Random Walk: The Persian Connection

Dear All,

Not much reprieve for you I presume, since I am back with my balderdash. Whatever, today we shall not discuss anything related to the quotidian matters concerning India. Rather, let us plunge into some glamorous issues. And what can be more glossy than discussing about India's foreign policy; and that too when the Americans are involved. 

There is no gainsaying that Indo-US bonhomie has been on the rise since the era of Bush-junior. Whatever speculations existed in the scholarly discourses regarding the Obama administration, have probably been assuaged to a significant degree by the recent overtures of the American President. 

In this context, it is pertinent to explore India’s relationships with the so-called pariah states like Iran, North Korea and Myanmar since India’s foreign policy regime vis-a-vis these countries may define the future trajectory of its bilateral relationship with USA. In pursuance of that, today's discussion will delve into India’s diplomatic curves with Iran.

Now, it is not at all unlikely for one to discover on a frequent basis anything similar to the following:

“While India and the United States have embarked on a campaign to strengthen their bilateral relations, as symbolized by the proposed U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal, it appears as though New Delhi has similarly begun to pursue a more robust relationship with another major power: Iran. The two states have recently expanded cooperation in a number of key areas, including counterterrorism, regional stability, and energy security.  What are the implications of this “New Delhi-Tehran Axis” for the United States, and how should Washington respond to growing ties between India and Iran?”

The afore-mentioned abstract was asserted in a background paper released in 2008 by the Harvard-Kennedy School.

Now, it is quite natural for foreign analysts, especially Americans, to believe in the above manner as far as India-Iran relations are concerned. For instance, in a CRS report prepared for the Congress in August 2006, Alan Kronstadt and Kenneth Katzman echo somewhat similar concerns. Nevertheless, they sound positive as far as future Indo-US bilateral ties are concerned:

“India’s growing energy needs and its relatively benign view of Iran’s intentions will likely cause policy differences between New Delhi and Washington. Given a clear Indian interest in maintaining positive ties with Iran, New Delhi is unlikely to abandon its relationship with Tehran or to accept dictation on the topic from external powers. However, India-Iran relations are unlikely to derail the further development of close and productive U.S.-India relations on a number of fronts”.

However, the doubts regarding the “New Delhi-Tehran Axis” may be somewhat unfounded as Indo-Iranian ties can hardly be interpreted as ‘strategic’. In fact, that is what Indian analyst Harsh V Pant argues in his recent paper in The Washington Quarterly. This is the advantage I gain by being a member of the Strategy India Yahoo group. Someone refers to a particular paper, and I get hold of another one which is germane to my interests.

Let's go back to Dr Pant. He says that “ever since India and the United States began to transform their ties by changing the global nuclear order to accommodate India with the 2005 framework for the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement, Iran has become a litmus test that India has occasionally been asked to pass to satisfy U.S. policymakers”.

He further states that: “Nascent Indian-Iranian ties have been categorized by some analysts as an ‘‘axis,’’ a ‘‘strategic partnership,’’ or even an ‘‘alliance,’’ which some in the U.S. strategic community have suggested could have a potentially damaging impact on U.S. interests in Southwest Asia and the Middle East”.

Such dialectics notwithstanding, it remains a reality that the US views India’s moves vis-à-vis Iran quite cautiously and on the other hand, India keeps the Iran card up its sleeve in a post-US Afghanistan scenario where its ‘childhood enemy’ Pakistan may become a potent player. A Sunni-radicalized Afghanistan may not be a lively picture for either secular India or a Shi-ite Iran.

India has some valid interests in Iran and chief among those is energy. Moreover, Pakistan has signed a pipeline deal with Tehran. Also India’s Asian competitor China is venturing into Iran to grab the energy field left open after the Western companies vacated the area.

Already in 2005, India had signed a long term (25 year), $22 billion agreement with Iran for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Furthermore, India also initiated another energy project; and that too with much fanfare. It was the construction of a 1,700 mile, $7 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from Iran to India via Pakistan. However both these projects have been stalled.

About the latter, the Indian government says that it would pay for the gas only after it will be received at the Pakistan-India border. Also, New Delhi does not agree to Tehran’s demand to revise the gas prices every three years.

On the other hand, the LNG project is yet to proceed as the proposed plant would need American components, which might violate the US-Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA).

Plainly speaking, behind the garb of commercial losses that India is citing, it is the American-factor which is telling its tale. And this is no mere presumption which may be corroborated from the following facts. 

Of late, India has repeatedly voted in favour of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) resolutions against Iran on grounds that a nuclear Iran is not in India’s interests. However, New Delhi also stresses that it favors dialogue and diplomacy as means of resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis; in tune with the legacy of its Nehruvian foreign policy.

On the issue of energy relations, India proclaims that Iran is an important partner as well as a significant source for hydrocarbon resources. Iran is also one of India’s largest suppliers of crude oil, and India in turn is a major supplier of refined petroleum products for Iran. While the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution does not directly affect India’s oil trade with Iran, the US monitoring surely must have had an impact. Moreover, the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, along with its caveat The Hyde Act, categorically mentions that India ought to toe the US line with regard to pariah states like Iran.

However, such a weird Indian behavior with respect to Iran may not be totally blamed on US hegemony in a post Cold War era. It probably has some diplomatic basis pertaining to specific Indo-Iran ties.

It will be worthwhile to reminisce that Iran was not supportive of the Indian nuclear tests in 1998. Moreover, it also backed the UNSC Resolution asking India and Pakistan to cap their nuclear capabilities by signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Iran repeatedly has urged India for accepting the NPT regime. Furthermore, with the conclusion of the Indo-US nuclear deal, Iran warned that the pact had endangered the NPT and would trigger new ‘crises’ for the international community.

Although Iran has claimed that such an assertion was basically directed at Israel (which is also not an NPT signatory), the implications of that move could be seen in the recent diplomatic counter-attacks launched by India as far as Iran’s nuclear programme is concerned. 

Furthermore, Tehran has been critical of how the Indian government's way of handling protests in Kashmir. This made India to issue a demarche, expressing reservations against Iranian interference in India’s domestic issues.

In this scenario, it may appear prudent for India to follow the recommendation of the Harvard-Kennedy School. They postulate that “India should distinguish sharply between Iran’s nuclear position and other areas of cooperation. That is, while India needs to continue cooperation with Iran in pursuit of its own national interests, New Delhi should make it clear that it will continue to strongly support American efforts to bring Iran into legal compliance over its nuclear program”.

Nonetheless, though such a recommendation appears to be fine on paper, it might be diplomatically unfeasible for India to pursue a dualistic foreign policy vis-à-vis the pariah states. For instance, standing by the US side in order to sternly monitor Iran’s nuclear programme would make it quite difficult to go ahead with the gas deals; since such a move would evoke apprehensions in both the US as well as in the Iranian camps.

Actually, India’s position regarding the contentious issue of the Iranian nuclear programme is logical. India believes that since Iran is an NPT signatory, it needs to conform to NPT guidelines and clarify the doubts, if any, of the IAEA. India never denies the fact that Iran has the right to pursue nuclear energy program for civilian purposes. However, the existence of a stubborn political dispensation in Tehran will not make matters smooth in this regard and Indo-Iran mutual camaraderie would be on tenterhooks. In addition to that, American and Israeli misgivings regarding Iran’s motive will not create any salubrious diplomatic ambience for India either.

In sum, India needs to perform the ‘balancing act’ to a level of precision. For that, it shall be natural for New Delhi to maintain the status quo regarding the gas deals with Tehran, at least in the foreseeable future. That is, New Delhi is most likely to procrastinate the gas deals by citing commercial problems and likely terrorist infringements. However, it is unexpected that it would outrightly scrap the deals altogether. However, it cannot be denied that USA or no USA, Pakistan and its homegrown terrorist network shall remain a perennial  problem in the path of fructification of the gas deals.

Nevertheless, any future sanctions against Iran would entangle India, at least tangentially because India is at present a non-permanent member of the UNSC. And if it seeks for a permanent position in the influential body, it needs to quickly solve the foreign policy conundrum toward the pariah states.

--------------

 Uddipan Mukherjee is a late riser. Still, he works 'very hard' to edit Indian Policy. By the way, he writes in diplostratics  

Random Walk : My Lord, You Cannot be Wrong

Dear All,

So, we are meeting after a very very long gap. Oh, I should not say 'very very' as it is wrong English. My English teacher in the school used to reprimand me for such improper usage. You must know that I was very weak in English. I never got more than 70 per cent in school examinations in this very subject. Then, my consolation was the belief that the language was colonial and hence no need for a proper study.

Nonetheless, I am sure you are yet to unlearn the last discussion we had almost a month ago. Aare bhai, it was on the Great Indian Corruption. So what, you say, has anybody been incarcerated in the meantime? A few raids, a few inconsequential arrests and a few deadlines set by the higher judiciary. Nothing substantial to warrant notice. 

However, our topic of discussion today is not exactly the corrupt executives and the maligned legislators, but the 'sentinels' of our battered society.

On December 8, 2010, the newly-appointed Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan announced that the scam relating to Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society would be probed by two retired judges, either belonging to Supreme Court (SC) or High Court (HC).

Ostensibly, by this act, the Chief Minister seems to have erected a façade of ‘clean governance’. The rationale is simple. If the common man does not confide in the politicians and the bureaucrats, which he doesn’t; he still would have faith in the judiciary, at least in the higher echelons of the judicial system.

Furthermore, it is all the more acceptable that the independent arm of judiciary probes into executive and legislative malfunctions. And the raison d’etre of Mr Chavan’s act is supposedly extracted from the French philosopher Montesquieu’s classification of the three arms of the government. The modern idea of justice has since then permeated to the Orient from the corridors of the West.

In ‘Modern India’, the journey of the dispensation of justice began when Sir Elijah Impey enthroned himself on the coveted position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1773; which itself was a product of the Regulating Act passed in England to ‘regulate’ the ‘errant’ officials of the East India Company. Obviously, this does not imply the non-existence of justice, more so; pro-poor justice in pre-modern India.

Who will not reminisce the evolution of the Indian Judicial system since the era of ‘Vidhatas’ (Assemblies) in the Rig Vedic period to the individual brilliance of Jehangir in the form of Janzeer-i-adl (Chains of Justice with bells). 

The Judicial system in India had been well structured, though at times reaching the zenith of glory or the abyss of disgrace during the periods of individual feudal lords, kings or emperors.

Nevertheless, till the advent of the concepts of Western Democracy and Justice, probably there was no serious thought regarding “Justice” to be ‘just’ !! Since antiquity, justice in India (if not in the rest of the world too) practically was viewed as the decrees bestowed on the society by a privileged lot; the lot being the Brahmins, the Kings, the Ulemas or the Badshahs, including the regional variations of these nomenclatures. Whether it was the Manusmriti or the Quran, whether it was the Temple Priest or the Qazi, on the majority of occasions, Justice in India had been the prerogative of a coterie.

So, when the Supreme Court in Calcutta was set up in 1773, it must have evoked a response of gayness, at least amongst the progressive denizens of the city. But soon it was to falter in its objective of being a “Court of Equity” as Nand Kumar was denied access to ‘just’ “Justice”.  With time, Indians overcame the initial mesmerization regarding the British system of Justice when the Ilbert Bill was vehemently opposed and not put into effect ! Hence historically, Justice was belied, if not denied, to the native Indians, probably because of racial arrogance of the Britishers or due to the very nature of Justice itself ! Indians at that period, meant Indians of all variety, whether rich or poor.

With the dawn of independence, the free Indians dreamt of a different society altogether, far from the clutches of foreign oppression and closer to the Utopia of social integration. But whether free India has really been able to cherish her dreams of pluralism and justice through its arduous journey in the last six decades still remains a matter of debate. Probably the starting point of the ‘goof up’ had been the rampant imposition of the British system of Justice on a society which was hardly aware of it, either from the point of view of the concept, or from the perspective of language.

Moreover, Indians never did a Phoenix act in regard to their struggle for independence which meant that the masses were in oblivion of the romantic ideas of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity and for that matter, Justice. Nor were they well accustomed to Socialism and Social Justice; the rights of the proletariat and the farmers being wholly out of question.

However, the reputation of India's Judiciary has definitely taken a serious beating in the post-colonial period. If statistics are a measure of things, then a 2007 report by the Transparency International (TI), as quoted by Praful Bidwai, says that 77 percent of Indian respondents believe that the Indian judiciary is corrupt. The report further avers that “bribes seem to be solicited as the price of getting things done”. According to the report, the estimated amount paid in bribes in a 12-month period was around US $580 million.

Nevertheless, the general perception in India has been that the higher judiciary is more or less untainted, and in fact, an epitome of honesty, at least as far as a direct comparison with the brutally corrupt politician-bureaucrat-hooligan nexus is concerned.

In essence, such a belief was the bedrock of the concept of Judicial Activism in India. It was this faith of the gullible masses in the higher judiciary which propelled Justices Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer to entertain the idea of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) way back in the 1980s.

Activism

Judicial Activism in India has faced, quite naturally as any novel movement would, both appreciation and criticism. Praise has been heaped on the higher judiciary since the idea could translate into reality the common man’s dream of acquiring justice through the provisions of Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. At least, the Aam Admi could dare venture into the court of law so as to secure the Fundamental Rights as enshrined in the pages of the revered Constitution.

However, there have been criticisms of this ‘activity’ of the higher judiciary from various quarters. Abhinav Chandrachud in his Op-Ed in The Hindu, deftly points toward some interesting insights into the metamorphosis of judicial activism in India. He says that the Supreme Court has even issued notices to the Union government seeking an explanation of the steps taken by it to ameliorate the plight of Indian students in Australia. Since Foreign policy is a subject which is considered to be outside the purview of the courts, such a move by the Apex Court evokes consternation.

At the same time, it must be noted that the Supreme Court has also taken cognizance of the purported acts of jobbery by the executive in the Commonwealth Games, 2G spectrum scandal, the Neera Radia controversy, Adarsh Housing scam and even on the appointment of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas. Hence, the higher judiciary has remained vigilant in order to censure the legislature and executive whenever the latter had acted as usurpers and oppressors.

But the moot question is: “Is the higher judiciary, at times, not transgressing its jurisdiction when it is asserting itself through the instrument of Judicial Activism?”. Moreover, is the institution of higher judiciary ‘a law unto itself’? Should not the principles of transparency and accountability also be applicable to it? Are the judges micro-managing things in other domains and turning away their faces when their own comrades are being indicted?

The term ‘Judicial Activism’ owes to Arthur Schlesinger Jr. when he introduced it in a January 1947 Fortune magazine article titled “The Supreme Court: 1947.” From the very beginning, the phrase was controversial. Schlesinger’s original introduction of judicial activism not only failed to explain what counts as activism, he also declined to say whether activism was good or bad.

On the other hand, Black's Law Dictionary defines Judicial Activism as a “philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.” In the Indian context, it can be safely presumed that judicial activism was started with the aim to provide Social Justice to the millions of hapless masses and to make the society more inclusive.

Whether it failed or succeeded in that venture remains a matter of debate and speculation.

For all practical purposes, the legislature and the judiciary work independently. But they act as check and balance on each other. On the one hand, Articles 121 and 122 of the Constitution give leeway to both the arms to function without mutual interference, and Article 124 allows the Supreme Court to select its own personnel through a collegium of judges with minimum interference by the executive and the legislature. On the other hand, an aggrieved citizen can reach out to the court of law if the fundamental rights are perturbed and this puts the executive under a judicial scrutiny. Also, a judge can be, at least theoretically, removed by the legislature, if proved guilty of ‘misbehaviour or incapacity’.

Furthermore, the legislature cannot amend the constitution according to its own whim since the domain of Article 368 has been defined by bringing in the concept of Basic Features of the constitution, an idea which grew out of the 1973 Keshavananda Bharti case.

Hence, it can be inferred that the Indian Judiciary has the scope of keeping a strict vigil on the excesses committed by the other two arms of the government and vice-versa. However, though the judiciary has gone ahead uninhibited with its activism, has there been instances where its own personnel been reprimanded for ‘crossing the line’? Has there been any case of impeachment of an Indian judge in the last six decades of our independence? The answer is a straightforward no. In 1993, the nation came close to such a historic event, but the ruling party’s U-turn absolved the judge in question.

Does that mean that our Judicial system is utterly nonchalant regarding any excesses committed by its own personnel? Not always. On Novemner 26, 2010, the Supreme Court observed that “there is something rotten” in the Allahabad HC in the sense that being relatives, some judges in the said court were colluding with lawyers and justice was taking a back seat.

Accountability

“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark, said Shakespeare in Hamlet, and it can similarly be said that something is rotten in the Allahabad High Court”. This was what justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra commented pertaining to the case of Raja Khan vs. UP Sunni Central Wakf Board. Nonetheless, obduracy of the judiciary persists as Allahabad HC Registrar General was sent to Delhi to explore the possibility of either filing a curative petition or a review petition in the SC against the allegations.

In fact, the Allahabad HC Bar Association has also indicated its willingness to move the SC seeking removal of the remarks.

In another instance, the Rajya Sabha Chairman has held that Soumitra Sen, a judge of the Calcutta HC was prima facie guilty of financial offences when he acted as a receiver appointed by the Calcutta HC. Parliament plans to go ahead with his impeachment proceedings. However, since the process is to be completed in a single session, the matter has been deferred to the Budget session. Hence it remains unlikely that it would happen soon and may meet a similar fate as that in 1993.

Therefore, it becomes pertinent to constitute a committee so as to assess the performance of the higher judiciary since a clean system at the top would necessarily make the lower strata cleaner. In that vein,

the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, cleared by the cabinet has been introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 1 2010.

The said Bill makes judges accountable for their lapses. It will also mandate the judges of the HCs and the SC to declare their assets and liabilities, including those of their spouses and dependents.

Though the bill is to replace the Judges Inquiry Act (1968), it seeks to retain its basic features. It contemplates setting up of a National Oversight Committee with which the public can lodge complaints against erring judges.

The 5-member Oversight Committee will be headed by a retired Chief Justice of India, as appointed by the President, and have a serving Judge each of the SC and a HC, both nominated by the Chief Justice of India; the Attorney-General; and an eminent person nominated by the President. Thus it would be a holistic combination of executive and judiciary.

On receiving a complaint, the committee will forward it to a system of scrutiny panels. In the case of a complaint against a Supreme Court Judge, the panel will consist of a former Chief Justice of India and two sitting SC judges, and likewise. However, this appears to be a lose end of the Bill.

If the charges are serious, the committee can request the judge concerned to resign. If the judge does not do so, the Oversight Committee will forward the case to the President with an advisory for his removal. Again, the system goes back to Article 124(4) of the Constitution and hence the long-winded process of impeachment.

Apart from declaring their assets, judges may be required to file an annual return of assets and liabilities with all the details put up on the websites of the SC and the HCs. The bill will also require the judges not to have close association with any member of the Bar of the same court.

Though the Bill is a welcome step but a particular provision of the Bill definitely warrants more attention. After all, how can the allegations against a judge be investigated by his fellow judges? Would this not be biased?

Autopsy

In this backdrop, it would be pertinent to put forward the various dimensions of Justice as viewed in the modern sense of the term.  The traditional concept of Justice was the observance of a lifestyle as of Yudhisthira, while presently, we have the idea of Social Justice; in which Legal, Political and Socio-Economic notions of Justice comprise a continuum within the general scheme.

On top of these, the concept of Human Rights forms the complete set of Justice.  In independent India, the Fundamental Rights, the Democratic polity, along with the implementation of the Directive Principles, probably in totality usher in the idea of Social Justice. Nevertheless, one needs to scrutinize the functioning of the said rights and principles in order to substantially fathom the status of Justice in India at present. This would in turn aid us to devise suitable mechanisms so as to reach the teeming millions and hence invigorate our society.

Theoretically, the term legal justice can broadly be applied in the following two contexts :

(a)Justice according to Law, and

(b)Law according to Justice

Presently, in India, we have legal justice in both these forms.  Article 14 of our Constitution proclaiming ‘Equality before Law’ pertains to context (a) whereas Article 17 concerned with the Abolition of Untouchability can be associated with context (b).

However, the implementation of these Articles in reality for the past six decades has been the matter of actual concern. Has the Indian Judiciary, with its pyramidal hierarchy and top heavy status, been able to reach the ordinary masses, especially in the countryside ? If yes, then why are there still practically uncountable number of cases pending in the lower judiciary, if not in the State High Courts ? Why is there still umpteen number of instances of nepotism and corruption associated with our Judiciary ? And why the common man on the street has shivers down his spine if asked to visit the premises of the local court ?

These are some of the queries which paint the ‘not so august journey’ of our esteemed Judiciary over these years !

Now, what could be the reasons behind this sort of dismal situation ? May be the ever increasing population, may be the ever decaying value-system or may be simply the lack of will of the Indians to fix the system and blame everything on the politico-administrative set up of the country. Whatever it is, the flaws need to be plugged soon, if India desires to stand up against the onslaught of globalization since its quality manpower is in great demand in this era of liberalization. And if the common masses are uplifted through a just system of Justice, it would be a perfect icing on the cake !

The scheme of rectification, inter alia, may include the following :

(i)               A transparent and merit based system of recruitment of Judges, right from the lowest echelons of the system. An All India Judicial Service by invoking Article 312 of the Constitution may be an apt tool in this regard.

(ii)            Accountability of the Higher Judiciary : the present Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill is a right step. However, cases against judges need to be examined by a body independent of the judiciary. The serious matters need not be referred to the process of impeachment.

(iii)          Accessibility of the Judiciary for the downtrodden : implementing Article 39A (which speaks of Free Legal Aid) of our Constitution as a Fundamental Right might be Utopian at this present juncture but is probably unavoidable in the long run for a just and egalitarian society.

At least, the economic criterion for free legal aid could be made somewhat practicable, in the light of the scenario of inflation and rise in the level of the exemption limit for taxation.

In sum, it needs to be stated that the Indian Judiciary has performed its bit in the last six decades and hopefully shall continue to do so. Nevertheless, it is not an infallible institution. It too needs to be accountable and hence critical of itself. It has to reach out to the masses. Hence, there is supposed to be no harm if an independent body scrutinizes its acts of ‘alleged misconduct’. The priority has to be the concerns of the citizenry and elitism needs to be done away with.

India is surely not in a position to endure the notorious Jeffreys and Seroggs of the 17^th century. That would simply be anachronistic.

=============================

Uddipan Mukherjee is a late riser. Still, he works 'very hard' to edit Indian Policy. By the way, he writes in diplostratics  

JPC and Yes, a JPC

Since the last defunct parliamentary session, the opposition has created a huge furore - demanding a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe to look into the recent spate of scams. 

Primarily the focus of this JPC, which might be aborted before conception, would be to probe the 2G scam. The gamut of the probe might include the CWG (Commonwealth games) scam too. The JPC has more powers – at least on paper – than the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament. While the PAC merely looks at the anomalies of the Finances approved by the Parliament, the JPC can look in to the sensitive issue of propriety. 

The PAC does not possess the legal ambit of summoning ministers beyond the ministry-in-question for interrogation. It works primarily on the basis of information provided by the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office. Besides according to the rules of Parliament, the primary function of the PAC is to oversee the “expenditures of sums granted” by the Parliament for the Government of India. 

In the case of our honourable Indian Olympics Association head, the PAC can raise flags at the way the allocated funds have been spent inappropriately. But in the case of the 2G scam the scope of investigation is reduced manifold, mainly because technically speaking it was a revenue-generating tool used by the Government by selling radio frequency bands to telecom operators and not an issue of expenditure. This however does not mean that the PAC is toothless in the 2G scam investigation. The PAC can go into the fine area of a government deal which lies “beyond, the formality of expenditure to its wisdom, faithfulness and economy”, which it should and will. 

However in this case given the limitations of who can be interrogated, the investigation might hit a roadblock pretty soon, even worse it might end up accusing a handful for their excesses while the others go scot-free. Besides the functional nitty-gritties, what works in favour of the ruling party is the fact that the minutes cannot be made public as they unfold. It is only the Action Taken Statements of the govt and the Action Taken Report of the PAC, which can be made public post being tabled in the Parliament. Here the ruling party has the opportunity of delaying and procrastinating. Therein given the average attention span of the electorate and media which is equitable to a Goldfish’s memory, by the time the final Action Taken Statement is made Public their might be a bigger better scam for the taking.

A JPC on the other hand can spread its net wider and go into the larger gamut of allocation and look into the role of various players, not remaining restricted just to the ministry-in-concern. It has the right and mandate to interrogate anyone and everyone on any angle vis-à-vis the issue. The beauty of the JPC is that there is a possibility for the opposition to make the reportings/minutes of the probe, as they unfold, public without violating any code of conduct. Added to that if a particular person, which includes Her Majesty Madam (HMM-Sonia) and the PM, is summoned and if they do not turn up then it amounts to contempt of Parliament: which is a serious offence. Though in the JPC the speaker has the final say on the nature of summons issued, the refusal of one can provide the opposition with the required impetus to disrupt further sessions of Parliament without losing popular support in public.

Recently Manmohan Singh (MMS) said that if the PAC summons him he would be more than willing to appear. Then why does he have issues with the setting up of a JPC? Well the probable causes are more than many. The opposition can keep up the heat by constantly questioning the holy cows – cabinet, HMM and MMS all at once – and the constant reporting of their answers could render the image of the grand old party all the more gullible in public view. 

Historically speaking, the grand old party and the soul of the first chocolate boy of Indian politics are still reeling under the effects of JPC probe on the Bofors’ case. Given these causes, the perpetual aversion towards the formation of a JPC to look into the accountability and integrity of the ruling party. And it is this aversion that led to the setting up of a single judge committee to look into the 2G scam and it is this aversion that made MMS claim that he would jump protocol and be willing to be interrogated by the PAC. In fact the loose cannon of the grand old party (read: Digvijay Singh) has gone to the extent of publicly equating Advani and RSS with the Nazi Party in an apparent bid to dent the opposition’s image. Basically the ruling party is leaving no stone unturned to avoid a JPC.

So big deal! MMS is an honest guy with a pristine track record. How can the inquiry anyway affect his aura? Now this is where it gets a little tricky. Any kind of public/govt transaction beyond 500 crore rupees has to be approved by the cabinet (read: Prime Minister). So either he is a silent rubber stamp by the higher echelons of the party for their vested interests (which could range from coalition dharma to making a quick buck) or he is party to the corruption. In both cases the image of the institution as well as the image of Prime Minister MMS would be shattered. This might have an imminent domino effect for the future of the grand old party. I shall explain how.

There’s no denying the fact that apparently MMS has become the Brutus of Indian politics, taking a piggy back ride on whom the Cassiuses are going around stabbing the Caesar of Indian democracy (read: exchequer). Once the honour and integrity of MMS is put under the scanner, the dynasty will be running helter-skelter to find a potential seat warmer for the Octavius (read: Rahul Gandhi) in-waiting, after all there are too may Antonys-in-waiting within their fold. Simple isn’t it? 

Going by the precedence of multiple committees and probes the final verdict of which never saw the light of day, there is no guarantee that this would-be JPC will succeed in settling scores with the nexus of corrupt politicos and telecom operators. Nonetheless it will definitely help lift the veil of incompetence from MMS, which might reveal an uglier face of silent camaraderie with corruption.

P.S.: And of course since the PAC is a perennial Parliamentary committee, therefore setting up a JPC would effectively mean investigations by both PAC and JPC. Therefore a two pronged attack on the government. Lastly I deliberately did not mention the ongoing CBI inquiry because what the hell!!! who trusts them?

==============

Pritish Mukherjee does not lambast the ruling party here, neither will he be benefiting by advocating a JPC. Still, he exhorts for a JPC. 

21 days and those 2 Houses

Robin Sharma in his best seller “The monk who sold his Ferrari” put forth the idea of “21 days practice”. To put any action into a regular habit it takes 21 days of continuous effort, all by repeating the same action for 21 days at the same time.

The winter session of our parliament just put the theory into practice. The non-functional parliament for 21 days can be termed as one of definite low of parliament democracy till date. It is not that Indian parliament has not seen the worse but the fact that ruling coalition UPA-II commands an overwhelming

majority and still acts in the most puny manner, threatens the survival of healthy democracy.

The parliamentary democracy sees every occupant member as a representative of total population of India. The occupant member fails to realize it and is seen involved in mud-slinging and other ignominious activities.

The demand for JPC which led to the 21 days inactivity of parliament caused losses rising to crores of rupees. It is irrefutable to say that this also can be termed as another scam where misutilisation of 'power' by 'powerful' members caused deficit to Indian exchequer.

The Indian independence movement and leaders of that time were guided by certain value. It was this value that won them popular support or even recognition from world over including British. The values of erstwhile leaders were imbibed in the constitution of India which has been our 'constitutionalism'.

During early years of our sovereign nationhood, moral values and national repute was considered as the topmost priority by leaders and was equally demonstrated not only in difficult times but also in every tenure as members

of parliament.

Nonetheless, the present occupants have also been vociferous about national repute as the topmost priority but have failed to demonstrate with any action. The JPC demand that MP’s are insisting on is neither a solution nor is the end of any debate. It is just political tactics to demonstrate power.

India to become a real force needs to showcase primarily its parliamentary democracy as the strongest factor. Such incidences of disruption of parliament create a political instability and reveal our weakness to the world. The relevance of parliamentary debate and functional democracy are weakened.

Indian parliamentary system needs to inculcate new values to check such stray incidences which are capable of hampering the reputation of our democracy worldwide.

===================

Abhilash Mahapatra comes back to Indian Policy, albeit quite dejected about the Parliamentary Democracy of India. However, like all of us, he too hopes for a better India.

Radia to SK: No Scams Please

Nira Radia: The lady in the eye of the storm of the 2G scam. Or rather the lady who brewed the entire storm to begin with. What seemed to be a run-of-the-mill scam involving a few thousands of crores and a minister with an insatiable appetite turned out be deeper, murkier and perhaps the perfect recipe for a Manohar Kahaniyan bestseller. A cache of phone conversations tapped by the Enforcement Directorate of the Income Tax department mysteriously made way to two publishing houses viz Outlook and Open. 

The publishing of these tête-à-têtes opened the proverbial Pandora’s box. Ranging from corporate bigwigs like Ratan and Mukesh to the pillars of the fourth estate, Vir and Padamshri Barkha to the Dalaals of the grand old party of India – nobody was spared. The first reaction to these tapes was utter shock. With an average of two major scandals each year we Indians are not averse to scams but the level of involvement of the Barking dogs (read: media) is what sent many of us in a tizzy. For anyone who has worked in the media it’s a known fact that owners lobby to receive material gains, but what these tapes did was that they put a name on the unknown faces of corruption. Sadly enough most of them were people many of us grew up citing as classic epitomes of honest work and brave journalism.

The lash-back was quite obvious. The journos said what they themselves make fun of, “I have been misquoted,” or “The quotes have been used out of context” or (this is my favorite) “ As a journalist we need to talk to all sorts of people to gain information.” Ratan on the other hand was not willing to say tata to this issue by quietly sweeping it under the rug. He went on to challenge the publications of the tapes in the Supreme Court citing violation of his Right to Privacy under his Right to Life. I wonder if he would cite similar reasons - ie improving his Right to Life by a few hundred crores - for illegally coercing and soliciting the portfolios within the UPA-II cabinet.

Coming back to the Mata Hari of Indian corporate lobbying. Nira Radia has a huge task eked out for her. Besides a tarnished image she is being charged of using unsolicited means to garner 300 crores in a span of 9 years, which roughly comes to over 33 crores annually. She even had the audacity to float the proposal for a domestic airlines service. (If a busy bee is to be believed her strength was derived from the then NDA Civil Aviation Minister, Ananth Kumar for reasons your imagination shall fill you with). All this through just corporate communications? Well mister if you are an aspiring something, chuck your plans for a techie job or a management guru profile or even for that matter all Ponzi schemers too, for Ms Radia has shown, Corporate communications is second only to Raja-Munda brand of politics if you intend to make a quick buck.

Oh yes, I almost forgot, the notorious Outlook came out with a second set of conversations this Sunday last. Since then NDTV has not come out with any clarifications and all the chirping through twitter also seems to have taken a back-seat for Sanghvi and Padamshri Barkha. Why? Here’s an excerpt.

Journalists played a key role, says Radia. “Congress ne to statement Thank God issue kar diya. Barkha ne karwaa liyaa us se.” The guy confirms the statement. "Haan woh to maine dekh liya. aa gayaa naa Manish Tewari kaa". Radia is busy speaking to a “minister” at “2 o' clock” lobbying for Raja. (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?268618)

This second lot has clearly shown that inside the Pandora’s box is another can or worms which still deeper might be housing another pregnant monster of corruption. The levels of corruption seem to be akin to a Chinese puzzle box. Besides Raja, this time it seems that Nira was specifically interested in the portfolios of Murli Deora and Anand Sharma.

Through her conversations with JDU minister NK Singh it seems that Mukesh Ambani batted for Deora to get a second term. Deora’s loyalty for his master Mukesh is affirmed by his consistent pitching in favour of Mukesh, which saved him a great deal of money (read: several thousand crores) by bailing him out of the subsidized sale of natural gas for his brother, Anil’s power plant in 2009.

Amidst all this chaos who do you think is the most relieved man today? I’ll give you a few hints. He has a beard, his initials are SK, he believes in buying toilet paper worth fifteen hundred rupees and he is the head of the country’s largest sports scam. Any guesses?

========================= 

Editor's Note: Pritish Mukherjee's pen speaks and that too for an issue close to his heart. And I would like to add that there are no guesses for SK. I plainly lifted this symphony from his blog but made the title dysfunctional:: 

http://moleculoscope.blogspot.com/2010/12/mirror-mirror-on-wall-whos-tainted-of.html