Home arrow Archives arrow Political Diary arrow Political Diary 2008 arrow La Affaire Baalu:PM DEBASES PARLIAMENT, by Poonam I Kaushish, 3 May 2008
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
La Affaire Baalu:PM DEBASES PARLIAMENT, by Poonam I Kaushish, 3 May 2008 Print E-mail

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)

 

 

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT