Connect with us

Opinion

When the CBI Director lost his post during Vajpayee government

Arti Ghargi

Published

on

CBI

The civil war within CBI is first of its kind. However, the overnight, hasty removal of CBI director Alok Verma serves a sense of Déjà vu.

 

On early Wednesday night, the 2 Janpath witnessed a development that was well just a beginning of the snowballing crisis. The CBI Director Alok Verma was sent on forced leave along with the warring Special Director of CBI Rakesh Asthana. Not only the two topmost officials of India’s premier agency were forced to vacate the office but the entire team of officials that was probing the corruption case against Asthana was mass transferred overnight.

CBI Chief who has a clean record and is known as a stickler of rules challenged the Centre’s decision in the Supreme Court. He urged for an urgent hearing. However, the Apex Court has listed Verma’s plea for hearing on Friday. This rude removal of the CBI director has now become the thorn in the flesh for the Modi government. As pointed in this story earlier, the CBI fracas trail leads to Rafale connection which might explain the knee-jerk reaction by the government. Incidentally, the civil war within the CBI and the public fallout that followed is first of its kind. However, the overnight, hasty removal of CBI director Alok Verma serves a sense of Déjà vu.

Congress

Image Source: Web

This is not the first time the head of the CBI has been shown the door abruptly for supposedly not toeing the government’s line. This has first happened during the NDA 1 regime. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister of the country. Trinath Mishra had taken charge of the Central Bureau of investigation as the Director. He had served as the head of Special Protection Group under four Prime Ministers—Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh, Chandrashekhar and PV Narasimha Rao. From the beginning, Mishra refused to bow down to the political powers. It is said that this was precisely why he was removed from his post. At that time, the tenure of the CBI director was not fixed and the government would call the shots on appointments and removals.

As mentioned by Trinath Mishra in his version of stories here, the CBI dealt with some high profile cases during his tenure including the death cases caused by adulterated mustard oil, theft of idols from Shivpuri, the prosecution in Bofors and fodder scam, Bombay riots. However, it was the case related to the Business Tycoon late Dhirubhai Ambani that led to his wrangle with the Vajpayee government.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Atal Bihari Vajpayee in PM chair

On November 19, 1998, exactly when it clocked eight a team of CBI officers in their signature white ambassador arrived at Mumbai’s elite area of Cuff Parade. CBI- the premier Anti-Corruption body arriving at the elite areas of Mumbai where the rich lived was itself a big news. The bigger news was the CBI raid on the house of Dhirubhai Ambani. The team also had a search warrant. The simultaneous raids were also conducted at the Reliance offices in Mumbai as well as Delhi. The raid went on for as many as eight hours.

This was for the first time in many years that a company as big as Reliance was being raided by the CBI. The raids were carried in connection with the violation of the Official Secrets Act. The CBI was carrying out a search operation to find whether Ambani group and Reliance had any confidential government file.

Initially, Reliance tried to scuttle the issue away but it was too big a development to push under the carpet. On November 20, the Ambani group finally confirmed that CBI indeed raided its premises. A report published in The Outlook ten days later revealed that some sensitive documents were found in the raids. Allegedly, the documents were related to the deal between Reliance Corporation and Indian Oil Corporation. The sources told The Outlook that the documents contained classified information from petroleum ministry which came under the ambit of Official Secrets Act.

CBI

Image Source: Web

The entire episode started with the arrest of Daud Ibrahim’s henchman Romesh Sharma in Delhi. Apparently, the trails of information from Sharma led to former Reliance Industries Delhi President Balasubramaniam. The CBI raided his house too where they found confidential documents. This led to suspicion of more such documents being in possession of Reliance industries. Within a month, CBI raided Dhirubhai Ambani’s house and offices across the two metro cities.

However, the then PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani were not in favour of the raids. According to Mishra, the duo had made it clear that they didn’t want the CBI to raid Reliance group. Though there wasn’t any direct order to stop the raids, the tacit pressure was always there. The raid created a lot of storm in the media. Apparently, after the raids, Dhirubhai Ambani also dialled the PMO and talked to Vajpayee. Soon after, Mishra was removed from the post. He served on the post only for 14 months. In his article, he mentions that his reputation was of an upright and uptight IPS officer who didn’t toe the line drawn by the politicians.

CBI

Image Source: Web

It is only a coincidence that after almost 20 years the history is repeating itself and that too under NDA 2. The regime and the bureaucrats may have changed over the years but what has remained constant throughout the years is the political meddling in the working of India’s premier investigating agency. In fact, it wouldn’t be wrong to say the political infiltration has infected the system and situation has only worsened. What can be a more evident example than the fact that four IB officers were caught snooping outside Alok Verma’s residence today morning? Though IB denies that they were spying on Verma, the timing does raise a lot of doubt.

It proves that the rot is not only in the CBI but deep in India’s premier institutions which are trusted with independent and unbiased functioning.

Opinion

Is Modi government playing with fire with the Savarna Reservation?

Arti Ghargi

Published

on

We have seen a number of examples in the past where political leaders tried to meddle with the reservation policies which resulted in nothing but the electoral disaster.

 

On Monday, the Modi cabinet raised the heat amidst the ongoing winter session of parliament by clearing 10% reservation for the economically weaker upper castes. The cabinet decided to amend the Constitution so that the “economically backward” upper castes will get 10% reservation in direct recruitment in government services and admission to higher educational institutions.

The proposed reservation will be over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation enjoyed by the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes, taking the total reservation to 60 per cent. Among the major castes to benefit from the proposed law are Brahmins, Rajputs (Thakurs), Jats, Marathas, Bhumihars, several trading castes, Kapus and Kammas among other Upper Castes.

As the news took over the TV screens and print columns, it was projected as a “Master Stroke” by the Modi government. Some even called it a “Surgical Strike” ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Considering the Savarna backlash that the government received over the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities (amendment) act, this might have been a last-ditch attempt by the ruling BJP to save its Upper Caste voters. Incidentally, the upper caste Hindus are its core vote banks. Thus, this move was being seen as vote bank motivated.

The question, however, remains whether it is actually effective or ground? Whether it will pay the electoral dividends the party is hoping for? Will the move achieve consolidation of both, Dalit and Savarna voters in favour of BJP?

BJP may hope the answer is in affirmative. But a quick scanning of pages of India’s political history can easily tell that it is otherwise. On the contrary, we have seen a number of examples in the past where political leaders tried to meddle with the reservation policies which resulted in nothing but the electoral disaster in the immediate elections.

Karpoori Thakur:

Karpoori Thakur was the first political leader to have felt the heat on the ballot box due to his decisions regarding the reservation policies. The socialist leader who was Bihar’s first non-Congress Chief minister first introduced the reservation for the economically backward upper castes in the country. His decision was based on the findings of the Mungeri Lal Commission. This commission had suggested a total 26% reservation in the state, of which 20% were for the OBC, 3% for the women of any background and 3% reservation for the poor Savarnas.

Karpoori Thakur decided to implement the reservation formula in Bihar in November 1978. However, he decided to divide the OBC category into two other sub-categories for the distribution of quotas, i.e. Extreme Backward Class (EBC) and Backward Class (BC). While EBC were allotted 12% quota, BC was allotted 8%.

Electorally, it proved to be disastrous for the leader. He had to endure major upper caste backlash for this move. Within a week, he had to vacate the CM chair. The reservation policy he introduced is popularly known as “Karpoori Thakur Formula”. The policy was halted in 1992-93 until the Supreme Court quashed it. However, with the Modi government’s new reservation card, the demand for implementing the formula in government jobs and educational opportunities has started gaining pace in Bihar.

reservation

Image Source: Web

VP Singh:

Who can forget the political debacle VP Singh brought upon himself by announcing the implementation of Mandal commission report. Not only the country burned for months following violent protests but the controversial move proved to be a fatal blow to VP Singh’s political career.

In August 1990, seven years after the Mandal Commission report on the identification of OBC’s based on 11 parameters, VP Singh in his independence day address declared his intention of implementing the commission’s suggestions. The report proposed OBCs to be given 27% reservation making the total number of reservation go up to 49%.

This move sparked a series of student protest. The Self-immolation committed by more than 50 students across the country and suicide attempts by more than 100 people marked the end of the VP Singh’s minority government. Just 11 months after he took oath as the Prime Minister, VP Singh had to step down and was succeeded by Chandra Shekhar.

reservation

Image Source: Web

Bhupinder Huda:

Having witnessed the fire sparked by the controversial reservation policies, Congress (UPA) for most of its term kept the reservation off its priority. Until 2014, when it made a last-ditch attempt to win the election, touched the reservation issue.

On the face of elections, Congress proposed to include Jats in Other Backward Class category. The Jat reservation only resulted in violent protests and hartals in the state. The Supreme Court eventually rejected it. The Congress, as we know, was reduced to only 1 seat.

Image Source: Web

Prithviraj Chavan:

The Congress-NCP coalition government in the state of Maharashtra too followed the suite off Haryana government. The Prithviraj Chavan-led coalition government announced 16% reservation for the Marathas who have been demanding reservation since long. The move did not prove much fruitful as the coalition had to face dismal numbers in the immediate assembly election.

Image Source: Web

These and many other cases in the past prove that any decision with regards to the reservation is equal to playing with fire. Thus, it begs a question whether the Modi government has learnt the time and again tested lesson provided by Indian Politics. With the recent decision, it seems it hasn’t or perhaps, it has chosen to ignore it.

Will it turn out to be political suicide for Modi government as well? Or will he be successful in breaking the jinx?

Continue Reading

Opinion

Don’t need Congress, SP-BSP strong enough to defeat BJP in UP: Kiranmoy Nanda

Published

on

By

SP-BSP

Kolkata | Samajwadi Party (SP) national vice-president Kiranmoy Nanda on Sunday said his party, together with the BSP, is strong enough to defeat the BJP in Uttar Pradesh in the upcoming general election and there is no need of an “insignificant” force like the Congress to make it happen.

He, however, hinted that the SP-BSP alliance might just leave aside the Rae Bareli and Amethi constituencies, represented in the Lok Sabha by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Congress president Rahul Gandhi respectively.

“In Uttar Pradesh, the Congress is an insignificant force, so we are not even thinking of including or excluding it. The SP-BSP alliance is the main force which will take on the BJP. The Congress might be there in one or two seats, it is for the Congress to decide what position it wishes to see itself in,” Nanda told PTI in an interview.

His comments came two days after Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) supremo Mayawati and SP leader Akhilesh Yadav moved closer to finalise a seat-sharing formula, ahead of the Lok Sabha polls. Both the leaders held a meeting in New Delhi on Friday.

Nanda felt the Congress was yet to adjust to the mantra of “alliance politics” as it was unwilling to “leave even an inch to its allies in states where it is strong, but expects others to share their pound of flesh with it in states where it is a weak force”.

Asked whether keeping the Congress out of the alliance in Uttar Pradesh would be an advantage for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), he said, “From our past experiences, we can say, in cases where the Congress had fielded candidates against the SP-BSP alliance, we did not face any problem in defeating the BJP. The Congress’s vote share is completely insignificant.

“Rather there have been instances where the Congress had not put up its candidate in a seat and the BJP got its vote share.”

Nanda cited the examples of the Phulpur and Gorakhpur Lok Sabha bypolls, where the Congress had fielded candidates against the SP-BSP nominees, but that did not deter the alliance from defeating the BJP.

Referring to the recently-held Assembly polls in five states, he said had the Congress worked out an alliance in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, the BJP would have faced a complete ouster in the two states.

“Did the Congress go for a pre-poll alliance with the SP-BSP in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan? The answer is no. The Congress’s policy is it will take benefits from everybody, but when it gets an opportunity, it does not want to share it with others,” Nanda said.

The former fisheries minister of West Bengal during the Left Front regime asserted that the SP-BSP alliance would be a “gamechanger” in the general election in Uttar Pradesh, which has 80 Lok Sabha seats.

“Going by the current situation, it is clear that the SP-BSP alliance will sweep Lok Sabha polls in Uttar Pradesh. The BJP will be ousted. The SP will play a vital role in the next government formation at the Centre, but we are not in the prime ministerial race,” he maintained.

In the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, the BJP, along with its allies, had secured 73 of the 80 seats in Uttar Pradesh, whereas the SP had won five and the Congress just two seats.

Nanda also refuted the claims that Shivpal Singh Yadav’s Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia) might play a spoilsport for the SP-BSP alliance in the Hindi heartland state.

“New parties crop up prior to the Lok Sabha polls in politically sensitive Uttar Pradesh, but they fail to create any impact,” he asserted.

Talking about the choice of prime ministerial candidate of the opposition alliance, Nanda said the matter would be decided on the basis of consensus after the polls.

“We are not averse to anyone for the prime minister’s post but that issue will be decided after the polls, following a discussion with all the parties,” he added.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Is “Pliable” offensive because Rahul Gandhi said it?

Arti Ghargi

Published

on

pliable

As the entire hullabaloo surrounding “Pliable” continues, a quick search on Google will tell you what the word means.

 

Many of our journalists on ever-buzzing Indian Twitter are outraging over the word “Pliable”. For those who are completely unaware of how this fairly innocuous-seeming word offended many of my colleagues, let me give you a brief background.

It was on Thursday that Congress President Rahul Gandhi during a press conference sought to take a swipe at Prime Minister Modi’s interview with ANI editor Smita Prakash as being “staged” and lampooning the interviewer as “Pliable”. His remarks were followed by a prompt rebuttal by the ANI chief calling it a “Cheap Shot” and “downright absurd”. “Not expected of a president of the oldest political party in the country,” she tweeted. Many journalists and even politicians (read BJP leaders) came out in her support and slammed Rahul Gandhi for his comments.

“The Grandson of the ‘Emergency dictator’ displays his real DNA – attacks and intimidates an independent Editor,” tweeted Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. Adding a question on the silence of “pseudo-liberals” (Wait. The Irony just died). On the other hand, many others disagreed and saw nothing wrong with Rahul Gandhi’s comment. As the debate around “Pliable” heated, the IT cells of both parties aided their respective sides by releasing interview videos of Modi, Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi- which is supposed to be a commentary on how certain journalists suck up to the rival parties and what “Pliable” journalism looks like.

As the entire hullabaloo surrounding “Pliable” continues, a quick search on Google will tell you what the word means. According to Google, Pliable means easily bent; flexible or easily influenced. The Cambridge dictionary elaborates a little more- (often disapproving) A pliable person is easily influenced and controlled by other people. Now, going by the literal meaning of the word, it is hardly offensive. But as what’s offensive or what’s not is subjective, let us consider for a moment that it was indeed offensive to some. But the subjective cannot be selective.

Was it a standalone incident where politicians indulged in name calling? Hell No! Many journalists on regular basis are subjected to uncivilized criticism just for doing their job. The range of cuss words used to discredit journalists and their work is innumerable. Not to mention the few which you would see in very often which degrade the standard of public discourse. I am sure many of us have been called “Presstitute, Dalal, Baazaru” and what not. And while Mr Jaitley is busy pointing fingers at Rahul Gandhi. Here is how his own cabinet colleague described the journalists as:

 Not to forget the Modi interview to Smita Prakash in which he terms some journalists as “News Traders”.

Now, after the furore, Editors Guild and other journalistic bodies stepped in and condemned Rahul Gandhi for “words” used by him to criticise the ANI chief. Though it wasn’t a standalone case of politicians name-calling journalists, in this particular case the guild stepped in. The promptness is definitely noteworthy.

In the next few lines, the guild raises the question on the objectionable language used by senior BJP leaders and AAP leaders to criticise the journalists and media at large in the past. This condemnation in retrospect hardly seems genuine and comes across as an effort to escape the whataboutery. The guild says that journalists aren’t immune to the civil criticism. Going by this statement, Pliable is more civil than “Presstitute”, “Dalal” or “Baazaru”.

So what was the outrage for? Was it really because of the use of word Pliable? If it is so, why the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy calling journalists “News Traders” doesn’t incite such response? Or was the outrage because it was Rahul Gandhi who said it. Which then means two things: either the fraternity thinks they do not merit criticism from Rahul Gandhi (or any politician, for that matter) or Rahul Gandhi is too civil in his conduct that we as journalists don’t expect him to use such words. The standard for judging Rahul Gandhi is higher than it is for his contemporaries.

In my opinion, politicians should be the last ones criticizing the journalists. But should they be barred from criticizing the media completely? Not at all. But if we are to condemn them for their comments the ground should be the same for every politician.

Continue Reading

Popular Stories

Copyright © 2018 Theo Connect Pvt. Ltd.