Has The Hindu lost it?
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Last week, the leader writers jumped in unison and landed with hobnailed boots on Laloo Prasad Yadav`s head. The Pioneer spread its legs at the last moment and managed to plant one on L Saptarishi`s head as well. "Sack him", it squealed indignantly and explained why.
"Mr Saptharishi`s allegation comes when his three-year tenure awaits final political clearance. Nor is it accidental that Mr Yadav finds himself in possession of a copy of Mr Saptharishi`s letter. The two are working in tandem -- one to secure post-retirement employment, the other to launch an unprecedented assault on a constitutional authority, with the explicit purpose of destroying its credibility."
That about said it actually, because the others, while being less forthright, made basically the same point. The Telegraph drew itself up haughtily and sniffed "Only superficially, the attack is against two members of the commission. Far more ominous is the threat it poses to the sanctity and independence of an institution so crucial to democracy… An even more unedifying aspect of the episode is the way a senior officer of the Indian administrative services, Mr L V Saptharishi, provided fodder for Mr Yadav`s charges against the EC."
The Indian Express took cool aim at Laloo and fired off a few rounds. "Laloo Prasad Yadav`s exertions against the Election Commission of India must be seen in context. Every time it looks like the RJD boss could finally be hemmed, he kicks up a very loud, very public, fuss. Suddenly he is the centre of the show."
It then described his modus operandi with devastating effect. "In the run-up to Bihar polls, he conjures up a brand new inquiry to excavate Godhra`s ``truth``. From the site of a devastating railway accident, the Union railway minister proclaims his own persecution by Narendra Modi. Now, when cases of the fodder scam and those that have to do with assets allegedly disproportionate to his income encircle him once more, his lawyers take it into their hands to tell the Supreme Court just how it cannot supervise the judicial proceedings. Then, the minister himself flashes a civil servant`s letter and asks for the election commissioners` resignation, if not a restructured institution."
It then went on to fulminate about how constitutional bodies were being desecrated etc. which is the truth but not the whole truth. But be that is it may, it was the Hindu whose hypocrisies seem as boundless as Laloo`s amorality, which decided at the last minute to plant one of its feet on the EC`s head as well. It will call this balance, I guess, but it was plain toadying to the government - especially since the prime minister himself had aimed a careful ball of spit in Laloo`s direction.
I am always tempted to quote the Hindu`s gyrations in full but won`t. Even such low beings as read this column should be spared that ordeal. Much as it pains my heart, a sample will have to suffice.
"What about the substantive charge that the re-poll in the whole of the Chapra constituency was uncalled for in the light of Mr. Saptarishi`s report as observer, and that it had been ordered under pressure from the BJP-led Government and with an intent to teach Mr. Prasad a lesson?" asked the paper. And its answer -- if you make sense of it in the given context, let me know - was this: "An observer`s report is an important, but not the sole, element in the decision-making, and the Commission is within its rights to consider the entirety of material and information available to it and come to a conclusion different from the one suggested by the observer."
And then it launched itself against the EC!
"similar charges were made when, in a moment of unexplained zeal, it sought to find out why the people were voting repeatedly for the CPI (M)-led Left Front in West Bengal but abandoned the exercise — with little damage to its credibility... the Commission has at times been overbearing in its ways — in the functioning of its observers, for instance, and in its interaction with governments and officials — and unrestrained in its quest for ever greater powers. The suggestion to vest in the Commission the power to disqualify candidates violating the model code of conduct carries with it the danger of arbitrary and uncontrolled use in an area that is best left to the judicial process. Again, its proposal that candidates against whom serious charges are framed should be disqualified runs contrary to the basic presumption of innocence. In the light of the controversy triggered by the Bihar-related allegations, the Election Commission would do well to exercise moderation, self-restraint, and modesty so that its role as a constitutionally sanctioned authority remaining at all times above the fray is not compromised."
Ouch.