Opinion The Lokpal rift

“The government has proved itself bereft of the moral right to rule,to continue in office,by running away from a vote in the Rajya Sabha on the crucial Lokpal bill passed by the Lok Sabha on 27 December,” said the lead story in the Organiser.

Criticising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for failing to stand up and clarify the government’s position,the article says that it lead to the “biggest humiliation any government could face” in a democracy,and asserts that the opposition’s demand for his resignation is justified. The episode also exposed the chasm within the ruling coalition ranks,it says,adding that the fate of the Lokpal is now in limbo.

The Panchajanya,in its editorial,says the UPA included certain amendments into the bill that it knew were bound to face objections. The episode exposed divisions not only within the UPA but also among parties like the BSP and the SP,which otherwise support the UPA.

In bad faith

A signed article by RSS spokesperson Ram Madhav in the Organiser,on the other hand,makes the point that no one actually wanted the Lokpal bill to be passed,for various reasons. The Congress’s reasons for opposing a strong Lokpal are not difficult to fathom,while the opposition objected to the undue haste being shown by the government,as well as opposing certain provisions of the bill,he says Madhav. “Team Anna,meanwhile,has its own concerns,the primary one being their belief in their own wisdom,which the government draft wishes to negate. Passage of the bill using the characteristic brute power by the government may do double damage — it will take the wind out of the issue while,at the same time,rendering the entire eight-month-old movement redundant,” he said.

Madhav contends that the government was never interested in the bill and that this was apparent in their handling of the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev. “It got reinforced by their farcical negotiations with Team Anna. Team Anna had to finally walk out of the negotiation room realising that the government is just not interested,” he said. The article says that the “craftiness” with which the “irrelevant issue of minority reservations” was tacked on also underscored the government’s reluctance to have the bill passed. “Reservations based on religion have no sanction in our Constitution. Enough discussion took place on this subject in the Constituent Assembly and a decision was taken to extend reservations only to the scheduled castes and tribes. The courts too have reminded this aspect to the governments several times before,” Madhav claims.

No police bias

The lead editorial in the Organiser has focused on a Supreme Court judgment of December 15,which rejected the perception that the police is biased against minorities while discharging their duty in a communally charged situation. The comments had been made in the context of a case that received a split verdict by another bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi,in which one of the judges had supported the acquittal of two persons from the minority community,held in a riot case in Assam in 1992,observing that the police was prone to act in a biased manner and the benefit of doubt should be given to them. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari examined the split verdict and unanimously noted that the comments regarding the police force could not be generalised. The judgment also noted that it would be a sad day for the nation’s secular credentials if the perception of the minority communities about the impartiality of police force were to be confirmed. “Politicising and communalising legitimate police action has been going on in this country for long. The Gujarat police has been one of the biggest victims of this slander. The number of cases pending against policemen in the state for crimes not done,cooked up by NGOs and politically motivated groups,have tied the hands of the forces,” says the Organiser.