Friday January 19, 2018
Home Politics PM Modi still...

PM Modi still holds the upper hand, seniors on backfoot in BJP

0
//
65
Republish
Reprint

By promising, in response to a query in London, that the law will not spare those disturbing social harmony in the land of the Buddha and Gandhi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has taken much of the sting out of the complaints of those protesting against the supposedly prevailing “intolerance”.

The heightened prospects of economic cooperation with Britain are also likely to dispel some of the doom and gloom enveloping the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after the Bihar debacle.

On both these counts, which have been worrying a section of the intelligentsia as well as Modi’s pro-development supporters inside and outside the saffron camp, the PM Modi and his party can be said to have retrieved some of the lost ground after Bihar.

But whether these latest developments will take the wind out of the sails of the party elders who have suddenly raised the banner of revolt is unclear since there is some substance in their accusation that the party is run by a Gang of Two, comprising PM Modi and his Man Friday, Amit Shah, the BJP president.

The veterans, or the old fogeys, as they might be called behind their backs, are also unlikely to give up their quest for seeking accountability for the Bihar defeat, which is another way to nail the Gang of Two for treating the party as their personal fiefdom.

It is too early to say, therefore, that Modi’s troubles are over if only because the BJP’s present-day leaders at the helm cannot afford to dismiss the grouses of the party’s senior citizens as a “manufactured” rebellion, as Finance Minister Arun Jaitley described the decision of a section of the writers, historians, scientists, film-makers and others to return their awards in protest against the climate of “intolerance”.

The voluble disdain which the party felt for the “Nehruvian” and “Leftist” intellectuals, to quote the finance minister again, was accompanied by silent disapproval of the “brain dead” golden oldies, as Yashwant Sinha said was the Modi-Shah duo’s attitude towards those in the 70-plus age group.

Following a brief promise to listen to the complaints of the elders, the duo took a step backwards and deputed Union minister Nitin Gadkari to tell the critics that they are embarrassing the party.

The battle, therefore, has been joined between those below and above 70. Which side will emerge victorious will depend, first, on whether Modi and Co. can win a major election, say, in Uttar Pradesh in 2017 – next year’s elections in Assam, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal are in states where the BJP doesn’t have much influence – and, secondly, on whether there is a perceptive improvement in the economic situation.

It is with the latter objective in mind that the government has gone in for what can be called small bang reforms on foreign investment. But these take the time to bear fruit.

Of greater urgency for the government is to keep the Prime Minister’s London promise to crack down on the wild-eyed saffron militants who have been killing rationalists and beef-eaters.

The result has been that regional leaders promising to eradicate corruption and pursuing their own model of growth in an atmosphere of communal harmony have won two assembly elections in a row.

The reason why Jaitley earlier and Gadkari later have been erecting a protective ring around the Nos.1 and 2 in the BJP is easy to see. As in any other party, interwoven links of patronage and privilege tie the denizens of the corridors of power with those just outside.

To be fair, the BJP is not the only party which tends to be impervious to criticism. The Congress, for instance, enacted the farce of its Nos.1 and 2 offering to resign after the party was humbled in the 2014 parliamentary polls and were urged to stay on by their loyal courtiers.

That there is an element of jealousy in the revolt of the sidelined elders is undeniable. While L.K. Advani had resolutely opposed Modi’s elevation till he realized that he was fighting a losing battle, others like Murli Manohar Joshi and Yashwant Sinha were disappointed at not being accommodated in the cabinet. There is little doubt that they were waiting for an opportunity to strike back.

It is not clear, however, whether the veterans are as distressed by the antics of the Hindu Right as, say, the secular camp. After all, as home minister, Advani had casually brushed aside any suggestions about the Bajrang Dal being involved in the arson attack on the Christian missionary, Graham Staines, and his two sons in an Odisha village in 1999 while the then human resource development minister Joshi, and defence minister George Fernandes, described the grisly deaths as the result of an “international conspiracy”. The views of Arun Shourie, now a regular critic of the government, were similar.

Joshi’s other claim to fame is that he was Smriti Irani’s predecessor in the task of saffronizing education and in proclaiming that foreign investment was tantamount to “looting”.

Since personal pique rather than any ideological difference is behind the stirrings among the mothballed elders, who do not seem to have anything substantial in the way of policies to offer, PM Modi still holds the upper hand. He now needs a few victories to maintain his lead.

(Amulya Ganguli, IANS)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 NewsGram

Next Story

CJI faces revolt from four senior most SC judges

The four judges -- Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Kurian Joseph and Madan B. Lokur besides Justice Chelameswar -- released a letter they wrote to Justice Misra a couple of months ago

0
//
16
Supreme court went into a frenzy as four senior judges revolt against CJI. Wikimedia Common
Supreme court went into a frenzy as four senior judges revolt against CJI. Wikimedia Common
  • The sudden revolt against Chief Justice of India (CJI) by the four senior-most judges of Supreme Court has sent the whole judicial system into an uproar.
  • The four judges accused the CJI of corruption and breaches in a surprise Press Conference.
  • Judge Loya’s death’s controversy, supposedly, sparked this reaction out of the other judges.

Divisions in the Supreme Court burst out in the open on Friday when four senior-most judges took an unprecedented step of addressing the media to accuse Chief Justice Dipak Misra of breaching rules in assigning cases to appropriate benches, with one of them pointing to the plea regarding the mysterious death of Special CBI judge B. H. Loya.

The hurried press conference was called to reveal CJI's corruption. Pixabay
The hurried press conference was called to reveal CJI’s corruption. Pixabay

At a hurriedly called press conference at his residence, Justice J. Chelameswar and three other colleagues said the Supreme Court administration was “not in order” and their efforts to persuade Justice Misra even this morning “with a specific request” failed, forcing them to “communicate with the nation” directly.

The four judges — Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Kurian Joseph and Madan B. Lokur besides Justice Chelameswar — released a letter they wrote to Justice Misra a couple of months ago, conceding that he was the master of roster but that was “not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual of the Chief Justice over his colleagues”.

Asked specifically if they were upset over reference of the matter seeking a probe into the suspicious death of Judge Loya, Justice Gogoi said: “Yes.”

Judge Loya's death is said to have happened due to a conspiracy. Pixabay
Judge Loya’s death is said to have happened due to a conspiracy. Pixabay

Judge Loya, who was hearing a case relating to the killing of gangster Sohrabuddin Sheikh in an alleged fake shootout in which BJP chief Amit Shah was named an accused (later discharged), died of cardiac arrest in 2014. His family has raised doubts over the circumstances in which Judge Loya died and have sought an independent probe into it.

Plea’s seeking probe came up for a hearing in the Supreme Court on Friday when the top court expressed concerns over it and said it was a “serious issue”. It asked the Maharashtra government to produce all the documents related to the case before January 15.

In a seven-page letter, the four judges said they were not mentioning details of the cases only to avoid embarrassing the institution because “such departures have already damaged the images of this institution to some extent”.

The clash among the judges in the highest court also comes in the wake of a controversial order in November in which Justice Misra declared that the Chief Justice “is the master of the roster” having exclusive power to decide which case will go to which judge.

The CJI called himself 'master of roster' further enraging other judges. Pixabay
The CJI called himself ‘master of the roster’ further enraging other judges. Pixabay

The CJI had given the order a day after a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar had passed an order that a five-judge bench of senior most judges in the apex court should be set up to consider an independent probe into a corruption case in which bribes were allegedly taken in the name of settling cases pending before Supreme Court judges.

Holding that the Chief Justice was only the first among equals, the four judges contended that there were well-settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the Chief Justice in dealing with the strength of the bench required or the composition thereof.

“A necessary corollary to the above-mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body, including this court, would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition-wise and strength-wise with due regard to the roster fixed,” they wrote in the letter.

They said any departure from the two rules would not only lead to “unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution” but would create “chaos”.

The four judges also touched upon another controversial issue, the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) on the appointment of judges over which the Supreme Court had locked horns with the government.

The four judges also touched upon other problematic issues. deliason.files.wordpress.com
The four judges also touched upon other problematic issues. deliason.files.wordpress.com

The government, the letter said, had not responded to the communication and “in view of this silence it must be taken that the MoP has been accepted by the government on the basis of the order of this court”.

Justice Chelameswar told the media that they were “convinced that unless this institution is protected and maintains its requirements, democracy will not survive in the country or any country… The hallmark of a democracy is independent and impartial judges.

“Since all our efforts failed… Even this morning, on a particular issue, we went and met the Chief Justice with a specific request. Unfortunately, we could not convince him that we were right.”

Justice Gogoi said they were “discharging the debt to the nation that has got us here”.

The government appeared to distance itself from the controversy, saying the judges should sort the issue themselves.

Minister of State for Law P. Chaudhary said: “Our judiciary is one of the known, recognised judiciaries in the world. It is an independent judiciary. At this stage, I think no agency is required to intervene or interfere. The Chief Justice and other members should sit together and resolve. There is no question of panic.”

the matter should be resolved among the judges themselves, says P. Chaudhary.

The Supreme Court split had an immediate political fallout, with CPI leader D. Raja saying after meeting Justice Chelameswar that Parliament will have to devise methods to sort out problems like this in the top judiciary.

Two judges, Justice S. A. Bobde and Justice L. Nageshwar Rao, are understood to have called on Justice Chelameswar. IANS