Caste Politics Turns leaders Blind to Unique Fair Deal for Poor

(Image Courtesy:National Commission for Scheduled Castes)


If a Chaiwala (tea seller) can become Prime Minister of the country, what stops a beggar from aspiring for the same coveted post?
The answer lies in the conspiracy of silence among all political parties on India’s most revolutionary socio-political reform mooted by late V.P. Singh in August 1990. He, as PM, mooted the reform as an add-on to the National Front Government’s decision to implement Mandal Commission Report (MCR).
The public thus knows Mr. Singh best as provider of 27% reservation of jobs in Central Government and central public enterprises (CPEs) for other backward classes (OBCs) in keeping with MCR.
Very few know that he pitched for two vital caste and religion-neutral reforms for the poor as a class without encountering any opposition. He could not implement the two ideas as his Government fell in November 1990 after withdrawal of support by certain parties.
Mr. Singh’s two crucial forgotten reform proposals are: Reservation of 40% of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies for the poor and fixation of 5-10% jobs quota for poor in the Central domain.  
Even Chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Mohan Bhagwat, has not mentioned this unfinished reforms agenda set by Mr. Singh.
Clarifying the decision to implement MCR in Rajya Sabha on 9th August 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “If 40 per cent of the people are below the poverty line, in the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha and Assemblies, we can reserve seats for the poor to that extent. In Rajya Sabha, in Lok Sabha and in the Assemblies, we can really speak for the poor to the extent. These will be the real social changes which history will expect of us.”
He continued: “If there is a consensus of the House, we from the Government side are ready to bring forward Constitutional Amendment Bill. It will necessitate constitutional change for which we do not have the majority. But certainly, with your support, we have made four changes. We can make the fifth one also which the coming generations will remember.”
Mr. Singh added: “Let us forget that the poor are begging for some crumbs. They have suffered it for thousands of years. Now they are fighting for their honour as a human being.”
Late Sita Ram Kesri, longtime Congress Party Treasurer and later its President, instantly welcomed Mr. Singh’s idea.
An MP then quipped: “What about the Leader of the Opposition?”
Mr. P. Shiv Shanker (Congress) replied: “I have thumped the table. What more do you want?
Mr. Singh later thanked the House for supporting the proposal. He stated: “I think it is very happy moment for me. It is one of the happiest moments. I did have to muster a lot of courage to say it.”
In October 1990, PM wrote a letter to leaders of all parties in both houses of Parliament, articulating his proposal to reserve 40% seats in all legislatures.
Noting that numerous initiatives to ameliorate the lot of poor have failed to significantly reduce poverty, Mr. Singh observed: “All this has pushed the poor further into a state of hopelessness and the feeling that they are not masters of their own destiny.”
Explaining the rationale for his reservation proposal, he wrote: “No more should we perpetuate the giver-taker relationship that has been institutionalized in our society where the poor are the mere “receivers” of certain State-funded “benefits” without having any real say in decision-making.”
He continued: “This would call for the realisation that the problem of poverty is not just one of economics alone, but it is, in truth, one of sharing of power in the political economy of the country. We should now think of a strategy and mechanism by which the poorest of the poor can reach out to the sanctum sanctorum of power where decisions affecting them are made.”
Concluding his soul-stirring letter, Mr. Singh stated: “This suggestion (40% seats reservation) was welcomed by several member of Parliament. We now have to debate this issue seriously and generate a consensus so as to make this idea a reality.” (See three-page text of the letter for more).
In another clarification on Mandal Commission report in Rajya Sabha on 27th August, 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “At the same time, the Government is equally concerned about the future of our Youth in general. In the Rajya Sabha, there was a suggestion from the Members to provide reservation for the poor over and above the reservation for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, and I had said that we would sympathetically consider some reservation for the poor, irrespective of social groups. This was reiterated by the Finance Minister, Prof. Madhu Dandavateji in the intervention in
the Lok Sabha. We propose to provide an additional reservation of 5 per cent to 10 per cent for the poor, irrespective of social groups, entirely on the basis of appropriate economic criteria, after taking the sense of this august House.”
Does Prime Minister Narendra Modi have the gumption to take Mr. V.P. Singh’s caste-neutral agenda for making poor equal partners in decision-making and development?

Three-page Text of V.P. Singh's letter to leaders of all political parties

Kejriwal’s sack Drama Pales Against ‘PM sacked Deputy PM’ case

(Edited Image Courtesy: delhi.gov.in)

Now that #AAPWalksTheTalk twitter party is over, we can dish out some sobering thoughts for Aam Adami Party (AAP) Supremo-cum-Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his fans.

The anti-bribery jubilation also has an embedded message for a section of the mainstream media, which projected Mr. Kejriwal's  “live” sacking of Food Minister Asim Ahmad Khan as “unprecedented” and refrained from asking critical questions to CM. 

First fact first. Mr. Kejriwal is not the first Chief Minister/Prime Minister to sack a minister. In March this year, tainted Tamil Nadu Agriculture Minister S.S Krishnamoorthy was not only sacked from the Cabinet but also stripped of all AIADMK party posts. He was later sent to judicial custody too. (http://bit.ly/1QfU66s)

Certain CMs in different States have sacked ministers of dubious reputation without flaunting corruption charges as that might later be trashed by the courts. Even the so-called “weakest” Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had goaded Union Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan of the alleged ‘jayanthi tax’ fame resign from UPA Cabinet in December 2013.

Way back in August 1948, PM Jawahar Lal Nehru had dropped (sacked according to one version) India's first Finance Minister R.K. Shanmukham Chetty for allegedly being soft towards certain business houses in pursuing taxation cases against them. Later, Mr. Nehru kept the finance portfolio with himself for about a month. (http://bit.ly/1jV9uem & http://bit.ly/1L5D61x )

 If these instances appear weak in theatrics which is Kejriwal’s trademark, let me take him and AAP's teenyboppers to a unique case of Prime Minister sacking Deputy Prime Minister on grave charges of misconduct: Late Mr. V.P. Singh had sacked the No.2 man, Late Chaudhary Devi Lal, in the National Front Government in August 1990.

At that time, private TV news channels had not cropped up. There was obviously no online social media. Mr. Singh had to thus sack Mr.Lal through an official release. And yet Mr. Singh's sacking of his Deputy PM was more credible and dramatic than Mr. Kejriwal's action.

PM had slapped three charges on Mr. Lal: 1) Quoting a forged letter in an interview with a weekly magazine. The letter was allegedly written by Mr. Singh in November 1987 to the President of India when he was a minister in Rajiv Gandhi Government, levelling charges against the then cabinet colleagues. 2) In the interview, Mr. Lal made serious, unsubstantiated allegations against his Cabinet colleagues. 3) He also made derogatory remarks against PM in the interview.

In a letter addressed to Mr. Lal on 1st August 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “For these acts of yours, of violations of all cannons of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, I have recommended to the President of India to drop you from the Council of Ministers.”

Consider now the second fact. In this case, Mr. Singh had given an opportunity to Mr. Lal to defend himself on these charges through a letter dated 29th July 1990. Mr. Lal failed to answer razor-sharp queries on the forged letter. Nor did he provide evidence to substantiate allegations against other ministers.

Mr. Kejriwal, on other hand, did not give an opportunity to Mr Khan to reply to the alleged case of bribery, which is based on a recorded telephonic conversation. This is evident from his initial reaction immmediately after a Press Conference. A daily quoted Mr. Khan as saying: “I have not heard the recording and am in a state of shock. The party said that till the inquiry is on, I should not be in office.”

The very next day, Mr. Khan trashed Kejriwal's charges at a Press conference. He attributed his sacking to AAP’s internal politics and an attempt to save some big gun within the party. He reportedly said: “I am the sacrificial goat”. He also resolved to expose the conspiracy against him in a few days.

 In playing a taped conversation in which Mr. Khan is allegedly seeking bribes at the Press Conference, Mr. Kejriwal not only showed contempt for the Law but also rationalized media lynching of suspects.

It is here pertinent to quote what the then Chairman of Law Commission Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, stated in its 200th report captioned ‘Trial by Media: Free Speech Vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971)’ submitted in August 2006.

Mr. Rao observed: “According to our law, a suspect/accused is entitled to a fair procedure and is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a Court of law. None can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case by the time it goes to trial.”

If Mr. Khan drags Kejriwal Government to the court and wins a defamation suit, would Mr. Kejriwal resign as CM? Was this question raised in the feted Press conference?

Third, if Mr. Kejriwal is sincere in battling corruption at top echelons of power, why has he not made public all the files on corruption complaints in which some of his ministers are suspects, the latest case being that of alleged nepotism towards a firm owned by a kin of Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia?

Any clean head of a government would have no hesitation in suo moto disclosure of all files on all commercial deals. After all, transparency is the key to prevention of bribery.

Why has Mr. Kejriwal left the post of anti corruption ombudsman, Lokayukta, vacant for several months? Why has he dragged his feet over Jan Lokpal bill? Why has he not referred to CBI several cases of irregularities that happened during the previous Congress regime at Delhi? And what about the donations scam that rocked AAP on the eve of Delhi Assembly elections?

Fourth, Kejriwal deserves praise for outsmarting Prime Minister Narendra Modi in anti-corruption theatrics. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Modi/BJP would accept Kejriwal’s gauntlet and take decisive political steps in Lalitgate, VyapamGate, Rajasthan mining scam, etc.