Slamming the government, not Sonia

BY darius| IN Opinion | 26/03/2006

You don`t say!

Darius Nakoonwala

Last week was, by and large, an easy for leader writers. Enough things happened to ensure that they didn`t have to think too hard. The pride of place, of course, went, naturally, in the fitness of things (and so on) to Sonia Gandhi`s resignation as an MP and as the chairperson of the National Advisory Council (NAC).

Reading the usual editorials, I got the sense that the editors suspected that they were being taken for a ride but so unusual was the action that they felt they had to praise it as well. If you want to find out what confusion is, read those edits, all appearing on March 24.  

The exception, as might be expected, was The Pioneer. It had no doubts at all that the whole thing was a fraud, designed to hide the fact that an ordinance was being brought - the evidence for which is rock solid - to make sure that Sonia Gandhi was not treated by the Election Commission as Jaya Bachchan had been treated - evicted from Parliament for holding an "office of profit".  

The Telegraph`s first two lines, distorted from Karl Marx, summed up its confusion. "A gesture of sacrifice repeats itself. The first time as piety; the second time as posturing." But it regained its usual forthrightness when it went on to say "the context of the two acts are radically different. In 2004, the post of prime minister was for Ms Gandhi`s asking… in 2006, she has resigned as member of parliament when the government of the United Progressive Alliance — and Ms Gandhi is the chairperson of the UPA — has made a complete mess in parliament over the office of profit issue…Once the opposition began making the allegation that the entire exercise had no other purpose save the protection of Ms Gandhi, the latter had very few options open to her…but  Ms Gandhi`s chosen area of operation, a stake in the moral high ground is an investment... for her party or for her son."

The Hindu also found itself having to be double-gaited. It said nice things about Ms Gandhi and blamed the government. "Up to the point of her resignation, the Government`s handling of the office of profit issue smacked of clumsiness, even impropriety… The handling of the issue itself was marked not by open discussion but by secrecy that was strange in an administration that has held out the Right to Information Act as a demonstration of its commitment to transparency and good governance. Amidst the appearance of a great intrigue, the situation turned so murky that it was natural that charges flew around that the Government was desperate to bring in an ordinance to save Ms. Gandhi from imminent disqualification… To get Parliament adjourned to enable the promulgation of an ordinance would be a gross abuse of the constitutional provision. The proper course would be to re-convene Parliament to update the law and enlarge the list of offices exempt from disqualification — without at the same time making a mockery of the constitutional provision designed to ensure the independent control of the executive by the legislature."

In a like vein, the Deccan Herald praised Ms Gandhi and was critical of the party which, it said " needs to clarify why it was considering an ordinance on the matter in the first place. The Congress is now citing Ms Gandhi`s resignation to bolster its claim that its attempt to push through the ordinance was not motivated by its desire to save her from disqualification. This is an afterthought and cannot be used to validate an earlier mistake. In fact its conduct over the past couple of days actually goes counter to its claim. The steps the government and the party took on Wednesday to clear the way for an ordinance - it abruptly ended the parliament session in order to be able to do so - revealed that it was ready to ignore parliamentary propriety and democratic conventions to save its leaders and to protect their position and privileges. While Ms Gandhi`s resignation might serve to deflect the country`s attention away from the party`s shoddy conduct on Wednesday, the gesture alone will not suffice in the long run."

The Asian Age was the only one to point out the extraordinary paradox. "The irony is that it was just this very result (resignation or removal) that she and her party were keen to avoid through the elaborate conspiracy to adjourn Parliament sine die and move an ordinance re-defining offices of profit so that she and some others would not come under the disqualification net. But the strong response from the media and the political parties, across the board, left Ms Sonia Gandhi with no choice but to resign, as her party was isolated and could find no supporters from either within the UPA alliance or the supporting allies."

The Indian Express and The Hindustan Times trod lines expected of them, the formerly skeptical and the latter adulatory.

Contact:  Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com