& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Aping needs no copyright

Kuldip Nayar writes from New Delhi
THE BJP cannot win in parliament what it lost at the polls. That is what the party must have realised after disturbing parliament from day one, session after session. Whether it can face the fact of defeat or loss of office remains to be seen. Its opposition, the party has said, will take "some other shape." Protests are normal in democracy. They are expressed in different ways to register criticism. But when they assume the proportion of not letting the instruments of democracy to function, as the BJP was doing, they are motivated and serve little purpose. The pendulum of public opinion swings from one side to another. The protest itself gets trivialised. Ultimately, the BJP seems to have realised that the public was exasperated over its behaviour.
When the government agreed to a debate in parliament on the recall of governors and the tainted ministers, the matter should have ended there and then. Opposition leader L.K. Advani did not sound credible when he brought in morality to justify what his party was doing. He himself was a tainted minister who was charged for conspiracy in the demolition of the Babri masjid. It was not the violation of Section 144, the argument he advanced to defend himself. He should have quitted the government. Instead, he rewarded the CBI director who had dropped the charge against him. There is no doubt that the Congress has not set healthy precedents. Its role was abominable when it disrupted the last parliament again and again. But the BJP was foolish to copy the worst examples of the Congress. The BJP has set a still more reprehensible precedent. How does it
help the party or the democratic polity in the country?
If political parties were to assess thefalloutfrom stalling parliament, the BJP would not have done what it did and the Congress would have expressed regret over disturbing the last parliament. The BJP might have had the satisfaction of paying the Congress in the same coin. But by doing so, it has brought down the image of Indian parliament. Even BBC showed in its world service the members heckling and the Speaker standing helplessly.
People in Bangladesh began to losefaith in their parliament when the Bangladesh Nationalist Party boycotted it after the defeat in elections and when the Awami League did the same thing when it
was in the opposition. After perceiving people's anger, the Awami League has decided to return to parliament. Maybe, this influenced the BJP.
By silencing those who differ, no principle can be defended. The BJP's approach is not that of tolerance, of feeling that perhaps others might also have some share of the truth. It looks as if the party's purpose is to get political mileage. It may not even get that. The party is only alienating public opinion. Is
there no forum other than parliament where the Congress and the BJP can settle scores? They are wasting time when so many bills are pendingfor approval and so many important problems are to be discussed. Members are oblivious of thefact that the parliament session costs 12 million rupees per day.
Coming to the points the BJP has raised, the office ofgovernor has, no doubt, been devalued by the Congress. The party appointed its men, even the defeated ones in election, to the exalted position. The BJP copied the Congress in appointments and went to the extent of even optingfor the RSS sanchalaks (preachers). It is strange that the BJP on the one hand should tell its appointees not to resign and, on the
other, point out that a governor is a constitutional authority, above party politics.
The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations recommended in the eighties that the governors should be "persons who have not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past." The National Commission to review the working of the constitution supported Justice Sarkaria but adversely commented on the institution. It said: "By and
large, the picture has not been an inspiring one. This is because very often active politicians, politicians defeated at the polls and men lacking in integrity and fairness and individuals not possessing an understanding of the constitutional system _ persons who were more interested in their personal career than public good _ were chosen for this office."
In all fairness, the political appointees should themselves quit when a new government assumes power. It is up to the incoming government to ask them to stay back. But neither the Congress nor the BJP has followed this precept. What the Janata government did in 1977, Mrs Indira Gandhi repeated in 1980, dismissing governors not to their
liking. The question is not constitutional, asformer Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has claimed. The constitution says clearly that the governor will hold office "at the pleasure" of the President, although a tenure of five years has been mentioned. The question is moral. Should a new government ask the governors appointed by its predecessor to quit before the end oftheir term? Both parties have acted wrongly. The BJP dismissed governors appointed by Narasimha Rao,
Deve Gowda, and Inder Gujral. The Congress has acted likewise. Unfortunately, the latter's first two appointees -- R.L. Bhatia in Kerala and Balram Jhakar in Madhya Pradesh -- were defeated in the Lok Sabha elections. Neither of the two parties can take a moral stand.
My hunch is that the BJP is making all the noise to stop the Congress from firing the RSS men who penetrated the fields of education, information, and social welfare during the Vajpayee's regime. True, the tenure of the appointees should be respected. But what should the Congress-led government do when the BJP men have blocked top positions in most of the institutions? The point to consider is why should the government appoint people with ideological commitment in the first instance?
The operation of a new regime becomes difficult when the instruments it has to work with are defective. One glaring example is that of the Prashar Bharati chairman. He contributes a weekly column to The Organiser, the RSS official organ. No wonder, the entire set-up has developed a pro-BJP tilt. It has even a black list to keep the critics out of Doordarshan and Akashvani programmes.
The appointment of "tainted ministers", indeed, raises pertinent questions. Legally, there is no bar for a minister to continue until he or she is convicted by a court of law. But morally, no person should be appointed minister if there is any criminal case pending against him. The Vajpayee government had Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi and the Manmohan Singh government has such ministers as Laloo Prasad Yadav and Taslimuddin. The predicament of the Congress is that if it were to drop the tainted ministers it would endanger the life of its government. The BJP's predicament was how it could ask two of its top leaders to quit. Consequently, political considerations came to the fore, pushing norms and values into the background. So long as civil society does not assert itself, the nation will continue to be buffeted by winds of politics and opportunism. Can it refuse to be co-opted into the system which is reeking with corruption be it that of money or power -- is the question.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.