Author: B.Raman
Publication:
Date:
As I read the late night communication of
the Election Commission to Varun Gandhi, son of Sanjay and Maneka Gandhi and
grandson of Indira Gandhi, and his reply to the Election Commission, I was
reminded of the exchange of midnight missives between his illustrious grandmother
and the so-called Syndicate in the Congress before the Presidential elections
in the late 1960s in which V.V.Giri, supported by her, was elected and Sanjiva
Reddy, supported by the Syndicate, was defeated.
2. Indira Gandhi rightly viewed the machinations
of the Syndicate as an attempt to marginalise her in the Congress Party and
put a stop to her political aspirations. She fought back ferociously and ultimately
prevailed. The Syndicate did not forgive her for this. When the Congress lost
the elections after the lifting of the Emergency in 1977, the Syndicate had
its moments of revenge. It got Sanjiva Reddy elected as the President and
sought to humiliate her in every way possible. She ferociously fought back
again and returned to power in 1980. Nobody remembers the Syndicate. Its members
have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Everybody remembers Indira
Gandhi.
3.A grand-son of Indira Gandhi is now fighting
ferociously against what he apparently sees as an attempt by a syndicate of
so-called secularists to discredit him and crush his political aspirations
even before he could take his first firm steps in politics. He has every right
to fight. His grand-mother must be watching from heaven her grand-son fighting
as ferociously as she did against what he perceives to be the denial of the
right of natural justice to him.
4.The extremely objectionable remarks alleged
to have been made by Varun Gandhi during two pre-election meetings in the
Philbit constituency should be strongly condemned by all right-thinking persons
as distasteful, irresponsible and unworthy of a political leader if it is
established that he did make those remarks.
5. If he had not contested those remarks and,
on the contrary, if he had tried to justify them, there would have been no
need for a further enquiry before condemning him. But he has contested the
remarks which he is supposed to have made and he has not justified them. He
has challenged the genuineness of the tapes and alleged that the tapes have
been doctored.
6. In TV interviews, he has given a number
of arguments as to why he contended that the tapes had been doctored. Many
of his arguments could be dismissed as after-thoughts but not one, namely,
his contention that in a tape he is shown as referring to a sister of his
whereas he had no sister. If what he says about the contents of the tapes
is correct, there is a serious mistake of fact in the remarks which he is
shown as making. Where there is such a serious mistake of fact, there is a
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. He has not been given the
benefit of this presumption.
7. There are certain procedural infirmities
in the way the Election Commission has passed its order of March 22,2009,
against Varun. The first infirmity arises from the fact that the Commission
has passed an ex-parte order without giving Varun an opportunity to appear
before the Commission and explain his conduct. An ex-parte order is permissible
if a person against whom an enquiry is being made was given an opportunity
to appear before the enquiry body and explain his conduct, but he did not
do so. When a person fails to respond to a summons to appear before an enquiry
body and explain his conduct, he is presumed to be avoiding the due process
of the rules or the law. There is an automatic presumption of guilt against
him.
8. All of us, including the distinguished
members of the Election Commission, had served as bureaucrats. We had all
done our training before we started our career. We had all attended courses
in how to hold an enquiry and about the importance of being fair in an enquiry.
There are detailed departmental orders in the Govt. of India and the States
as to how to hold a fair enquiry. All these orders lay down that every person
against whom an enquiry is held has a right for a personal hearing before
the enquiry officer twice----- before the enquiry starts and again before
an adverse ruling is pronounced by the enquiry officer. If Varun Gandhi is
to be believed, these dos and don'ts of a fair enquiry were not followed in
his case.
9. The second infirmity arises with regard
to Varun's contention that the tapes seem to have been doctored. The Election
Commission has held that it was for him to prove this. How could he have explained
to the Commission as to why he thought that the tapes might have been doctored
if he was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing. There are two ways
of proving that a tape must have been doctored---- forensically or by pointing
out serious mistakes of fact in the contents of the tape, which are glaring
and could not have been made by him. It would have been but fair that he was
given an opportunity to appear before the Commission and explain why he contended
that the tapes must have been doctored.
10.Priyanka Gandhi, another grand-child of
Indira Gandhi, has reportedly advised Varun to read and understand the Gita
better. She should too. In fact, all of us, who consider ourselves proud Hindus,
should. In the Gita, Lord Krishna advises and convinces Arjun as to why one
should sometimes fight even against one's kith and kin if there were strong
moral grounds for doing so.
11. That is why Indira Gandhi fought ferociously
against the Syndicate of the Congress.
12. If Varun thinks that he should emulate
his illustrious grand-mother and fight ferociously against what he sees as
the unfair attitude of the syndicate of so-called secularists against him,
he has every right to do so.
13. Incidentally, if Varun is guilty of inciting
hatred against the members of another community--- a charge that he denies
strongly--- Lord Krishna was guilty of inciting hatred among members of the
same family. (24-3-09)
(The writer is former Additional Secretary
(retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi)
