| |
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
|
|
