Congress allergic to truth

http://www.bagchiblog.blogspot.com

The Indian National Congress High Command has sent a show-cause notice to the Mumbai Congress chief, Sanjay Nirupam, for publishing an unsigned article in the November 2015 issue of “Congress Darshan”, a mouthpiece of the Party in Mumbai, denigrating the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the Party’s current president, Sonia Gandhi. While the periodical said that Sonia Gandhi’s father, Stephano Maino was a fascist and that Sonia Gandhi became President of the Congress Party within 62 days after becoming one of its members, it went on to say that Nehru’s faulty Kashmir and China policies have tied down the country during the last sixty-odd years and their repercussions may hobble it for years to come.

As was rightly pointed out by reporters, the periodical did not reveal any secret that was not generally known. Sonia Gandhi became a member of the Congress Party only after its rank and file kept persuading her to lead the Party as most of them had lost faith in its senior members. She had refused to join the Party or to take part in politics after Rajiv Gandhi, her husband, was assassinated. Having witnessed two assassinations (including that of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1984) in the family she, apparently, had no stomach for politics. But the insistence of the party members, mostly ambitious sycophants, brought her round and she joined it after as many as eight years of Rajiv’s death.  Then the Party voted for her to be its President. They had felt at that time that without a member of the Gandhi family at the helm the party would go nowhere. The cult of the Gandhi family and its legions of sycophants is also legacy that Nehru bequeathed

 That her father, Stephano Maino, was a soldier in the army of fascist Benito Mussolini and was a prisoner of war in the then Soviet Union is also well known. Reports of his swearing allegiance to the fascist regime and then later promoting the Soviet line were, however, not quite well known. Before he joined the fascist army he reportedly was of modest means living in an Italian village. The Maino family is now surprisingly said to be worth $2 billion. That is saying quite a lot about the family and its extension to the Indian ruling family that was probably profitably used by the KGB. No wonder, the diaries of a Soviet sleuth Mitrokhin made mention of KGB’s penetration in the PM’s House.

What was written in “Congress Darshan” on Nehru for which eventually the editor was sacked is also largely true. It is true that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel differed with Nehru in respect of the latter’s Kashmir and Tibet policies. While Nehru was a romantic living in his own make-believe world where everything was hunky dory and where there were no enemies, only friends and well-wishers, Sardar was a realist and practical and knew how nations play the power games. Nehru deluded himself by believing that India had no enemies even as Pakistan-backed raiders were committing aggression in Jammu & Kashmir.

While Nehru did not protest against invasion of Tibet by China, Patel saw clearly what was coming. His letter of 17^th November 1950 to Nehru is an exceptionally clear-headed exposition of external and internal implications of Chinese occupation of Tibet. As China was exterminating a buffer state, bringing the unfriendly neighbour right to the Himalayas Nehru, taking no note of Patel’s letter, was still singing of “Panchsheel” and “Hindi Chini bhai bhai”. Only the humiliating 1962 defeat knocked him back into senses. But it was too late – the animus between the two countries has continued.

Patel, on the other hand, successfully integrated 562 princely states in the Indian Union by August 1947. These were rendered free after the lapse of Paramountcy – the supremacy of the British Crown over them. Keen on saving India from balkanization, he had announced that he did not recognize the right of any state to remain independent and in isolation within India. With strong-arm methods he broke the separatist princes’ union and by 15^th August 1947 all princely states except Junagarh, Hyderabad and Kashmir had joined the Indian Union.

As for Junagadh, a Hindu majority state wth a Muslim Nawab, Patel saw to it that conditions were created for a forcible takeover despite the fact the Nawab had opted for Pakistan. Hyderabad was, however, a tough nut – a state with Hindu majority surrounded by India from all sides. Its Nizam tried all the options, from remaining independent to opting for Pakistan or remaining as a dominion under the British Commonwealth. All this was not so difficult to fathom as was the opposition from within the Indian Government. While Patel wanted to send in the Army, Nehru would have none of it. There were reportedly sharp exchanges between Nehru and Patel in a cabinet meeting over sending the Army during which Nehru is said to have called Patel a “total communalist”. Soon, however, a report of rape of a British woman in Hyderabad provoked him to take a “U” turn and the Indian Army, made to wait battle-ready in the wings by Patel, was asked to march into Nizam’s Hyderabad.

Like all other princely states Kashmir surprisingly was not being handled by Patel who used to be the Home Minister. Nehru, though was the Foreign Minister apart from being the Prime Minister, for no rhyme or reason kept “Kashmir” in his portfolio - and made a thorough mess of it. Firstly he seems to have been instrumental in having the Kashmir accession delayed because of his close friend Sheik Abdullah whom he wanted to be freed from the prison term he was undergoing. (Ironically, he had to put Sheikh under arrest in 1953.) Thus on 26^th October 1947 when the instrument of accession was being signed Pakistan Army-backed raiders were already in Kashmir. In the ensuing war Nehru prevented the Indian Army to push the raiders back to where they came from. Instead he, ill-advisedly, took the matter to United Nations – and that too not under Chapter VII under which the UN could take armed action against the aggressors but under Chapter VI for resolution of a dispute. Kashmir was a case of Pakistani aggression, not a dispute about determination of sovereignty over the state. The so-called “dispute” has been festering all these years like a cancer - and there is no end in sight. As if all this was not enough, Nehru later put another albatross round the country’s neck by forcing Baba Saheb Ambedkar, despite his vehement protests, to include Article 370 in the Constitution awarding a special status to Kashmir.

Curiously, the Congress Party is unable to accept the truths about the mistakes made by Nehru. Despite all his good work in many other spheres, Nehru was a failure in dealing with Pakistan and China. But for him we would have been free of many of the serious seemingly perennial issues that have been plaguing us in respect of our relations with these two countries. His many other failings and foibles, including dislike for certain contemporaries during the freedom struggle, are narrated in detail by RNP Singh in his intensively researched book “Nehru, the troubled legacy”.

 On hindsight, Sardar Patel with much greater administrative acumen may well have made a better and far more effective prime minister. But all hat is among the numerous “ifs” of our post-independence history.

"Cash for votes" - sensational WikiLeak disclosures

That voters in India are routinely bribed in cash or kind is a well-known phenomenon. In Tamilnadu according to WikiLeaks, it is commonplace, as indeed it is elsewhere in the country. Indians are also familiar with what is generally known as “horse trading” that involves in huge amounts of cash changing hands when, post-elections, political parties engage in government formation to find that majority in the “house” that elude them at the hustings. Likewise, Indians have been taking bribing of legislators for voting for a minority government in the state or national legislatures during trust-votes, by and large, in their stride.

Nevertheless, the expose’ by the highly respected newspaper “The Hindu” of the “cash for votes” cables sent from the US Embassy and procured from WikiLeaks, seemingly, set the cat among the pigeons. The cables talked of millions of rupees being paid to a certain political party at the time of the 2008 no-confidence motion moved against the Manmohan Singh government that lost its majority in the Lower House on withdrawal of support by the Left parties over the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.

The July 22 2008 no-confidence motion moved against United Progressive Alliance government by the Opposition was followed by tremendous amount of theatrics. Three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs came rushing into the Lok Sabha, the Lower House, waving bundles of currency notes in front of the Speaker, alleging attempts by Samajwadi Party (SP), then a supporter of the government, to bribe them with a crore (ten million) of rupees each for voting for the government. The name of Amar Singh, then of the SP and a well-known political wheeler-dealer, was mentioned in this connection. The expose’ was result of a sting operation by CNN-IBN news channel, masterminded by one Sudhindra Kulkarni, a BJP ideologue.

The money was seized by the Speaker and, later, a committee of Lok Sabha was constituted to probe into the matter. Failing to arrive at a definite conclusion even though video tapes and other documents relating records of phone calls etc. were submitted to it by the news channel and the BJP, respectively, the Committee exonerated Amar Singh but labelled his aide, one Sanjeev Saxena, as a bribe-giver who was caught on camera bribing a BJP MP. Unable to probe further for reasons of rules and procedures, the Committee suggested further investigations into the matter. However, neither the matter was probed further nor the case registered at the instance of the Speaker with the local police pursued. The Manmohan Singh government survived the motion with the help of a few abstentions and support of a few BJP MPs who defied the party’s whip.

In the context of what happened in the Parliament in July 2008, contents of the leaked cable are perfectly credible. It is quite likely that as a measure of abundant caution the Congress Party attempted to muster as many votes as possible in favour of the government. After all, the Prime Minister was deeply committed to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the government (and his party) had to take all possible measures to ensure its survival to push it through. Apart from using Amar Singh to bribe some BJP MPs, the Congress, apparently, pitched on the MPs of Rashtriya Lok Dal, a regional political outfit of Uttar Pradesh (UP), more open to the lure of money. Headed by one Ajit Singh, a man of dubious reputation, the party has frequently figured in reports of its involvement in lending support for monetary considerations to shaky governments. Apparently, the US Embassy contact was told that the MPs of RLD had been paid a billion rupees each. Their reputation is such that even the Congressman, Nachiketa Kapur, who organised the payment, was not sure whether they would vote in favour of the government even after having been bribed. He, however, boasted that there was enough kept away in chests for further pay-offs, if necessary.

Yet another factor that makes the cable credible is the mention of Capt. Satish Sharma, an MP in Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, who also was met with by the US Embassy contact. Looks like, Capt. Sharma and Kapur were jointly in charge of the operation of bribing the RLD MPs. Once a close friend of the Late Rajiv Gandhi, he is now a close associate of Sonia Gandhi, widow of Rajiv Gandhi and the current Congress President. With a chequered political career and several brushes with the law, he, seemingly, has been involved in the dirty work of the Congress. He was also involved in 1993 in bribing the MPs of another regional political outfit, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), to save the minority Congress government of the Late Narsimha Rao in a trust-vote moved by the BJP. The investigations had revealed that various industrialists had paid Rs 13 crore (130 million) to Capt Satish Sharma, who arranged payments to the JMM MPs out of this amount. Narsimha Rao’s government did survive the trust vote.

Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, brazened out the WikiLeaks disclosures by an outright denial of the allegations of bribery and rejected the charge of the Opposition, which he said was based on “speculative, unverified and unverifiable'' communication, and told Parliament that none from the government or the Congress indulged in any unlawful act during that time. He went on to say that the government “cannot confirm the veracity, contents or even the existence of such communication.” At the then ongoing India Today Conclave he had said, “I have no knowledge of any such purchases and I am absolutely categorical, I have not authorised anyone to purchase any votes. I am not aware of any acts of purchase of votes…I am absolutely certain in asserting that I am not at all, I think, involved in any of these transactions”.

Nobody is buying what Dr. Singh has been saying in denial. Not only there was enough evidence gathered earlier, the US officials have since certified the accuracy and credibility of the cables now released by WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, Editor in-Chief of WikiLeaks, branded Dr. Singh’ statements of denial as “misleading”, a charge that is serious when made against a prime minister. Generally known for his clean image, Indian people are aghast at the way the Prime Minister, with his distinguished academic and bureaucratic background, staked his reputation and all that he had for winning a trust-vote to see a mere deal through. At a recent interview with the editors of Indian TV news channels he had said, that after his academic and bureaucratic stints, politics was a fresh field that was providing him a new learning experience. Apparently, he has been very quick in picking up the tricks of his current trade.

Apart from the image of Dr. Singh, the image of Congress has taken a severe beating. The grand old party, now more than a century and a quarter old, has, somewhere down in the post-independence years, lost its moral fibre and has acquired an insatiable lust for power. This very lust may see the end of it. Mahatma Gandhi happened to say in 1948 “...in the ungainly skirmish for power, it (Congress) will find one fine morning that it is no more.” That may well happen with the contemptible riff-raff that it now constitutes of, unless the party immediately sets about correcting its course.