RAHUL GANDHI CONVICTS ‘CONVICTED NETAS’ ORDINANCE: WHY IT IS PREMATURE TO TRUST HIS ‘DELAYED’ CONSCIENCE?

Because, the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013, brought by the United Progressive Alliance’s (UPA) government led by the Congress is very much alive and kicking.

Rajya Sabha has already passed it. Disruptions didn’t allow it in the Loksabha in the Monsoon Session but it is slated to be presented and passed in the lower House of the Indian Parliament in the Winter Session.

Where was Rahul Gandhi when all this was happening?

The ordinance cleared by the Union Cabinet meeting chaired by Manmohan Singh, which Sonia Gandhi was also a part of, is nothing but yet another attempt of political brazenness to subvert the guiding principles of democracy by planting the provisions of the RP Act Amendment Bill ‘immediately’, that would otherwise be in place by December, to save some big political names from immediate disqualification.

….everybody does this….but would Rahul Gandhi stop this nonsense, the RP Act Amendment Bill that, in essence, is the inspiration behind this silly ordinance, in the Winter Session of Parliament?

We need to wait till then before making any opinion.

Because, Rahul Gandhi says the political parties should stop making small compromises!

But what about big compromises?

Should the political outfits continue singing the ‘compromise’ (say the coalition ‘Dharma’) tune when it comes to some big compromise like the crucial number games of forming the government even if it means taking support of some historysheeter member of Parliament or someone like Suresh Kalmadi.

What is this small or big segregation?

Does it mean ‘not shielding the convicted politicians by not manipulating the lawmaking authority given by the Constitution’ is a small compromise while subverting every administrative, legal and moral norm to save someone like Robert Vadra, whose only connect to the fame is that he is son-in-law of the Nehru-Gandhi Family, is a big compromise and so is to go for?

Ethics cannot be compartmentalized as ‘small’ or ‘big’.

Rahul’s sudden outburst, that many would have thought be a masterstroke of positioning him again as an outsider, as the politician with a difference (that he sounded so when he had begun), falls flat by the record of his active years in politics.

There are plenty of other reasons to reason why taking Rahul Gandhi’s voice of conscience as ‘a genuine voice of concern of an outsider politician’ needs much more than this ‘public’ outburst of his anger?

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/