|
POLITICAL DIARY
La Affaire Baalu
PM DEBASES PARLIAMENT
By Poonam I Kaushish
New Delhi, May 06, 2008
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)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com |
