POLITICAL DIARY
New Delhi, 3 May 2008
La Affaire Baalu
PM DEBASES
PARLIAMENT
By Poonam I Kaushish
If the heat wave across North India is not bad enough,
political New Delhi
is reeling under the T.R Baalu inferno. Frankly, it’s much ado about nothing
given our present political culture, which rubbishes morality, probity and
accountability as old hat. Come on guys get real, our khaas aadmis rule by law. So discount instantly, all talk of the
Shipping, Road Transport and Highways Minister resigning. After all, why make a
big deal about him helping his sons. Do you expect him to help others’
children?
Besides, what about the Prime Minister’s role? Why is he
mute on La Affaire Baalu? Even
if his silence is smothering Parliament and undermining its authority. Why make
a song and dance about this? Silly, he is his khaas mantri of a khaas
party.
Sadly, this is no joking matter. It is all about moral turpitude, which started with infamous Baalu
confession in the Rajya Sabha. That he had “put in a word” to the Petroleum
Minister Murli Deora to provide gas to family-owned King Power Corporation,
being run by his sons Selva and Raj after he resigned as Managing Director
subsequent to becoming a Union Minister.
His case was ‘simple’. Baalu wanted resumption of natural gas
cheaper than the market price using his ministerial clout for his firm. So he
asked Deora to arrange a meeting with the GAIL Chairman to do the needful.
Smugly asserting that he “did nothing wrong and there was no nepotism.” Given
that the supplies had been disconnected when he resigned from the NDA
Government in 2003 and “the BJP took revenge on me”.
Evidently, the DMK Minister was making the point that he was
merely doling out natural justice to his sons. Perhaps on the plea that
ministerial posts are temporary and cannot take precedence over the permanent
role of a father! However, Baalu's own admission makes it clear that he did "use"
his office to benefit his family firms. If this is not dishonourable what is?
Is it correct for a Minister to abuse his official position to solicit personal
favours for his family? Does this not smack of conflict of interest and unduly
influencing the Petroleum Ministry?
Baalu has defended his actions by making two points. One,
that there was a Madras High Court order directing GAIL to supply gas to the
firm, which was not being adhered to. The recourse was to file a contempt
petition, why meet Deora and write to the PM? Two, he was trying to save his
sick companies from closing down and rendering workers jobless. There are more
than 6,000 sick industrial units in the Government and States. Why hasn’t Baalu
"put in a word" to the PMO to save these units?
Clearly, the Minister and the Government needs a quick recap
of history. Specifically, the infamous Mundhra scandal which rocked Parliament in
1958, leading to the then Finance Minister TT Krishnamachari’s resignation. The
cause celebre was the Government
asking the Life Corporation of India
to purchase Rs 12.4 million worth of shares in six companies belonging to Calcutta industrialist
Haridas Mundhra to bail him out.
The nation-wide furore led to the appointment of the Justice
Chagla Commission. During the inquiry, Krishnamachari tried to distance himself
from the LIC and the actions of his Finance Secretary. However Chagla held that
the Minister was constitutionally responsible for the actions of his Secretary
and could not take shelter behind them nor could he disown their actions. Look
at the irony. Baalu confesses of “putting in a word” yet the Government is mum about
asking him to resign, notwithstanding the Opposition clamour.
Amidst all this hangama
none has the time or inclination to see the body-blow dealt to Parliament.
By none less than the Prime Minister. Clearly, Manmohan Singh’s refusal to
answer the Opposition’s pointed queries on the PMO’s role in L’ Affaiire Baalu
goes against the tenets of democracy and dilutes Parliament’s authority to
demand accountability from the Head of Government. What is unpardonable is that
the PM quietly left the House even as MPs demanded an answer.
Remember, unlike the Presidential form of Government wherein
a President is not answerable for his actions, Parliamentary democracy’s
greatest strength lies in a MP’s right to ask any question of the Prime
Minister which he is obliged to answer. As also his basic right to information
and demanding accountability. By choosing to shy away from replying, Manmohan
Singh has raised more doubts about his Office’s role. Plainly, if the PM and
his officials had not issued any order/instructions to help the Union
Minister`s family.firm, why shy from stating this in Parliament? Certainly it
is not the job of the Petroleum Minister to speak for the PMO.
Baalu claims he never wrote to the PM's Office. But the PMO
wrote eight letters to the Petroleum Minister asking him to help Baalu’s firms
--- without Baalu asking? Is it “routine” for the PMO to forward eight letters
of a aam aadmi, Selvakumar Baalu “without
any recommendations” in a span of
four months (Nov 2007-Feb 2008)? Countered the Congress spokesman, “There is no
question of endorsing or agreeing with the contents. There is no question of
lobbying." Then, what is the point? Why forward the letters? Does the PMO
forward all mail without going into the merits or demerits of every letter? Has
the PMO been reduced to a Mail Forwarding Service sans recommendation?
Manmohan Singh needs to recall his predecessor Rajiv
Gandhi’s action when two French intelligence officers stole documents from the
PMO in 1985. In the ensuing furore, Rajiv made a statement in the Lok Sabha about
the incident and his Principal Secretary P C Alexander resigned. Though he did
not accept responsibility for the shocking negligence in his office, he
nonetheless resigned to uphold high moral principles.
Clearly, any Prime Minister who believes in accountability
and respects the canons of parliamentary democracy would clarify his position
in such matters in both Houses of Parliament.
Manmohan Singh is duty-bound to make a statement in Parliament on two
counts. Firstly, as head of Government, he cannot shirk his responsibility over
the misdeeds of a member of his Cabinet. Secondly, he is answerable for the
actions of the PMO.
He needs to heed some of Justice Chagla’s seven principles:
The Government should not interfere with the working of autonomous statutory
corporations and if it does, it should not shirk responsibility for directions
given. The Minister must take full responsibility for the actions of his
subordinates and cannot be permitted to say that they did not reflect his
policy or acted contrary to his directions.
And his advice: “In a Parliamentary form of Government,
Parliament should be taken into confidence at the earliest stage to avoid
embarrassment from other sources of information….." Will our khaas aadmis Manmohan Singh and Baalu
follow suit? ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & feature Alliance)
|