Editorial...

Office of Profit Bill
mocks at Sonia’s tyag

Whatever else it may be, on the Office of Profit issue, the UPA position remains pitiable and embarrassing. UPA did succeed in garnering support to get it through in Parliament. Yet the measure has not gone well with the people. With the passing of this Bill the accused got bestowed with the power to sit in judgement on his own conduct and declare himself innocent, with honour and dignity, of the crime he did actually commit and to inspire future generations to commit the same crime with impunity because the very definition of crime has been changed into one of a benevolent act. Never has the country witnessed such a novel way to provide a halo of respectability to the acts of crime, not even under feudal regimes or alien governments.

A drowning man uses every trick to save himself. The Left supporting UPA Government from inside (or is it outside?) seemed too impatient to support the Bill so that the Damocles’ Sword of disqualification hanging over some of its important leaders could be removed. They were solely dependant on the mercy of UPA to get out of this imbroglio and that is why, of late, their tone and tenor about the alliance has somewhat softened. They have never displayed such alacrity and promptness on burning issues and problems facing the common people as they did in the case of Office of Profit Bill. This was the only issue on which they marched forward firmly. Otherwise they have always retraced their steps, without regret, whenever they opposed Government on matters such as hike in prices of petroleum products and the like. During the discussion, faces of the Red brigade turned red. UPA too seemed to be suffering from a sense of guilt. No ruling party had indulged in a crusade like this to get its shame of crime converted into a pride of innocence.

In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Amendment Bill it had been mentioned that “it has become necessary to revisit the issue of disqualification” as 40 or more Members from both Houses of Parliament are holding office of profit which will necessitate the holding of by-elections. “This will be a wasteful expenditure”, it stated. If that was so, why did Smt. Sonia Gandhi indulge in the tyag nautanki and resignation? Why did she then contest the election again? Did this by-election not involve “wasteful expenditure” which could be avoided? Why was an attempt made to befool the people? The interesting point to note is that the Left while boasting of principles actually committed this immoral act. After all they too had to save 12 of their senior Left leaders who were equally guilty of holding an office of profit while being MPs. In the process they wanted to sneak out of the back-door to escape unnoticed through a narrow lane. But they, perhaps, forget that people keep a close watch on everything and no person, however clever, can escape their prying eyes. People’s mandate is much superior to and powerful than a majority cobbled together through opportunistic alliances. And if people strike, they can make the majority lick the dust of defeat.

The Bill has unmasked another lie. When Smt. Sonia Gandhi was left with no alternative but to resign because she was holding an office of profit as an MP, at the time of resigning both as MP and Chairperson of NAC on March 23, she stated: “For the last two days, some people have been trying to create an atmosphere as if the Government and Parliament are being used to favour me. This has hurt me very much.”. But when the Bill was presented, it only proved the NDA charge that the session had been abruptly adjourned sine die only to save the skin of Smt. Sonia Gandhi by proposing to bring in an Ordinance (as an ordinance cannot be promulgated when Parliament is in session). The plan got derailed in the face of virulent opposition from NDA. And in the amendment brought forward the first office to have been exempted from disqualification is that of “the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council” constituted vide the Government of India order “dated the 31st May 2004”. What is then left of the tyag nautanki? And remember everybody, including the Prime Minister, had been claiming that she had earned no disqualification. If they were right, then why this amendment?

Whatever exercise the UPA has undertaken to save itself squarely violates the letter and spirit of Article 102 and 103 of the Constitution. Congress is adept at putting UPA and its own interests above the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The reality will dawn on it when confronted by the people it will face an ignominious fall. On the strength of the facts and arguments the former Law Minister Shri Arun Jaitley has already put the UPA government in the dock.

The alliance partners of UPA too found the Amendment Bill a hasty, half-baked measure and wanted it to be referred to a committee for detailed examination. After that they want a comprehensive debate on the issue.

The Opposition termed it as “Common Minimum Profit” Bill instead of the Office of Profit Bill. It could also be called as the “Save UPA Bill”. The common MP is worried about the message this amendment Bill will send out to the people. Public will draw its own conclusion: that in order to enjoy the fruits of office of profit, the lawmakers who draw their authority from the Constitution themselves overlooked the Constitution. Samajwadi Party MP Shri Amar Singh said if the Congress had to bring in this Bill why did it allow a Congressman to approach the Supreme Court for disqualification of Smt. Jaya Bachchan? Why was she made a scapegoat? If this type of Bill was envisaged in that situation what should the resignation of Smt. Sonia Gandhi be called—a balidaan or a crime? Samajwadi Party leaders were very critical of this measure. Shri Sitaram Yechury spoke, but only for the sake of speaking. How could he rake up the issue of morality? Whatever may have been the reasons and circumstances under which UPA succeeded in getting the Bill through, it has certainly resulted in loss of face for UPA in eyes of the people.