|
|
«« Back |
|
Patil plumbs a new low
Patil plumbs a new low
Author: Editorial
Publication; Free Press Journal
Date: November 1, 2004
What use is a gentleman Prime Minister
if he cannot ensure that the Government he heads follows certain constitutional
and political norms? The manner in which the Governors have been dismissed
by the UPA government underlines a scant respect both for the Constitution
and healthy precedents in this regard. Shivraj Patil, that Raymond-donning
dimwit who occupies the chair once occupied by Sardar Patel, to whom goes
the credit of having unified India, rigged up a rather silly excuse to
dismiss the Tamil Nadu Governor P. S. Rammohan Rao, the other day citing
that he had not hosted a tea party on the Chennai Raj Bhavan lawns this
15th August. What a fall, my countrymen! If that was the only crime of
Rao for which he must forfeit his remaining term in the Raj Bhawan, Patil
ought to have been packed off soon after he was thrust into that office
by Sonia Gandhi for genuine crimes against the people of India, which resulted
in the entire North-East, including Manipur, bleeding for weeks on end.
Never before had such a lightweight, such clueless politician occupied
the corner office in the North Block.
To protest that the Tamil Nadu Chief
Minister J. Jayalalithaa had surreptitiously taped the telephonic conversation
the Great Helmsman in the Home Ministry had with her is to miss the point.
Which is that the centre cannot ride roughshod over the principles and
spirit of federalism and then protest when a chief minister facing its
onslaught tries to defend her turn with whatever means available to her
in order to ensure that Raj Bhawan is not turned into the headquarters
of the opposition to her regime. The taped version of the Jaya-Patil conversation
exposes the depravity of the Manmohan Singh Government. Okay, DMK wants
to unsettle Jayalalithaa through its own agent in the Raj Bhawan, but is
a gentleman prime minister supposed to be an active party to such a diabolic
game plan which militates against all that is enshrined in the Constitution
on the Centre-State relations.
Back
Top
|
|
«« Back |
|
|
|
|
|