Ram Jethmalani Quotes

During his visit to India in December 2010, the soft-spoken Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao seems to have succeeded in convincing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the border dispute between the two countries belongs to the past, won’t be easy to resolve, and requires patience. Instead of using whatever diplomatic language was necessary to call this statement pure poppycock, the even more soft-spoken Dr Singh appears to have succumbed completely. When Mr Jiabao was asked whether he would advise Pakistan to stop terrorist activity, he made it clear that he would not. ‘That’s for the two of you to resolve,’ he bluntly said. Our prime minister obviously tried to flatter his guest in the hope of getting some response which he could sell to the Indian people when he declared that ‘the world will listen when India and China will speak with one voice’. The response he received to this piece of flattery was, ‘Our relationship is greater than the sum of its parts.’ To me the statement is an attractive piece of diplomatic craftsmanship meaning nothing. Without any countervailing advantage, the visit yielded a trade pact which will take the bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2015, a complete economic sell-out in a year when the trade deficit was already approximately $20 billion.

a ray of light and hope is provided only by some liberal persons from the media. For example, Pakistani anchor Kamran Khan on Geo TV had the courage to ask these questions: ‘Why has it become a sin for us to call ourselves Pakistanis? Why is it that every terror attack anywhere in the world has a Pakistan connection? Why have our rulers followed a dual policy on terrorism if terrorists have bled us so badly?

Justice Thurgood Marshall of the US Supreme Court once remarked, ‘History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.

Mass opinion has a growing power, but it has shown itself to be a dangerous master of decisions when the stakes are life and death.

All laws are made in the context of clime and circumstance. Like all biological species, they too must change in response to changes in the context, which means imperatives of social needs at a given time. Those who cling to unsuitable laws, claiming they are unalterable because sanctioned by some ancient scripture, I condemn as unalterable fools.

That is again the inexorable consequence of dynastic politics, where defence and perpetuation of dynasty are the cardinal principles of governance, while pursuit of the public good is an alien doctrine. Courtiers have neither the will nor capacity to resolve burning issues that demand public attention. There is ennui and paralysis in government action.

Manifestly, a dynastic party puts personality and charisma at a premium and policy and programme at a discount. Ideology in such circumstances is reduced to populist slogans and vacuous shibboleths. Some articles in this collection are devoted to exposing the true nature of the dynastic beast and the pitiable obsequiousness of its followers. Absence of ideology and the cult of personality entails that the adherents of a dynastic party are not wedded to it on a matter of principle or precept. A dynastic party’s members are attracted by the opportunity of accumulating largesse that it affords them. Its regional satraps are leaders wedded to the patronage system. Public resources are thus allotted not on rational transparent criteria, but to crony capitalists. Auctions are the exceptions, and arbitrary exercise of discretion the rule. The economic advantage of the patronage system is shared between the ruler and the privileged class of people. This system, it is axiomatic, is inherently corrupt but is so entrenched that what objectively is tantamount to rampant corruption, appears to the party faithful to be a legitimate mode of governance.

A corrupt and dynastic political party is antithetical to the rule of law and to carefully crafted constitutional checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. A tendency towards autocracy and consequent institutional subversion is inevitable with a party thus configured. The result is a prime minister bereft of real power, subservient to the dynastic head and a mute spectator to the loot and plunder of the nation’s resources; a president who is a loyal camp follower and will faithfully rubber stamp the decisions ordained by the dynasty: witness how unhesitatingly President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signed the Proclamation of Emergency at Mrs. Gandhi’s bidding in 1975 and ponder whether Mrs. Pratibha Patil, (besieged as she was by her co-operative sugar factory in liquidation, her co-operative bank bankrupt, and her family embroiled in the murder case of a popular intra-party rival in Jalgaon at the time of her nomination by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi), would have done otherwise; or for that matter whether President Pranab Mukherjee, whose many acts of subversion of the Constitution during the Emergency have been documented by the Shah Commission, is so radically transformed that he would now protect it; a judiciary accused of judicial overreach when it censures the government or brings its ministers to book while its inconvenient judgments are subjected to review or Presidential Reference; a CAG whose findings against the government’s decisions are vilified as being patently erroneous, in excess of jurisdiction and even motivated, although that august body, the Constituent Assembly had opined that as the guardian of the nation’s finances, the CAG was as important a Constitutional functionary as the justices of the Supreme Court; a CVC appointed despite the taint of corruption and over the protest of the leader of the Opposition, whose appointment was finally quashed by the Supreme Court; and a CBI whose only role on empirical evidence is to falsely implicate political opponents and wrongly exonerate the regime’s members and cronies.

Mercifully, unlike the Congress party, there is tolerance of dissent within my party. I do not claim to be infallible but even my most trenchant critics would not deny that I speak and act out of personal conviction. I write also to stir debate and have the humility to retract my views when bested in such debates. If that makes me a maverick, I confess I relish the epithet. In the meantime I proudly remain ‘Unchanged and Unrepentant’.

Pakistan’s national anguish was summed up by a perceptive observer who wrote, ‘If we did not know that he (bin Laden) was in Abbottabad for years with his wives and kids, we are a failed state; if we did know, we are a rogue state.

Our growth rate would increase even more dramatically had the Congress Party decided to end corruption and purify itself.

Indira Gandhi left behind several legacies—dynastic rule, economic control through populism—such as, bank nationalisation, Garibi Hatao and the 20-point programme—but most importantly, she left behind a centralised institutionalisation of political corruption that has matured into another Frankenstein, devouring the nation and the poor of India.

What is it in the Nehru-Gandhi family that compels them to anoint only immediate family members as alter egos or heirs apparent? Obviously, their secrets regarding their political and financial misdeeds are such that there is no substitute for immediate family when it comes to trust and protection. The keys to the treasury must always be held by them, the keys to secret cupboards containing their corruption files must never be lost—be it the Bofors case, foreign bank accounts, or smuggling of antiquities, to name a few. Hence, the need for an inner circle of family confidants, a second circle of trusted coteries, and an outer circle of sycophants and hangers-on, who are given blandishments and retainers to keep the inner circle protected and take the blame; or do a cover-up job whenever the need arises. When not in power, these coteries and sycophants must engineer and activate cover-up networks, to hush up or obfuscate any exposures. Dynasty converts all the resources and tools of democracy towards achieving these ends, and perpetuate its continuance, while fooling the nation through homilies on transparency and zero tolerance to corruption.

It is only power (a) which is somewhat too wide. It justifies the armed forces firing in case of any breach of law or order. This has the potential to result in unjustified firing and loss of life in some situations. It undoubtedly behooves the army personnel, in whom this power is vested, to exercise it with great care and only against imminent terrorist factions. Those who want the withdrawal of this power should be prepared to compose its catalogue of unjustified firing episodes. I do not believe that this power has been misused frequently or on a large scale.

The leaders of our armed forces are patriotic, sober people. They do not go about shooting innocent persons. Though I am willing to concede that there must have been some unfortunate cases of this kind, mercifully, they have been very rare. Besides, the so-called powers of the armed forces are not powers, but duties. They are the duties of ordinary police officers, which the Army is always most reluctant to perform. There will be no need to keep that Army if the people of Jammu & Kashmir take on the responsibility of defending its frontiers from infiltrators and terrorists, imported or indigenous. Kashmir is the master of its own destiny. This is what the interlocutors should explain to the people.

It would have been easy to understand the terrorist element in Kashmir and the said agents of Pakistan objecting to the hosting of the flag in a public place, but it is difficult to forgive Omar Abdullah, the grandson of the Sher-E-Kashmir, temporarily joining that odious class of mischief makers. The only extenuating circumstance for young Omar is that he lost his courage to fight the practitioners of mayhem and murder whose number seems to be increasing in the valley under the influence of Pakistani incitement and money. Some people may well forgive the inexperienced Omar, but it is impossible to condone the despicable action and attitude of the Congress, the entire central government and of course the prime minister and the president of the Congress Party. The opinion of Rahul Gandhi, touted as the heir apparent, is also of interest here. Did he concur with the decision of the government that the flag should not be hoisted at Lal Chowk? If he did, he should have the honesty to proclaim to the people of India why he indulged in such shameful action.

An offence has been committed by the leaders of the Congress who virtually joined the ranks of terrorists by advising the BJP to desist from hoisting the flag and conniving with the police assault on them when they reached the state. Such acts call into question the moral integrity of the Congress party and its allies.

According to every patriotic Indian, India was a victim of unprovoked Chinese aggression, and China is in illegal occupation of vast tracts of Indian territory. Although the Hurriyat and its friends in Pakistan do not care for the feelings of India’s citizens, the Hurriyat claims to stand for Kashmiris. How then can it ignore the fact that 42,000 sq miles of Jammu & Kashmir territory have been ceded to the Chinese by the Government of Pakistan? The Hurriyat has never protested against this Pakistani action, nor shown the slightest concern for the Kashmiri inhabitants of the ceded territory. They are China’s slaves, with neither azadi nor jamhooriyat, nor with any guaranteed human rights enjoyed by citizens. The Hurriyat is supremely indifferent to their fate, which is an inconvenience for those playing mercenary politics and depending on Pakistan for a livelihood.

Religion may have brought hope and comfort to some, but it has a terribly negative balance sheet. It is no exaggeration that all the ships of all the navies in the world can float comfortably in the ocean of innocent blood that has been shed in its name. I respect religious freedom, but only subject to public order, health and morality. My religion is to make as many people happy as I can. The secular Constitution of India mandates a life guided by reason and inspired by love.

I am in sympathy with the demand that the Army’s special powers be taken away, but the Government of India can well argue, ‘Deserve before you desire.

Chou En-lai successfully conned Pandit Nehru regarding his real intentions. Nehru died a broken man, his credibility badly exposed and his non-alignment in shambles.

Rajiv Gandhi’s treaty of peace and tranquility in December 1988 was a clear reversal of our national pledge of 1962. It was a boon to the Chinese and a shameless betrayal of Indian interests.

The evidence available and the behaviour of the Congress party, whether in power or out of it, to stall and derail any effective investigation into the Bofors case lead to a clear inference that Quattrocchi was the face of Sonia Gandhi, and that this was her share of the deal. In July 1993, the Swiss courts had permitted official naming of the account operators, including Quattrocchi. Yet, before the CBI could question Quattrocchi and detain him, he bolted from Delhi on the night of July 29-30 1993. It is common knowledge that this was made possible through the direct intervention of Sonia Gandhi and the Congress government. The spurious and slapstick efforts made thereafter to secure Quattrocchi’s extradition, the de-freezing of his accounts, the deliberate errors and gaps in documentation by the CBI that had the least intention of trying to extradite the accused Quattrocchi, only establish the misuse of the entire government machinery and tools to subvert legal processes and fool the people of our country.

One of the most damning statements regarding the government’s apathy towards corruption and recovery of black money was made by the Swiss ambassador in March 2011. He publicly stated that the Swiss government had not received any requests from India for the release of data regarding money illegally stashed in Swiss banks during his tenure. So much for our government’s determination to fight corruption!

The return of black money to India is, per se, a complex and laborious issue, encompassing concerted financial, legal and international processes and meticulous monitoring. The UPA government has done everything possible to complicate the maze further, so that no one except its creator can ever comprehend it. The fact that they themselves may get suffocated in the chakravyuha (as is happening today) is not their immediate priority. That is for the future. It is the present that must be defused and saved.

Legal obfuscation and amnesty schemes The UPA government is trying to use every trick of the trade to provide escape routes for black money looters. Take, for example, the complex strategy being adopted to change the colour of money from black to white, with a unique ‘Fair and Lovely’ amnesty recipe. The press reported in 2011 that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) was “seriously considering” recommending to the government a scheme on the lines of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) announced in 1996 to bring back black money stashed in tax havens abroad for productive use in India. It is reported that the source of the money will not have to be disclosed, but criminal action will be taken if the money (or the assets) pertain to proceeds of crime. How the two halves of the sentence can be harmonised defies logic. In a democracy, every citizen is entitled to know the character and integrity of every other citizen, lest one day a crook manipulates a constituency of voters and colleagues in his party and occupies the office of prime minister. Concealing vast amounts of money and depriving a poverty-stricken nation of the revenue it badly needs is a criminal offence by itself. How would we find out whether or not one such criminal is already in office, instead of being in Tihar Jail?

The 2 September 2010 issue of prestigious British magazine, The Economist, published on page 29 an article with a large photograph of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Below the picture was the caption ‘India’s Disappointing Government’. The word ‘disappointing’ is an understatement. The epithet ‘criminal’ would have been appropriate.

The nation had to wait for the NDA Government led by the BJP to frame the Right to Information Act. It was only in 2002, when the BJP government was in power that the Freedom of Information Act was introduced in Parliament and passed. It became the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 (5 of 2003). Two years later when the UPA government came to power, it churlishly decided to deprive the BJP of any credit, which was, in all honesty, due to it. They repealed the Freedom of Information Act and substituted it with the Right to Information Act which became fully operational on 13 October 2005. The repeal of the earlier Act was effected by Section 31 of the new Act. It was by no means an improvement on the earlier one. If the Congress government, led by Dr Manmohan Singh, wanted a better drafted law, they could have got it by amending the law, which is the usual behaviour expected of any successor government. Instead they took credit for this legislation, neither acknowledging the foundation of the Act in the judgments of Justice Mathew and other learned judges of the Supreme Court, nor the sincere efforts of the NDA government to bring it about.

The judgement of the court is an indictment of the government which has been shedding crocodile tears for 14 years during which they have done precious little for the relief of the poor victims. The court has wisely left all other issues untouched. The government should easily be able to read in the judgement a gentle reprimand for its hypocrisy.

Was opposition to the SIT so critical to the government that it was willing to sacrifice the entire credibility of the finance ministry and the law ministry in the Supreme Court? And why did government oppose the SIT so resolutely? It had certainly not opposed it in the Gujarat case, and there are several other precedents of SITs quoted in the order. Judging from the desperate behaviour of the government, the only inference that can be drawn is that this SIT had to be opposed at any cost, because important people controlling the Congresss empire were involved in the larceny. The government’s obduracy in this matter clearly reflects its growing shamelessness and brazenness about corruption. It continues to show contempt and apathy to the Supreme Court order, and instead of starting the process of implementing the order, it is focusing on how to get it reviewed, recalled or diluted, including contesting the order and seeking its recall.

Manmohan Singh’s lost opportunity The anti-corruption agitations of 2011 provided a wonderful opportunity for the prime minister and his government to start the process of purging the system of corruption and retrieving black money illegally stashed away in foreign banks. The government had two options to get our money back. The first, to behave like a responsible, honourable and strong nation and demonstrate political will to fight corruption using the ample machinery available through international and bilateral legal instruments, the Tax Information Exchange Treaties (TIEAs), Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) automatic exchange route. The Swiss have volunteered cooperation; and India can follow the example of the US and UK, and get India’s stolen money back to the country. Or, the government can take the other option and behave like a banana republic and a failed state, plunder capital from their own country through a UPA-sponsored version of imperialism, perpetuate poverty and backwardness by denying the people of this country their rightful development dividend while repeatedly rewarding and incentivizing the looters with amnesty schemes. Mr Singh’s government has continuously concealed information on black money by fooling the people of our country, shielding the corrupt and guilty who have illegal bank accounts in foreign banks, and by creating obstacles for any progress in the matter instead of taking proactive measures to obtain the information from the foreign governments concerned. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could have chosen the former option and gone down in history as a great patriot and leader of our country, a pioneer against corruption. But sadly, he has lost the opportunity and chosen such, that history will remember him as having presided over the greatest frauds practised on this poor and gullible nation.

The UPA government, instead of implementing the Supreme Court order—which would have been the defining indicator of its bona fides in retrieving the black money looted from the people of India— instead demanded a recall of the order. This establishes its complete mala fide, connivance and conspiracy, and confirms that it has no intention of taking any substantive steps to recover the black money stashed away abroad, or take any serious action to combat this grievous economic crime impoverishing our nation—the 21st century version of UPA imperialism. The nation should be informed that no investigation has taken place regarding the issues before it since the Supreme Court judgement, but the finance minister chose to conceal these extremely pertinent facts in his Paper. The White Paper coyly discussed the dimensions of black money stashed away abroad by quoting statistics that are more than a decade old, saying that these are being researched upon by three agencies whose report is expected in September 2012. From this it would appear that the government had no knowledge of the quantum of black money lying abroad. One wonders why the government presented the paper at this stage. Interestingly, the Paper officially disclosed a figure regarding Indian accounts held with Swiss banks, at around only US $213 billion (as against $88 billion projected by the International Monetary Fund, and $213.2 billion by GFI), down 60% between 2006 and 2010. A reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that black money holders, in anticipation of international and national public pressure (not governmental) transferred their money to other safe havens, the safest, it is said, being India. The last two years have seen several enabling statutes and mechanisms to stealthily repatriate the ill-gotten wealth back to India. I am also given to understand that there is evidence of a huge disparity between export figures, particularly of metals quoted by the government, and actual exports through data available from independent sources. The same applies to figures regarding FIIs. The game is clear. Use every government tool and instrument available to repatriate the money to India, without disclosure, culpability or punishment. There must be ways, and ways that we can never fathom or document, but the black money holders control legislation, either through being important politicians, or big businesses, who can buy safe passage, necessary loopholes and escape routes through statute or legislation. The finance minister through his negligence and active cooperation with the criminals allowed the stolen money to be removed from the accounts in which it was held and only a small fraction now remains, which too he is determined to place beyond the reach of the people of India who are its legitimate owners.

Lawyers with political aspirations are accordingly constrained by the demands of their profession. An elitist law practice fits ill with grassroot politics so necessary for mass leadership. In a sense my ability to marry a successful legal practice with an almost uninterrupted parliamentary career of 35 years has been because the politics of that period consisted of a battle between feudal forces wedded to a dynastic cult and the forces of Constitutional liberalism.

My political relevance persists till today as India’s neo-monarchists continue to rear their ugly heads and perpetuate themselves in power by recourse to rampant self-aggrandisement, through loot of public resources and the public exchequer, and by subversion of all institutions.

Sixty-five years have gone by and the eloquent and inspiring words now jar the ears while the pledges that remain unredeemed and forgotten only bring tears to swollen eyes, and, to some, thoughts of suicide as the only escape from the hell into which almost all of us have landed. Life and freedom have been cornered by the privileged few: men without morals engaged in the sordid pursuit of polluted power and stolen wealth.

Many of the problems of today’s Kashmir are rooted in Pandit Nehru’s unforgivable blunder of taking the Indian case to the Security Council. The seemingly naïve, (some called him arrogant), Pandit Nehru had no experience of the intricacies and pitfalls of international politics. Even the United Nations, partial though it was to Pakistan, mandated a plebiscite only on the condition that all Pakistan forces, regular and irregular, withdraw from the entire state and the plebiscite be held under the umbrella of Indian sovereignty.

Chinese policies follow the philosophy of Sunzi, formerly known as Sun Tzu. ‘All war is based on deception. When able to attack, we must pretend to be incapable; when employing forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far; offer bait to lure him; if he appears humble, make him arrogant; if he is rested, wear him down; if his forces are united, divide them; take action when it is unexpected.

It is time for us to behave like a self-respecting nation instead of encouraging spurious politeness and wasted hospitality. We have had enough of this futility during the last few decades. It is now time for India to reclaim her lost pride

With the birth of Christianity, the idea of an all-powerful god, beyond reproach criticism or even scrutiny, and the divine right of kings took hold of the minds of people, and democracy was bound to dissolve. Society sank into a condition of slavery; denial of god or any questioning of Him as creator of injustice, evil and pain became punishable under the capital offence of blasphemy. The era of intellectual and spiritual servitude was born, nicknamed by historians as the Dark Ages.

Humanity will continue to produce evil men who mesmerize others of lesser education and lower understanding by taking away from them their critical faculties of constantly examining and evaluating their political leaders. Democracy is like a swimming pool. If you do not periodically change the water, it will almost certainly turn into a stinking cesspool.

If the people of India are to truly act as ‘sovereign’ they must be fully equipped, through education and information, to discern the unpardonable misdemeanors of their rulers, including of the great Nehru himself. I propose to start with him and then proceed to deal with his successors. The only one amongst his successors who had an unblemished tenure, unfortunately cut short by cruel providence, was the late Lal Bahadur Shastri.

one must read a letter written in November 1950 by Sardar Patel to Nehru. He warned, ‘We can, therefore, safely assume that very soon they (the Chinese) will disown all the stipulations which Tibet has entered into with us in the past... The undefined state of the frontier and the existence on our side of a population with its affinities to Tibetans or Chinese has all the elements of potential trouble between China and ourselves.’ Patel wanted the Indian government immediately to set out a definite policy, particularly in regard to the McMahon Line. Had Patel’s advice been followed, we would not have suffered the humiliation of 1962. Despite advice from within the Congress, Nehru continued to champion China’s cause at the United Nations. It is now well known that even President Truman wanted India to commit itself to the defence of Tibetan independence. Chou En Lai continued to make a fool of the gullible Jawaharlal Nehru.

The present archaic administrative and financial systems inherited from colonial days continue to operate with minor modifications, even though the exercise of state power has altered. Today, both administrative and financial powers are exercised by the elected representatives and permanent bureaucracy at five different levels: Central, state, zilla panchayat, block panchayat and village panchayat. However, there is complete asymmetry between the rules governing the conduct of business, and this present system of administration. The Service Rules, Disciplinary Rules, Financial Accountability Statutes, Rules of Business have not been adjusted to the present system of administration and in this asymmetry, corruption rules. There are no financial or administrative codes for elected representatives exercising such powers, no accountability or disciplinary rules governing them, even though they are the final authorities to authorize the expenditure of public money. Financial malfeasance by political custodians of public money can only be punished by the usual IPC provisions applicable to all citizens, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, the operation of which is optional in state governments. It is this lacuna that gives phenomenal opportunity to the politician-bureaucrat nexus to flourish, and prevents development funds from reaching target groups. Long years of working with archaic financial procedures have given the bureaucracy a unique specialization in circumventing regulatory provisions, and providing perfect paperwork to satisfy their requirements. Behind every corrupt bureaucrat will be a protective politician, and behind every corrupt politician will be a bevy of carefully selected, supporting bureaucrats.

I am hopeful that the PAC will examine these issues, as well as the processes and legal propriety of Pratyush Sinha’s khap panchayat carefully, particularly regarding its tainted chairmanship and tainted membership of Chairman ISRO Dr Radhakrishnan, who not only had silently approved the construction of GSAT 6A in the Space Commission, but also hobnobbed with Devas, even after the Space Commission’s decision to annul the deal. Cherry-picking the guilty only substantiates my suspicion that the Pratyush Sinha Committee had clear instructions from its appointers about who should be made the fall guys, and who should be let off. An examination of the Space Commission membership that approved GSAT 6 and GSAT 6A, with their present and past positions will give accurate information of those members who knew about the deal and sat like silent conspirators, committing the same offence of concealing facts from the Space Commission as Madhavan Nair. Why have they been exonerated?

In fact, it had almost reached a solution on two occasions during its long and tragic tenure—first, when the Australian jurist, Sir Owen Dixon headed the five-member UN Commission for India and Pakistan, and second, when the Tashkent Declaration was signed. The first was frustrated by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the second was set at naught by his daughter, Indira Gandhi, both of whom reached the highest positions in Indian life and politics. Unfortunately, the exit of the BJP government after the 2004 elections proved a major setback in resolving the Kashmir issue. The new United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government did not want any interference in conducting the Indo-Pak dialogue. The Committee almost suspended the excellent, results-focused work it was doing although we kept appealing to the Hurriyat not to backtrack on the agreements achieved.

However, in October 2010, the Government of India appointed a set of interlocutors—Dilip Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and M.M Ansari—with the mission of taking the peace process further after due consultations with the several stakeholders in Jammu & Kashmir. Mr Dilip Padgaonkar was my colleague in the Kashmir Committee, but I do not have the pleasure of knowing the other two interlocutors personally. This does not detract from their stature or merit. Whispers around Delhi suggested that while the interlocutors were sincerely trying to talk to the people of J&K, they were scarcely talking to one another. This subsequently appears to have blown up into a full scale war, after it was discovered that two of the three interlocutors accepted hospitality from the ISI-funded Ghulam Nabi Fai to attend conferences in plush capitals of Europe and the US. Till date, the interlocutors have made no significant contribution to the peace process.

Without any qualifications whatsoever, Sonia Gandhi fancies herself as an uncrowned empress of India and has psychologically bulldozed her similarly unqualified son into believing that India’s prime ministership is his birthright. For a long time I did not believe that he would succumb to his mother’s monarchical passion. It was in November 2008, after the monstrous terrorist attack in Mumbai, that I started having doubts.

The results of the UP elections make me proud of my countrymen. It is a clear verdict against hereditary prime ministership, and has spared us a humiliation hundred times more excruciating than the one we suffered in 1962 at the hands of Rahul’s great grandfather. It is unfortunate that the young Rahul Gandhi became a victim of a grand hallucination of dynastic rule and a pawn in la famiglia’s grand design—abetted by an army of self-serving, deceitful, back-stabbing sycophants—to secure what they consider is their Indian inheritance. I hope Rahul has learnt that India is not a monarchic or hereditary democracy and does not recognise birthright to prime ministership merely because s/he is descended from the Nehru-Gandhi family.

A word of advice to Rahul: ‘Find your life where your heart is, young man. It is not too late. You cannot claim India as your birthright. Forget about ruling this country and the Cosa Nostra.’ And tola famiglia , I can only think of quoting from Cromwell, ‘You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

People were rightly disgusted that like Kumbhakaran of Ramayana our prime minister managed to sleep while the populace was crying aloud in agony, ‘We have long credited you with integrity, but our confidence is fast melting; please speak to us in your own interest. If you don’t do it soon, we will conclude that you are no better than the crooks surrounding you.

In recent years, widely reported allegations of judicial misconduct have revealed the extent to which the integrity and impartiality of the higher judiciary has been compromised in our country. These disclosures of suspected venality in some judges of the higher courts have shattered the ineffable image of the judiciary as a vigilant and ultimate protector of the values of a free society governed by law. This grave damage to the judiciary’s image has been caused by none other than some Indian judges, courtesy their tendency to hover around the seats of political power.

In February 2011 a conference of lawyers from the Commonwealth was held in Hyderabad. Surprisingly, no member of the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association was invited to attend, but it has been reported that during the conference, the prime minister complained against judicial interference with the workings of the government which, in its arrogance, considers itself to be omniscient and omnipotent. He apparently forgot that a litigant must argue his case in court and not in a public meeting.

The function of the judge is to see that law is enforced and the lawbreaker punished. Today the Rule of Law is unfortunately displaced by the rule of successive scams. The soul of Law is in torment. Good lawyers and all good men can see that law enforcement is suffering from lack of oxygen. It needs fresh air to fuel the combustion hidden in its heart.

The intimidatory tactics failed and Anna called for gheraoing MPs’ houses and Parliament. A gherao contingent, evading the police barricade by using the Metro, actually reached the prime minister’s house on 25 August 2011. It was only then that the prime minister, who appeared either marginalized or deliberately detached, seemed to wake up. The seasoned firefighter Pranab Mukherjee took over, and some semblance of sanity was brought into the discourse. The arrogant brigade peopled by Kapil Sibal and Manish Tiwari was silenced, and the prime minister in his usual self-effacing style became conciliatory, stating that ‘our government was prepared to request the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to formally refer the Jan Lokpal Bill also to the Standing Committee.’ As confusion continued in the government camp, so did negotiations between government and Team Anna. Pranab Mukherjee successfully drew the discussions towards a consensus on most points, including the three sticky issues of including the lower bureaucracy, appointing Lokayuktas in states and having a Citizens’ Charter, which for long had been a bone of contention. Finally, a compromise was reached.

Rahul Gandhi, the shining star of the Congress party, proposed some ‘game changing ideas.’ He read out a sheet of paper, the sum and substance of which was that this was not the time to talk about the Lokpal, as it was important to address the systemic, structural, sociological and psychological aspects of corruption. The Lokpal, he argued, must be a constitutional body like the Election Commission, implying thereby that the Lokpal Bill should be kept in the cold storage. His proposal required amendment of the Constitution by a two-thirds majority in both Houses which, I am sure he hoped, would take years to muster. There would be no Lokpal till then. In his ‘innocence’ he assumed no one would see through his childish ploy. Interestingly, he had no takers even in his own party and effaced himself from Parliament for some time after! Not surprising, this, as he and his family have most to fear from a strong Lokpal.

Lalu Yadav proved himself an able ‘supari’, using every absurdity possible to attack the Lokpal, while betraying his own terror of the Bill. ‘We are sitting here to sign the death warrant of all MPs, MLAs, MLCs and government employees’, he said. His final expected and ludicrous allegation against the Bill was that it was anti-minority, since no reservations for minorities were made in the Lokpal. As if to say that practice of corruption and its stoppage, must follow the quota system too.

The selection of P.J. Thomas as CVC exposed the deficiencies in the process, and subsequent revelations in the Supreme Court case challenging his appointment revealed the complete lack of ethics in the UPA government in selecting a highly unsuitable candidate for this very crucial appointment that is meant to be the national instrument to check corruption.

A random check of the ombudsmen appointed at the centre, or states, indicates that a majority are retired persons from the judiciary or the administrative services. It can safely be assured that these appointees had not caused any inconveniences to the appointing government during their service, and managed the media by doling out catchy phrases and dramatic headlines, not necessarily reflecting the truth. Recall the corruption of the former minister for telecommunications, Sukhram. Has anyone discovered till date how and why N. Vittal, his secretary, failed to prevent his minister from indulging in corrupt practices? Subsequently, the same Vittal was appointed as central vigilance commissioner.

The essence of a democracy is not controlling governance and the national exchequer through cobbled up numbers, as has been the UPA’s fig leaf for staying in power, but through fulfilling the aspirations and ensuring the well being of the people through enlightened, responsible and accountable actions of elected representatives.

Rajkumar Keswani, a journalist working with a small weekly magazine called Rapat, wrote a prescient article two years before the tragedy titled ‘Bhopal Jwalamukhi Kagar Pe’ (Bhopal on the edge of a volcano) warning the nation that the Carbide plant was in poor shape and there was likely to be a horrible disaster very soon. He wrote that the management knew about it, but was in no mood to make further investments on repairing the plant because the business was making huge losses. The management’s mood almost seemed to be one of waiting and welcoming the disaster. Despite these warnings, Arjun Singh, then chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, said on the floor of the legislature that everything was all right and there was no cause for any concern. If a journalist representing a small paper predicted the disaster, it is extremely disquieting that the state government and the union government armed with their enormous powers of inspection and control did not anticipate or take any steps to prevent it. It is not an unreasonable inference that all key functionaries including the Chief Minister Arjun Singh, had a very comfortable relationship with the management of Union Carbide, and it was unimportant and irrelevant in their priorities to make any ostensible effort to protect the life and health of thousands of their citizens.

After the initial rebuff from the United States of America court of Judge John F. Keenan, the Union of India filed its proceedings at the district court in Bhopal in 1986, claiming $3.3 billion (approximately 50,000 cr.) One must assume that the claim was quantified after careful calculation and competent legal advice. Yet, without fighting the suit and without any transparency, the government, by negotiation, the facts of which even today are a complete secret, settled the claim of the unfortunate victims for a ludicrously low sum of $ 470 million, that is 2,400 cr (and this at 1986 rupee values.) In the interlocutory relief petition pending before the Supreme Court, this overall settlement for $470 million was recorded by consent of the parties, on 14 February 1989. The victims of Bhopal could not have been betrayed more inhumanly and cruelly.

This was an extraordinary exercise of judicial power, to say the least. Apart from the meager settlement of the civil claim, criminal proceedings arising out of the disaster, wherever they may be pending, would stand quashed. What was surprising was that five Supreme Court judges, the learned attorney general of India, others taking daily interest in the litigation, and the press, which gets terribly hot under the collar about lesser matters, did not object to this unusual settlement reeking of corruption. This settlement, agreed upon without consulting either the victims, the NGOs working for their welfare, or their well wishers has been characterized by Prof. Upen Baxi, India’s best scholar jurist, as an ‘unconscionable settlement’ by an unscrupulous Congress government.

the fact of the matter is that information regarding Thomas’ criminal case was successfully screened out by the DOPT from the Committee. Had it not been for the Public Interest Litigations (PIL) filed, these facts would not have surfaced in the public domain. The government persisted in its defence of Thomas in the Supreme Court. It was only after the Supreme Court order of 3 March 2011 that the prime minister publicly confessed in Jammu, ‘There has been an error of judgment in CVC appointment and I take full responsibility.’ This was reiterated on 7 March 2011 in the Lok Sabha, and on 8 March in the Rajya Sabha, with a curious addition: ‘Until I went to the meeting of the Committee, I was not aware there was any such case of Palmolein and that it would involve corruption.’ He added that he became aware of the case only when Sushma Swaraj raised the issue in the meeting. He also informed the House that the notes for such committees are prepared ‘under the guidance of minister of state in charge of the DOPT.’ The honest answer should have been that the note which was prepared by the DOPT did not contain this conclusive information. Minister of State DOPT, Prithviraj Chavan, at a press conference in Pune on 8 March 2011, casually passed on the blame to the Kerala government, saying it was the latter that gave vigilance clearance for Thomas. This was strongly refuted on 9 March 2011 by V.S. Achuthanandan, the Kerala CM who accused Chavan of lying. Copies of official communication sent by Kerala to Delhi regarding Thomas’ corruption were being waved around by TV anchors. Chavan then said he was misquoted. But by whom? His own sound box in the live interview in Pune?

So what was so special about Thomas that the government wanted him to be CVC? Neither was he the senior-most, nor did he have experience in the field of vigilance and investigation as required under the CVC Act. What other outstanding or spectacular achievements put him above the other two officers in the panel? We may not know all these answers but what we do know is, that apart from being chargesheeted in the case, he also worked as secretary of telecommunication, from October 2009 to September 2010, with A. Raja, and had a smooth working relationship with him. The prime minister and home minister appeared to be in a hurry to appoint PJ Thomas as CVC and so disregarded objections from the leader of the Opposition, refusing to defer the matter even for a day when she asked them to verify PJ Thomas’ credentials. In fact, even when there was public outcry at the decision and cases filed in the Supreme Court, the government defended him tenaciously, with the prime minister stating on 6 September 2010, ‘I think what we have done is the right thing. Of all the three persons whose names were under consideration, we have chosen the best possible person.’ Obviously, Thomas as CVC would have been invaluable to the UPA. He had already revealed his predilections as secretary of telecommunication by challenging the CVC and the CAG’s powers to examine policy decisions taken by the government, laying the foundation to ensure that Raja cannot be brought to book for the manner in which he dispensed 2G spectrum. And yes, it does appear a little strange that all officers in the panel were those who had worked with DMK ministers.

What some bureaucrats and politicians could say obliquely, in muffled voices ever since the UPA came to power in 2004, was said bluntly and with remarkable prescience by the former American ambassador to India, David Mulford in his confidential report of 2005, that now in the public domain through WikiLeaks. This is what Mulford has to say: ‘Along with Principal Secretary TKA Nair, Narayanan constitutes what is now a Keralite “Mafia” in the PMO. In a bureaucratic culture dominated by North Indian Hindi speakers, this Keralite lock on the PM’s inner bureaucratic circle represents something of an anomaly, which could in the long term create new faultlines around the prime minister.’ How right he was. He has not gone back on anything he said more than half a decade ago. Indeed, during the UPA years, the civil services have witnessed a steady, swift and almost complete descent from the Westminster model to a spoils systems within India’s permanent civil service, making it a unique sort of permanent spoils civil services.

Promotions and appointments are controlled by a rite of passage in the civil service called empanelment, which decides whether civil servants, predominantly officers of the IAS, can serve in Government of India as joint secretaries, additional secretaries and secretaries. Though officially the selection is done by a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary and comprising the home secretary, secretary personnel, and principal secretary to prime minister, and then approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, no one really knows how it is actually done. The rules are changed whenever required to assist a political favourite as files apparently fly between South Block and 10 Janpath. Pencil entries are made deleting and adding candidates as per the dictates of the powerful, and the minutes of the original selection committee are signed only after agreements between the political masters, business houses and captive or powerful bureaucrats are reached. These proceedings are then smoothly approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet comprising the home minister and prime minister. The same controlling clique proceeds to appoint the convenient bureaucrat to high profile, lucrative ministries such as defence, home, finance, civil aviation, telecommunication, petroleum, urban development, steel etc. while officers without clout are consigned to residual ministries, normally the social sector ones. Potential for commissions and kickbacks determine which ministries must have captive bureaucrats, and these are the ministries that the DMK has traditionally claimed. The UPA added another dimension that cemented the politician-bureaucrat nexus by decreeing informally and formally that ministers have the right of choice of their secretaries. This meant that the empanelled secretary had to do the rounds of ministries where vacancies were imminent, and solicit his case for selection, unless some higher politician or business house had already spoken for him. And it would be naive to think that such an appointment would be pro bono publico. An honest bureaucrat has nowhere to turn for redressal as the relevant fora were also clearly controlled by the same mafia. With a sense of resignation all they could do is attempt a joke, ‘the Nair you are, the higher you are’!

A victim of circumstance No politician in independent India has been demonized in such a relentless, Goebbelsian manner as Narendra Modi, and no politician has withstood it with as much resilience and courage as he, who has stood firm despite the entire central government, influential sections of the media machinery and sections of civil society arraigned against him.

What happened to the money Carbide paid? There is enough circumstantial evidence to prove that the real settlement made by Union Carbide was different and most of the money clandestinely went into the pockets of national criminals who were then at the helm of affairs and are not difficult to identify. The settlement was a fraud on the people of India. The spurious explanation that the money was urgently needed to provide relief to the victims makes it clear that a dishonest deal had been entered into. This was also clear from the manner in which Mr Warren Anderson, an accused on bail, was allowed to abscond despite his bail being conditional on his remaining in India. To add insult to injury, he used a state aircraft and had dinner with the bigwigs of the Congress before his flight from the country!

The Sunday Guardian, in its issue of 22 August, 2010 stated, on the basis of credible information, that a settlement took place at the Ritz Hotel in Paris and that it was worked out by Warren Anderson and a personal friend and representative of the then prime minister of India. Under this unofficial settlement, the government wanted to be paid secretly, under the table. When Union Carbide officers raised serious doubts regarding the Supreme Court’s acceptance of this unfair and corrupt settlement, they were assured that the Supreme Court was not their worry. The negotiators would manage everything. And manage, they did. The entire manifestly illegal and corrupt settlement did go through the judicial filter. A somnolent Supreme Court permitted composition of non-compoundable offences and quashed proceedings without falling under the well settled rule of quashing jurisdiction. Surely, if there was an honest and real negotiated settlement between Union Carbide and the Indian government it would require large and complex correspondence evidencing genuine bargaining prior to the settlement being finalized. Such huge claims are not settled by a telephonic talk of which no record exists. It is worth recalling here an interesting faux pas that occurred in connection with the financial settlement of the Bhopal gas tragedy. When N.D. Tewari became external affairs minister, he went to the United States to plead with potential investors to come to India. The consul general of India was present at the meeting addressed by the minister. The minister innocently referred to the Bhopal gas tragedy and the inadequate compensation received from Union Carbide. A Union Carbide representative present in the audience, stood up and caused consternation by declaring in public that Union Carbide had paid almost everything that India had asked for, but a large part of the amount was paid as out of court settlement, ostensibly for the purposes of the Congress party. If the Indian government denies the truth of the story that some people in or connected with the government swallowed a big fortune, they must produce the documents which were exchanged during the pre-settlement negotiations and until their final termination. The government must produce them even now. The people of this country are entitled to know how a claim of $3.3 billion came to be settled for a paltry amount of $475 million. However, neither has the government given any explanation, nor has the story been refuted till today.

No court in America or the Commonwealth would extradite a person after 20 years when the government seeking extradition had originally consented to the proceedings being quashed. The government of course, will not produce the files containing the notings and the final decision to leave Anderson untouched. If any action had been taken as threatened, Anderson and Union Carbide would have publicly declared what they paid, how they paid and to whom they paid. That would have demolished the Congress government overnight and many of its leading figures would have landed in lock-ups and prisons.