Suppose one commits a crime. Before He/She commits he/she is warned. Nevertheless He/She goes ahead and commits that crime he/she is warned against. He/She is caught and brought before the Court. Court finds Him/Her guilty of committing the Crime despite warning. Court sentences Him/Her to Jail. He/She has no other choice but to accept the Guilt. Or do they?
Will it be His/Her Redemption? Sure I am that your answer would be capital NO.
But then if you are ‘Chamcha In Chief’ of CON party and work in a CON party Rag Called ‘The Hindustan Times’ then you suspend all logic and try give it a spin and try prove that He/She is statesman/woman since accepts guilt.
What I am talking about is this article Written by ‘Chamcha In Chief’ Pankaj Vohra of HT in today’s paper. Come lets us see what he has to offer. My comments in Communal Saffron Color :)
Pankaj Vohra, Political Editor HT.
By accepting responsibility for the decision to appoint PJ Thomas as the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) following the apex court’s ruling that the appointment was illegal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has exhibited statesmanship of the highest order. In doing so, he has sent out a strong signal that if a mistake is made, it is best to admit it rather than hide behind bureaucratic notings. The PM has finally shown that the buck stops with him and that he, like any other citizen, had no hesitation in accepting the verdict of the highest court.
(Reading above gives you an impression that MMS has done Supreme Court and Indians a great favor by accepting the Supreme Court Verdict as if he had a Choice of not accepting it! As for STATESMANSHIP! WTF! Is he not duty bound to accept/respect Apex Court Order? As for hiding behind he would have surely done that, if he had even a smallest of excuse. We all know him quite well by now. Huh!)
Equally commendable is the immediate response from the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj, the shadow prime minister, that the matter should be closed and one must move on. Swaraj was also on the panel to appoint Thomas though she disagreed with both the prime minister and the home minister on the choice of the nominee. Her counterpart in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, though wants some clarifications on the issue. Given the prime minister’s candid admission, the matter could blow over in Parliament.
(That was stupid of Sushama saying pre maturely. She should have waited for MMS to speak in Lok Sabha first. Majority view is reflected by Arun Jaitley)
However, the appointment has several lessons for the ruling party. In future, there should be proper scrutiny of every person nominated for a sensitive position, particularly the offices that directly deal with corruption. Singh’s admission of his mistake and his subsequent comment that the appointment was not a result of coalition compulsions indicate that Thomas was shortlisted by elements within his own party.
(Quite interestingly today’s HT carries this article by Ashok Malik titled ‘A Curious Choice’ Must Read :) )
Singh, who was in the eye of a storm after expressing helplessness in dealing with some corruption issues at a press conference last month, has redeemed his image with this. (How he has redeemed? What is choice but then not to accept it? Redeemed he would have, had he accepted it before SC called his action as ‘Illegal’. Pankaj is it this hard to understand? ) He is also perhaps the first PM to accept a mistake upfront. (NOW name one Prime Minister whose actions/appointment was held ‘ILLEGAL’ prior to this?) He has tried to scotch speculation that since many decisions were taken elsewhere, his government could not be held accountable. He has shown that if there is a decision taken, even if at the behest of those in the party, the government will not shirk its responsibility for any error of judgement (Error of Judgment???) that it may make. It’s also an indication to the party that it shouldn’t push for issues or cases which may not stand up to judicial scrutiny. (Indirectly he means that now on CON party should be careful on procedures even if they appoint another Tainted one!)
The apex court has come out with flying colours by upholding the rule of law. In that context, the quashing of Thomas’s appointment must be seen as a victory for democracy rather than as a defeat for the government or a triumph for the opposition parties. There are certain issues where individual parties take secondary place since it’s democracy and our values which emerge stronger. (Supreme Court has done its duty and very well too. Kudos!)
Singh’s action also proves that had PV Narasimha Rao accepted his responsibility for the demolition of the Babri masjid, the plight of his party wouldn’t have been so dismal in the years that followed his exit from government. Mulayam Singh Yadav, by dissociating himself from Kalyan Singh after the 2009 parliamentary polls, also accepted his mistake in not putting his Samajwadi Party on a secular course. (What is relevance? But then dragging PVNR in everything and blackening Him is CON practice. Sic!) Similarly, Sonia Gandhi overturned the Congress thesis of going it alone in August 2003 to forge a coalition, which finally came to power in 2004. She realised that going it alone at that stage was a mistake and that the Congress had to reinvent itself in the coalition era. Her judgement yielded many political dividends for the party. (Pure political opportunism as is clear to all and any but to Chamcha In Chief, Pankaj Vohara.)
Politicians should not always have colossal egos. They must own up to their mistakes. They are not gods and should act with humility. While there could be many question marks regarding the future of the present government in view of several scams, it is heartening to note that the PM has realised that he is the last port of call. Between us.
Now that was Pankaj Vohra for you. Now why did ManMohan Singh appoint P J Thomas despite objections from LOP and subsequent ‘quashing’ of appointment by Supreme Court? An excerpt from Aashok Malik’s this post ‘A Curious Choice’ might interest you.
Of course, the issue of principle is linked to that of personality. In arguing its case, the UPA government cited a precedent from 1999, when a committee comprising the then PM and home minister (both BJP), Lok Sabha speaker (Telugu Desam) and leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses of Parliament (both Congress) chose the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. The Congress representatives proposed Justice AH Ahmadi. They were outvoted by the others, who opted for Justice JS Verma.
In invoking this example, the UPA made its point about unanimity being ideal but not mandatory. Even so, it let slip a decidedly clumsy comparison. Ahmadi has had a mixed record since leaving the Supreme Court. He was controversial as chair of the trust governing the Bhopal Memorial Hospital set up by Union Carbide for victims of the 1984 gas leak. It has been alleged that patients at the hospital — survivors of the gas leak — were subjected to drug trials by pharmaceutical companies without their consent. This would make Ahmadi an odd choice for any sort of human rights capacity. In contrast, Verma is cherished as among India’s finest jurists. As with Thomas, why did the Congress believe Justice Ahmadi was more suitable than anyone else? The answer would be fascinating.