Political rationalisation

Dithering on the N-deal

The nagging question on everyone’s mind is whether there will be mid-term elections, which people generally do not favour, but appear inevitable in view of the rigid stand taken by the Congress and the Left parties on the nuclear deal. But politics is the art of the possible, and there is great scope for rationalisation for the ultimate decision, which may be either to fully implement the nuclear deal or dilute it to accommodate some concerns of the Left. There should be no endless dithering over this vital issue. Besides, the bookies are already into their act. The odds are against mid-term elections. I agree. The real saviour may well be Lalu Prasad Yadav, with his unique brand of Bihari bonhomie, humour and political realism.

Judicial misconduct

The revealations made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son, as extracted in the press, make appalling reading. There is brazen confession of judicial partisanship in the landmark decision on Bush v. Gore. Justice Thomas, who intensely disliked Al Gore, the presidential candidate, unabashedly says, “I voted to shut down the vote-counting in Florida by Al — because if he’d kept going he might have won. I helped swing the court to narrowly achieve the Bush restoration. Al Gore’s true claims didn’t matter in that standoff.” This is shocking judicial misconduct. In the light of Justice Thomas’ confessions, Justice Breyer’s dissenting observations in the case have a compelling relevance: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” It is incredible that a judge who on his own admission has proven false to his judicial oath can continue on the bench of the nation’s highest judiciary. In India such a judge would not be tolerated on the bench.

Wedding parties

Weddings are festive occasions. It would be churlish to spoil them by imposing restrictions on playing of music and other associated paraphernalia. At the same time regard must be had to the convenience of other persons and also to the problem of noise pollution. Probably that was the reason for the Delhi High Court’s recent order inter alia banning bands beyond 10 p.m. at farmhouse weddings. Wedding celebrations invariably start late and 10 p.m. is unrealistic. In any case, will the police have the heart to spoil a wedding party by enforcing the high court’s directive after they have been profusely treated as special guests by the families? I doubt it.