only doing his professional job by reflecting the despondent, disenchanted mood of the Indian people, the intelligentia and the media, over the pathetic silence, indecision and inaction by the head of govt. to stem the rot of rampant corruption. These facts were available to Delhi-based foreign reporters virtually on a platter. Denyer has quoted the PM's Indian critics, including Indian historian Ramchandra Guha and Sanjay Baru, a one-time Press Advisor to Dr Manmohan Singh and now back in journalism.

Prime Minister Singh's "fall from grace" was not dramatic.Truthfully speaking, he was essentially a "yes Minister" bureaucrat where he started. His role as an "architect" of 1991 economic reforms ending the socialistic strangle-hold of "licence and permit raj" was thrust on him by the terrible economic plight of the country at that time. In fact, these reforms were virtually dictated by the IMF-World Bank as a precondition for massive financial assistance to the bankrupt Indian govt headed by PV Narsimha Rao. If, indeed, Dr Singh, an economist, was the real father of these much-needed reforms to galvanise the moribund Indian economy and liberate the Indian people and entrepreneurs from the socialistic shackles imposed by the ruling Congress, why did he not pursue them with any vigour, in the susbequent years when he himself became the Prime Minister, courtesy Mrs Sonia Gandhi, his supreme leader?  The Denyer despatch has also hinted at this fact.

All in all, the Washington Post has reported on the stark failure of Prime Minister Singh is what an average Indian newspaper reader like myself has been reading every day for so many months. This government has been hurtling from one scandal after another-one crisis after another-for long. And what was Dr Manmohan Singh's therapy: Silence, indecision, inaction which amounted to quiet acceptance of the loot of the public excheqeur. What an enormous shame for some one reputed to be morally upright and honest! Is it not a right time for him to say good bye and go home at the ripe old age?          

Coal mine allocation scandal

Even a lay Indian like myself who has looked at our political scene during his life-time, cannot recall a government that has hurtled into one grave scam after another, involving billions of public money, and then lie through its teeth, asserting its innocence, in a short period of eight years. That unprecedented discredit and notoriety go to the Congress-ruled UPA govt, headed by a self-acclaimed Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. In fact, he is in office but not in power, as the Economist weekly of London, commented on it six years ago. The super Prime Minister is Mrs Sonia Gandhi who as the Congress Party President and the Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance(UPA), appointed him as Prime Minister in 2004 and reappointed him in 2009, after the general elections. Manmohan Singh fought one Lok Sabha election from New Delhi but lost it to a BJP candidate. Thus, both in 2004 and 2009, he became Prime Minister, courtesy Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the head of the ruling Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, not as a popularly elected Member of  the Lok Sabha, the House of People, as conventionally required, but as a member of the Rajya Sabha, an indirect election. Hence, even as the Prime Minister he is not the Head of the House and he cannot vote in the Lok Sabha. He can only vote in the Rajya Sabha to which he belongs. Thus, the guilt of alleged corruption taints both of them, though, formally, since Dr Singh is constitutionally the head of the government, his accountability and culpability is the foremost.

The current political drama that is being enacted in the both Houses of the Parliament is quite familiar. The Opposition, led by the BJP, is insisting that the latest scandal-called the Coalgate after the late US President Nixon's Watergate scandal of 1960s-is the responsibility of the Prime Minister since he was holding the charge of that ministry in that period when this scandalous, arbitrary allocation of 142 coal mining blocks took place under his signature. It has been claimed by the Constitutional body-the Comptroller and Auditor General of India(CAG) that is responsible for scanning the finances of the central govt and report to the Parliament annually, that arbitrary distribution of  the valuable blocks of national resources like coal(black gold) by the Screening Committee of the govt.at dirt cheap rates and not auctioning them, has resulted in the loss of 1.86 lack crores to the public exchequer. The opposition has demanded the guitly Minister who happens to be the PM at present, to resign, taking moral responsibility of the huge national loss. They are asserting that until he resigns they will not allow the Parliament to function.

Their contention is that during the earlier scam-known as 2G telecom spectrum allocation-the UPA govt all along rejected demands of action against the Minister concerned-A.Raja. Only after a prolonged stalemate and the judicial intervention the Minister was removed and later arrested. The opposition wants a similar action against the wrongdoing of Dr Singh. It is clear that a parliamentary debate will only absolve the guilty Minister of any adverse action and the scam would be buried.        

Pak participants in Indian TV debates

Indian English TV news channels' fondness for Pakistani participants in their discussion programmes on Indo-Pak issues, seems sickening. Not that the idea to invite them is basically flawed; the problem is that most of these Pakistani commentators are either retired military officers or diplomats-working or retired. Thus, their views reflect the official Pakistani propagandist line. Hence, it is a wild goose chase for Indian anchors to pin Pakistanis down on an issue such as their government's aid and abetment to Pakistani terrorists to target India, its security forces and even ordinary citizens.

For example, in his recent disclosures, Abu Jundal, an Indian terrorist, recruited and trained in Pakistan to carry out bombing and other violent acts in our coountry with the guidance and brainwashing by Pakistani state agencies and anti-Indian elements, who was deported from Saudi Arabia and arrested, highlighted the Pakistani gameplan to create havoc in India. When the Indian news anchors confronted this vast body of evidence, confirming Pakistani involvement in gruesome acts of jehadi terror, Pakistani participants instantly repudiated these grave facts as baseless and Indian propaganda.

There is this familiar display of Pakistani mindset-very predictable, which is permanently in denial. Their new litany is that Pakistan is itself a greater victim of terrorism that has killed tens of thousands of their people. In one recent discussion programme on Abu Jundal's revelations, when an Indian co-panelist reminded the Pakistani panelists that these Pakistani fatalities were the fruits of their own misdoings-the fostering of the Taliban-type terrorists by their own secret state agencies like the ISI, they had no satisfactory reply. Hence, one feels that it is futile and thoughtless to invite Pakistani commentators with closed minds to Indian TV debates because they will never come out with an objective, honest, fearless analysis of their govt's acts of commission and omission.

Pranab Mukherjee's nomination for President

The UPA-2 Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee should be thankful to his estranged Bengali 'sister' Mamata Bannerjee, the head of the Trinamool Congress and West Bengal's Chief Minister, for being intrumental in hastening the process of his nomination as the ruling Congress party's candidate for the Indian President's office. The whole drama of disgusting speculations in the media and elsewhere did no credit to Indian politics and its politicians. The ruling party was the biggest culprit. In the eyes of the media and the average Congressperson, Mukherjee seemed the most suitable candidate. But, the party supremo, Mrs Sonia Gandhi did not appear keen on him. She knew that Mukherjee, 77, cannot occupy the PM's post; He had missed the bus a few times. Why? Perhaps, because she was not too sure of his full loyalty. That could have also been her reservation about Mukherjee's elevation to the President's post. Hence, all these weeks from April onwards, Sonia dilly-dallied. As late as 8-10 days ago, when Mamata met Sonia to discuss a possible Congress nominee, the former was given two names-Vice-President Hameed Ansari and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, and, mind you, not just one name of Pranab. It was, thus, clear that Sonia was still wavering.

Therefore, looking back, one has no doubt that if Mamata had not spilled the beans in public about Sonia's thinking and, simultaneously, not announced the two names of the Congress and three names of her own-Abdul Kalam, Dr Manmohan Singh and Somnath Chatterjee-in the company of Mulayam Singh Yadav, Sonia might have continued her dilly-dallying for some more time. Mamata's public pronouncement clearly stunned Sonia and forced her to act fast before greater damage to her and the party's image. To save her faithful and favourite underling Manmohan Singh a further embarrassment, she wasted no time to close the nomination chapter fortwith. Despite Mukherjee's long-held feeling of having been overlooked of the PM's post on a few previous occasions irrespective of his seniority and long experience in the party and the govt, he is deeply grateful to Sonia for elevating him to the Rashtrapati Bhawan at the fag-end of his political career.

Several critics are recalling Mukherjee's dubious record during the Emergency as well as in the portfolios of External Affairs, Defence, etc he had handled in the UPA, ending with Finance which, on most expert rating, has been a disaster. On only hopes that in this top-most office he will redeem himself as an independent, non-partisan Head of State who will not demean and disgrace himself and his august office by being a chamcha and a rubber stamp of the party and its President.

UPA 2-third anniversary celebration

May 21, 2012, marked the completion of the third year of the United Progressive Alliance(UPA-2). Although this makes it the beginning of the Congress-ruled coalition's ninth year in government, but, if you look back to assess its achievements and moments of glory, the story is sad and depressing. Major terrorist attacks have taken place with some intervals despite the govt assertions of zero tolerance; the most gruesome massacre happened on November 26, 2008 in Mumbai when ten Pakistani murderers came through the sea at the docks opposite the Taj Mahal Hotel-the metropolitan's leading landmark. Thus, the internal security situation is as vulnerable as ever.

Then, we have had several corruption scandals, including 2G spectrum allocation, Commonwealth Games, etc., involving thousands of crores of public money in which UPA Ministers, other Congress leaders and bureaucrats were allegedly guilty. Initially, the govt defended them, but, thanks to the opposition and the media uproar, Anna  Hazare's anti-corruption movement and the Supreme Court intervention, the Telecom Minister A. Raja and the CWG chief Suresh Kalmadi were arrested and jailed for over a year. They have just been released on bail.

In other words, the UPA govt led by an economist-bureaucrat-turned politician, Dr Manmohan Singh who, in effect, was really acting as a deputy to the supreme leader, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, head of the UPA as well as the Congress party, hurtled the country from one crisis to another. By all accounts, we are in an economic mess and political chaos. The rupee has plunged to its lowest rate against the dollar: Rs.55. Consequently, the price rise at a unbearably high point, will worsen as imported goods and essential components will become costlier.Thanks to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's well-known silence, subservience, indecision, inaction, non-communicative and laissez faire attitude, his key constitutional office as the govt's chief executive head, has been compromised and diminished as never before. He is bound to go down in India's history as the weakest Prime Minister who was in office but not in power.

NCERT cartoon controversy

We witnessed a sickening drama in the Indian Parliament recently when excepting one or two MPs, including Mr Jaswant Singh, a senior BJP leader, members representing different parties-left, right and centre, condemned a political cartoon depicting Mr BR Ambedkar and Mr Jawaharlal Nehru that was published in a XI class text book of the NCERT, a govt body authorised to prescribe text books for the schools. The cartoon was done by Mr Shankar Pillai, a legendary and pioneering cartoonist, in 1949. He was highly regarded by the politicians of that time, including the then Prime Minister Nehru and Mr Ambedkar, the key player in the Constitution-making as the chairman of the drafting committee. The offending cartoon that had appeared in magazines and cartoon collections, had never come under any adverse notice or objection all these sixty-odd years. It seemed innocuously comic. New text books authors and advisors, obviously keen to introduce a humourous element to political science reading to make the subject more interesting, used political cartoons by well-known professionals, in the NCERT books. The said cartoon was published in 2006.

Hell broke loose when recently some dalit MPs happened to see the Ambedkar cartoon in the said text book. The Parliament proceedings were disrupted; all other important issues waiting to be discussed were sidelined and express the both Houses' sense of outrage at the "insult" of the Dalit icon-Mr BR Ambedkar. The cartoon showed Mr Ambedkar sitting on a snail with a rein and a whip in his hand and Mr Nehru at his back also with a whip. Most who viewed the cartoon dispassionately felt that the head of the Constitution-making body(Mr A) and the head of the govt(Mr N) were trying to egg on the snail with a faster pace.( Perhaps, there was a feeling in the country that the process of making the constitution was slow. Hence, the symbol of the snail. But, unfortunately, Dalit activists thought that Mr Nehru with his whip was threatening Mr Ambedkar to move fast. This was clearly ridiculous, knowing Mr Nehru's respect for Mr Ambedkar and his role. But bigoted Dalit ideologues and activists will have none of it. It was a convenient handle to malign non-dalits. It was a really shameful display of vote-bank politics at its worst.

SC amicus curiae's anti-Modi views

A controversy has arisen over a recent report of Raju Ramchandran, an amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court to assist it in the Gujarat riot cases. The report the extracts of which were reproduced in a section of the press, seemed anti-Narendra Modi(Gujarat Chief Minister). Another curious character of the report is that it disregards a comprehensive investigative report on the riots submitted by the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigative Team(SIT), particularly its rejection of the suspended IPS officer of Gujarat-Sanjiv Bhatt's charges against Chief Minister Modi as "unbelievable". Here is "a friend of the court"-amicus curiae-who is acting more as a "friend" of  a discredited Police Officer who is currently facing multiple charges himself in the local courts and is under suspension. An amazing-and bewildering fact is that Raju Ramchandran, in his report, conceded that Bhatt's "statement" against Modi "has not been that of a detached police officer...I am left with no doubt that he(Bhatt) is actively 'strategising' and is in touch with those who would benefit or gain mileage"-a clear reference to anti-Modi elements, namely, the Congress party, Teesta Setalvad, Mukul Sinha, etc. Yet, Ramchandran insisted that "these factors cannot be grounds for ignoring it". Does it not sound incredible and clearly biassed that while recognising the motivated mindset of a leading player in the anti-Modi campaign-with conspiratorial undertones-Bhatt-and his political backers and anti-Modi compulsive bashers, the apex court-appointed lawyer-Raju Ramchandran, supposed to assist the court, is creating more complications, and, in the process, discrediting himself, instead of following a logical course of damning Bhatt's case?