Political Diary
New Delhi, 27 June 2015
Modi’s Four Devis
PRIVATE CHARITRA, PUBLIC CHAAL
By Poonam I Kaushish
Making a mountain out of a molehill? Or a molehill out of a
mountain? Two questions continue to exercise political Delhi over Prime Minister Modi’s four ‘scandalous’
Devis. Union Foreign Minister Sushma
Swaraj and Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje in Lalitgate, Union Education
Minister Smriti Irani’s ‘fake’
educational qualification and Maharashtra’s Women Minister Pankaja Munde in a
Rs 230 crores ‘goodies’ scam. Clearly, Modi
ki kundli mein aurat se sookh nahin hai, leaving him to fight a lone ‘wo’eful
battle!
Predictably, as the LaMo saga persists to hog headlines and
the Opposition revels in ratcheting up the murky controversy, “They are
following “Raje dharma, not rajya dharma”,
the BJP has decided to brazen it out
on Raje’s
confession that she did sign the affidavit in support of
ex-IPL czar’s UK
immigration application and Modi's investment in her son’s hotel company was
legal and had been disclosed to authorities.
While a vocal and avid tweeter NaMo does a mauni baba act, his erudite Finance
Minister prefers playing blasé, “Nobody is tainted”, Home Minister asserts, “Raje’s recommendation was in her
“purely personal” capacity; Sushma’s was a “humanitarian gesture” because LaMo’s
wife had cancer surgery. And for the doubting Thomas’s, added Urban Minister,
“Our Government works in a most honest and transparent” manner. Sic.
Alas, our politicians who follow the dictum ‘might is right’
and operate like Gangs of Wasseypur have not only lost the plot but there seems
to be something fundamentally wrong which makes out leaders incapable of
dealing with simple matters and complex issues. Underscoring that our netas have no shame, or desire to rein
in corruption and be accountable to the people.
Undeniably, the issue is not whether Raje and Swaraj resign
or even if they did the matter ends there. No, because their actions raise a
pointed and important issue, which leaders seem to have missed. Namely, what is
the line between a politician’s public and personal life? Has politics become
too personal or should politicians expect intense media scrutiny of their
affairs? Is his private life any concern of the people?
Think. Raje avers she wrote the letter supporting Lalit
Modi’s UK
immigration application in her personal capacity. Really? The note was written
on the letterhead of the Leader of Opposition a post she held in 2011. Two, she
also mentioned the letter should be kept secret from Indian authorities. Why?
If, it was personal why the secrecy? Three, her note was never produced in
court as she backed out. Not, according to UK authorities.
Moreover, can a leader be ethical in public if he is
unethical in private? Do we have unrealistic expectations of our leaders? There
is no gainsaying that Lalit Modi’s investment in Raje’s son’s firm made her
richer by over Rs 31 crores. Why did the
shrewd business man invest in a “close friend’s” defunct company? Was it a
kickback for favours rendered?
Notably, even if one were to take a humane view of Swaraj’s
speaking to the British High Commissioner to facilitate LaMo visa, there is no
denying there was a conflict of interest. Not only is Modi wanted for
questioning by the Enforcement Directorate overseeing the IPL scam but also
both her husband and daughter are his legal counsels.
Swaraj, holding a Constitutional post is expected to know
that as Minister she is required to uphold the law, not speak in favour of a
person wanted by authorities in India.
And even if she wanted to aid LaMo why didn’t the Foreign Secretary take up the
issue with her counter-part?
Needless to say, many argue that personal lives or actions
of our netagan have never been part
of political discourse unless it interferes into the public domain. It is also
correct to affirm that a leader’s news-value is determined by his political
deeds, misdeeds and misdemeanors and not by his personal status.
The reason why the Constitution does not have any provision
for privacy, unlike in several other countries. Also, ‘public interest’ is not
the same thing as what the public is interested in. After all, private morality
has no automatic relationship to someone’s ability to do a job well. Adding,
many great political leaders have had messy personal lives, while others, with
blameless private lives, have been judged failures in office.
Others strongly feel that the private life of a public
person necessarily needs transparency. They stand for the strong Gandhian view
that a public man has no private parts to shield. That would be a reflection on
his character, integrity and values. The Mahatma was clear that a man’s public
life could never be clean if his private life was not. The two were indivisible.
Either which way, we expect our netagan to be a notch above ordinary mortals. An epitome of
morality and probity for us to look up to and respect. Towards that end, a
leader has to pay the price of his privacy and personal details once he enters
public life which demands accountable to the people.
Constant scrutiny is the price of fame. If our leaders want
to enjoy the privileges of power and all the status that goes with it then they
should willingly pay the price of absolute integrity and honesty. If a person
lies in small things how can one trust him on bigger things? The aam aadmi has a right to know everything
about his netas as their salaries are
paid for by the people who need to make informed judgments about the kind of
leaders they want.
For example, how can a Minister or MP busy in jan seva, afford a Swiss bank account,
Ferrari, a yacht and a villa in Monaco on his salary? That too, without working honestly for even
one day.
Sadly, the tragedy of the Raje-Swaraj saga is that it has
not made any iota of difference or guilt among our Teflon-coated politicians
who continue to brazen it out. Absence of an effective vetting process of the
real chaal, charitra & chehra of
our leaders has made things worse.
It is time our netas understand
that there are moments when cynical calculations of political expediency become
repugnant. In a Parliamentary democracy, civilized discourse is the answer. Today,
India
is today at the moral crossroads.
A long and hard battle lies ahead for bringing a change in
the political system and the present political ethos. Political morality and
accountability are paramount for good governance and stability. There is no
place for damn lies and deceit in a genuine democracy. Truth is not determined
by majority vote.
In sum, the country needs to find a fine balance between
street power and arrogant and tyrannical political system. One thing is clear
it would be near impossible for our polity to continue with the status quo. It
is high time to cry a halt to increasing degradation by conducing our own due diligence,
else we lay the foundation for a weak and pliable polity. What gives? ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|