| |
Here
are three articles on the "tainted" Trust Vote on
July 22, 2008:
A) Remains of
the day
Pratap Bhanu
Mehta
Indianexpress.com: Wednesday, July 23, 2008
"we
have a politics without scruples, without principles, without common decency and
without common prudence... Now that moral vacuum will be matched by a leadership
vacuum of unprecedented propositions .... Independently of the cash charges, the
Congress legitimised the idea that the end justifies the means; one can do
business with anyone on any terms....When a politics falls to such depths, there
are two outcomes: either a self-conscious regeneration, or the unleashing of
forces in no one's control ...
But with a morally self-deluded Congress, a
ruthless BSP, a militant Left, an amoral SP, a divisive BJP, small blackmailers
with unprecedented political power, an instrumental political culture, and tough
economic times ahead, the stench of disintegration is in the air.
B) UPA wins
vote, loses trust
Pioneer, July
23, 2008
Kumar Uttam | New
Delhi
C) A pyrrhic
victory
The Pioneer Edit
Desk
editorial - July 23, 2008
“It is
at best a pyrrhic victory which will delight only those who have scant regard
and even lesser respect for ethics and probity in politics.
A) Remains of
the day
Pratap Bhanu
Mehta
Indianexpress.com: Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The UPA has won a
reprieve, by a significant margin. But today's (July 22) proceedings have
confirmed our worst fears. Parliamentary democracy is in deep disarray.
Bags
of money have become more than a shadowy presence in our politics. The truth of
the charges that have been levelled by three BJP MPs will be sorted out in due
course. But what has already been established, beyond doubt, is that the bags of
money have become not just a metaphor for the character of our politics, they
have become its means and its essence. It would be prudent not to prejudge the
allegations. But it has to be said that either way this episode reflects
abominable depths in our politics. If true, the charges are serious enough; if
false and stage-managed, they represent a heinous attempt to subvert democracy.
Either way, we have a politics without scruples, without principles, without
common decency and without common prudence.
Defenders of Indian democracy will hearken back to history. What is new about
this? We survived the JMM. We shall survive this too. If only we had punished
the powerful in the JMM, this would not have happened. But that is simply
restating the problem. Look at the brighter side: at least the scoundrels are
now trapping each other. Perhaps this will lead to a new dawn. But this polity
has long deluded itself on this vain hope. In fact, quite the opposite is likely
to happen. Democracy functions not simply by forms of adversarial contestation.
It functions through conventions of social interchange and minimal networks of
trust. As Orwell wrote in another context, "The sword is still in the scabbard,
and while it stays there corruption cannot go beyond a certain point."
But with this
episode, the swords are out of the scabbard: corruption of one form or the other
has crossed certain limits, and no relations of trust between parties, or
between parties and the people, will be possible for some time to come. One way
or the other MPs will now resort to any trick possible, and the politics of
revenge and conspiracy will overshadow any credible political discourse.
We too
easily forget that we paid a heavy price for the last JMM episode. The moral
vacuum created by that episode haunted Indian politics for a long time. But at
that point you still had figures who could act, if not as exemplars of moral
probity, at least as agents of a credible reconciliation. Now that moral
vacuum will be matched by a leadership vacuum of unprecedented propositions.
Big
relief has been expressed in the fact that, in the final analysis, only a
handful of MPs, under a variety of contingent circumstances, were actually
susceptible to inducement. But behind this valid numerical point is a deeper
malaise. We had a prime minister whose
trump card was his integrity. But in order to retain political control rather
than face elections, he lost his own moral identity. In dealing with Amar Singh
something of the unsavoury side of Amar Singh was bound to rub off on the
government. Independently of the cash charges, the Congress legitimised the idea
that the end justifies the means; one can do business with anyone on any terms.
Once legitimised, this principle
corrodes everything. Is there a politician left who can now look the people
straight in the eye and say with any degree of credibility, "I will restore
integrity to the basic functioning of the state?" The Congress has temporarily
won, but in doing so it has stooped; and that stooping will have long-term
corrosive consequences.
On the
other hand, there is motley of tricksters, who have no principles at all, who
create alignments out of thin air based on nothing other than short-term
instrumentalism. Mayawati certainly has political momentum behind her. Her
electoral advance is more likely to come at the expense of the Congress. But she
also has elements of political ruthlessness; her own statements and those of her
MPs give a sense that her party can say anything. It has no principles, only
fighting words and that does not portend well for the future of Indian
institutions. For it acquiring power will itself be such an emblem of social
justice, that it will set aside all other reasonable considerations.
It is
a pity that the Congress let an unbridled political instrumentalism taint the
substantive issues. Its parliamentary performance was substantive, it at least
projected an aura of minimal competence, and the BJP managed to make Rahul
Gandhi's unsure earnestness, political naivety and attempt to reach out at least
look decent. Lalu was characteristically brilliant; a wonderful example of
cutting down opponents while sneaking in the big picture issues. But it only
reminded us of the wasted potential he still represents.
For
all the bluster that this debate was about India's place in the world, the
flavour and concerns were largely parochial. The Left's line of attack was on
predictable lines, but it concentrated too much on its relations with the
Congress than staking out an alternative ideological space. Advani's speech was
itself disappointing. What should have been a moment for him to convince the
nation that he is something of a statesman only served to confirm that he is
none too clear about the direction in which the BJP should head. He talked about
not being a junior partner of the United States, but left the impression that
for him there is no foreign policy question apart from seeking recognition from
the US.
Given the current scandal, this question may now be moot.
We have a fragile interregnum,
but the potential of an impossibly fractious polity still haunts us. The debate
provided a snapshot of what each party was, what it has become and where it
might be headed. But this picture portends a gathering storm; the ceremony
cannot mask the sense of foreboding about the future of our politics. When a
politics falls to such depths, there are two outcomes: either a self-conscious
regeneration, or the unleashing of forces in no one's control.
We can
rehearse platitudes about what should be done now: an impartial investigation
into allegations, the need to attend to inflation, etc. The fact also remains
that we will be pursuing a major foreign policy initiative with a tenuous
mandate. But with a morally self-deluded Congress,
a ruthless BSP, a militant Left, an amoral SP, a divisive BJP, small
blackmailers with unprecedented political power, an instrumental political
culture, and tough economic times ahead, the stench of disintegration is in the
air.
The writer is president, Centre for Policy
Research, Delhi
express@expressindia.com
http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/339087.html
B) UPA wins
vote, loses trust
Pioneer, July 23,
2008
Kumar Uttam | New Delhi
House shaken by display
of bribe money; BJP MPs say Rs 3 cr offered to abstain
It was another shocking display of how money power is used to save Governments
-- three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs walked into the well of the Lok Sabha
on Tuesday with two bagfuls of currency notes that the Government's crisis
managers had offered for them to abstain from the trust vote.
Ashok Argal, Faggan Singh Kulaste (both from Madhya Pradesh) and Mahesh Bhagora
(Rajasthan) stunned the nation by flashing wads of currency notes inside the Lok
Sabha while it was debating the confidence motion moved by Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh.
The role of SP general secretary Amar Singh, party MP Reoti Raman Singh and
Rajya Sabha MP Ahmed Patel, the political secretary of Congress chief Sonia
Gandhi, is under the scanner and a leading news channel is said to have caught
the entire episode on tape. The 'men in question' have denied the charge.
If that was not enough, Bahujan Samaj Party MP Brajesh Pathak revealed in the
Lok Sabha that a CBI officer dropped in at his South Avenue residence on Tuesday
morning and warned him against supporting the Opposition on the confidence
motion "or face dire consequences". The BSP MP also showed documents that the
alleged CBI officer gave to him, revealing that the Investigating Officer in the
disproportionate assets case against party chief Mayawati had given her the
clean chit and she would be let off in case they bailed out the Government from
the crisis.
But all hell broke loose in the Lok Sabha when the three BJP MPs took out
several wads of currency notes to accuse the Government of buying out MPs to win
the trial of strength.
Looking at the Press gallery, the BJP members alleged that an SP leader had
promised them Rs 3 crore each, of which Rs 1 crore was paid in advance. Mahesh
Bhagora and Faggan Singh Kulaste also claimed that the Government managers had
attempted to "buy" them. "We were contacted on Monday and told the deal would be
struck in Le Meridian, but that could not take place. Later, SP MP Reoti Raman
Singh came to meet us at 12.30 am at 4 Ferozeshah Road and said 'please come
with me to Amar Singh's house, where the deal would be finalised'," Kulaste
said. The Ferozeshah Road house in question is occupied by Argal.
"On Tuesday morning, Ahmed Patel (Congress) discussed the deal with us.
Thereafter, we went with Reoti Raman Singh to Amar Singh's house, where he
offered us Rs 3 crore -- Rs 1 crore each as advance -- there and then. But we
refused to take the money and said it should be delivered at 4 Ferozeshah Road,"
Kulaste said.
Mahavir Bhagora, another BJP MP who had displayed the wads in the House, claimed
that a man came to the residence about 20 minutes later with two bags full of
cash and put it on the table. "I asked him to open the bags to show whether the
cash was real or fake. Then he took out Rs 1 crore in cash," he said. Argal
added, "A man telephoned Amar Singh, who told me this money is an advance for
the deal."
No sooner did these MPs "muster the courage", BJD MP Archana Nayak claimed that
she was also offered cash and a party ticket by top Congress leaders to vote in
favour of the UPA or abstain during the trust vote.
The revelations created a flutter in the House, forcing Deputy Speaker Charanjit
Atwal to adjourn the house briefly. It was preceded by a heated exchange of
words between the treasury and opposition benches.
Leader of the opposition LK Advani called it a "black day in the history of
Parliament". He demanded that the Lok Sabha Speaker should hold a detailed
investigation. "When I initiated the debate on this confidence motion on Monday,
I hinted that money power was being used to influence MPs to vote for the
Government. The treasury benches were quick to ask for the proof. There can be
no proof more solid than what our party MPs have presented on the floor of the
House," Advani told The Pioneer. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said what was
needful should be done in the case.
While the opposition benches said it was unprecedented that such a shocking
revelation had been made in Parliament, people on the other side claimed that it
brought back the memories of AIADMK MP R Soundarajan opening a suitcase of Rs 5
lakh in 1988 and alleging that he was being bribed to change sides.
Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee immediately called an all-party meeting to
discuss the matter, where the three BJP MPs briefed him about the incident. The
Speaker asked the MPs to give in writing what they had to say.
When the House reassembled, there were noisy scenes with charged-up MPs of the
opposition refusing to allow the members of the ruling alliance to speak on the
confidence motion. Even the Prime Minister was not allowed to reply and he had
to lay on the table of the House his speech.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=
C) A pyrrhic
victory
The Pioneer Edit Desk
editorial - July 23, 2008
Congress has lost moral
authority
The Congress has reason to celebrate, as has the Prime Minister. Having
accomplished the task of mustering a majority in Parliament after being reduced
to a minority, the UPA Government can now continue to be in office. It has
overcome the immediate threat of losing power following the Left's decision to
withdraw support over the surreptitious manner in which the contentious India-US
civilian nuclear cooperation agreement is being foisted on the nation. Yet, it
will be no exaggeration to suggest that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet stand
denuded of moral authority and the power they will henceforth wield will be seen
as tainted if not illegitimate.
For,
although the UPA Government has won the vote in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday
evening, the manner in which it stacked up numbers in its favour has resulted in
its losing the trust of the people. It is at best a pyrrhic victory which will
delight only those who have scant regard and even lesser respect for ethics and
probity in politics. The scandalous scene witnessed by millions of people,
courtesy live telecast of proceedings inside the Lok Sabha, of three BJP MPs
depositing bundles of currency notes, given to them to abstain from voting and
thus help the Government to survive, on the table of the House, has not only
served to substantiate stories about Opposition MPs being bribed but also
exposed sanctimonious and self-righteous UPA and Congress leaders for what they
really are:
Cynical politicians who can stoop to any level to retain power, never mind the
consequences of their deed, namely the erosion of people's faith in democracy.
Critics would argue that it would be naïve to expect the Congress and its
'friends' to act any differently; a party that is scornful of democracy cannot
be seen to be upholding the dharma of parliamentary traditions. Let us not
forget that another Congress Government had won a confidence vote by bribing
MPs; coincidentally or otherwise, Mr Manmohan Singh was the Finance Minister of
that Government. His 'conscience' had not bothered him on that occasion too.
However, it would be wrong to attribute the UPA's success entirely to Parliament
being reduced to a bazaar. The BJP, despite its bluster, has once again failed
abysmally to fulfil its role as the main Opposition party. Its leadership
appeared divided on the issue of defeating the Government; its political
management and coordination left much to be desired; and, notwithstanding Mr LK
Advani's sharp attack, it failed to enthuse its MPs to close ranks and act in a
determined manner.
The
quarry was in sight, the goal was achievable, but the BJP floundered, and
miserably so. But if we were to dispassionately look at the debate that preceded
Tuesday's vote, we would find that Mr Advani has emerged taller than the Prime
Minister. The latter's reply to the debate, which begins with a vitriolic
personal attack on Mr Advani and meanders into an unconvincing report card of
his Government's 'performance' and equally, if not more, unpersuasive defence of
the nuclear deal -- which increasingly looks like a 'private treaty' rather than
a bilateral agreement -- proves three points:
Mr
Singh is not an 'accidental' politician; he is small-hearted; and, he is
mean-minded. It does not behove the Prime Minister of India to resort to such
deplorable language. Meanwhile, it is not surprising that the Americans were
first off the block to congratulate Mr Singh, even before the votes had been
counted and the result was officially declared. After all, not many Prime
Ministers 'report' to the
US
President.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit1%2Etxt&counter_img=1
|
|
