Look who profits

With the government in effect refusing to admit there8217;s anything too convenient by half in the amended office of profit rules 8212; the president will reportedly be asked to sign the very bill he has questioned 8212; probably the last chance for injecting some rationality and a little morality in this issue is gone. And while we are on morality, let us not forget that a political group with a strong moralising streak is, literally, right at the top of this sorry mess. The 56 posts that the amended office of profit rules seek to exempt starts with a post in Tripura; the Left is the beneficiary. The Left has acquitted itself in this controversy with the argument that it is not a controversy at all. Say whatever about the political calculation behind Sonia Gandhi8217;s resignation 8212; and there8217;s plenty to be said 8212; she at least quit both her parliamentary and extra-parliamentary posts. That she had refused to immediately reoccupy the National Advisory Council chairmanship after reelection from Rae Bareli now appears, after the presidential demur, rather astute 8212; she won8217;t be affected whatever the complicated institutional procedures between now and till the dust 8212; or should we say the mud 8212; settles.

Not so for the Left, which made it amply clear that its MPs had absolutely nothing to fret about and the business of retrospective clearance didn8217;t need any rethink whatsoever. The president8217;s observations make it quite clear that retrospective clearance does pose a question 8212; the use of lawmaking, not for improving the law but for saving lawmakers. This is exactly the kind of issue we would have expected the Left to have reservations about. Our expectations having been proved a little naive, the Left8217;s claims to moral distinctiveness seem that much less credible.

As for the Congress, the whole controversy just reaffirms what happens when political managers think they are too clever. The ordinance that started the controversy was dreadful in its complete lack of understanding about parliamentary and political norms and ethics. Subsequent party statements, when not eulogising Sonia Gandhi, showed no appreciation of the criticism. The effective refusal to take on the president8217;s questions shows the same. This is not the first constitutional or quasi-constitutional controversy the party and its government have engendered in its two years. There8217;s nothing to suggest it would be the last.