Single agenda, double standards

The hitherto little known constitutional provision that mandates disqualification of legislators if they are found to hold an office of profit under the central or state government, is suddenly at the centre of public discourse. The provision itself is unexceptionable and was intended to prevent a conflict of interest between the Executive and the Legislature, since legislators who may be appointed by the Executive to offices of profit under the government may feel a conflict of interest in scrutinising the work of government. However, office of profit is not clearly defined in the Representation of People Act, or in the Constitution, and over the years the actual profile of an office of profit is a virtual grey area. While the Supreme Court has laid down certain parameters, it is obvious that the issue has now assumed a much larger dimension than before. At this point of time the BJP has used this grey area in the law as a weapon to once again hound and attack Sonia Gandhi.

All political parties across the board have now demanded that such legislation be enacted by Parliament. The BJP has also demanded that Parliament should enact a law in this regard. Quite clearly therefore what impelled the BJP was not opposition in principle to any law redefining office of profit, but its Sonia paranoia. BJP spin doctors attempted to trot out a synthetic concern for constitutional propriety by talking about some mythical ordinance, which they claimed the government was trying to pass intending only to save Sonia Gandhi. The fact is, there was and is no ordinance. There was however a written request from the Samajwadi Party that a Bill be brought in Parliament to redefine office of profit. It is rumoured that several Opposition MPs also asked for such a Bill.

In this issue, as in every other issue the BJP and its allies have sought to raise, they not only betray their Sonia paranoia but the fact that they are even too lazy to do their homework. They wait for newspapers or the electronic media to investigate an issue 8212; in this case the Indian Express story 8212; and then hastily jump on the bandwagon.

Th BJP now claims that Sonia Gandhi resigned out of political compulsion. This is not true. According to legal experts, the chairmanship of NAC is not an office of profit. Thus there was no need whatsoever for Sonia Gandhi to resign from either office. As she herself said, she did so only because she was dragged into a needless controversy. The BJP would have hijacked the national agenda to abuse Sonia Gandhi, as it always does, and therefore she took her personal decision to step down to prove her commitment to principled politics and put an end to the controversy in her own inimitable way. A way, incidentally, no leader of the BJP has ever adopted.

On the other hand, the BJP and its allies are silent on the situation in Jharkhand. Chief Minister Arjun Munda himself holds an office of profit, and ought to be disqualified. The Election Commission has received complaints about four BJP MLAs who ought to be disqualified on the same ground, and complaints about nine more MLAs are pending with the governor. Hurriedly the Jharkhand government has now brought forward legislation to redefine office of profit. The BJP has one standard for Sonia Gandhi and another for its own government.

The BJP has shown that it is not against the redefining of office of profit, but only opposed implacably to one person, namely Sonia Gandhi, and is willing to hijack the national agenda to this end. Several political parties have now called for legislation to redefine office of profit The attempt should now be to harmoniously carry forward the political dynamic, avoiding conflict, and building synergy between the legislature and the executive. Now that Sonia Gandhi has defused the lightning rod of unfair criticism of her detractors, it would be interesting to see which way the BJP votes. Will it vote the way its MPs, MLAs, and the Jharkhand government are saved?

The writer is a Congress spokesperson