|
| Politics' unacceptable face | | The Varun Gandhi episode has brought under scrutiny not just his suitability for public life, but also the conduct of many others |
| Business Standard / New Delhi Apr 01, 2009, 00:11 IST |
|
Varun Gandhi’s alleged anti-Muslim comments at a public meeting in Uttar Pradesh have snowballed into a political controversy that has brought under scrutiny not just Mr Gandhi’s suitability for public life, but also the conduct of many others from whom a mature response might have been expected. Mr Gandhi himself switched from a defensive attempt to get anticipatory bail to an aggressive bid to turn the situation to his advantage, by surrendering himself. His short speech and the manner in which supporters were mobilised for a public show of strength before his surrender, showed no remorse—and indeed made it clear that he was positioning himself as the new poster-boy for rapid communalism. Expectedly, his surrender was accompanied by violence in the area, which was made worse by his mother, Maneka Gandhi who is the sitting MP from Pilibhit, giving a communal twist and alleging that a Muslim police officer was responsible for the firing that took place. As if that were not enough, Ms Gandhi has gone a step further and blamed the media for its “lynching” of the “boy”.
While inciting violence against a community is condemnable in and of itself, it is equally reprehensible that the UP government has chosen to invoke the preventive detention provisions in the National Security Act to jail Mr Gandhi, and effectively make his bail on the original charges non-operative. Passed in 1980, the NSA provides for review of the detention order by a board in three weeks; if the arrest is not overturned at that stage, Mr Gandhi can be in jail for a year. While the NSA does cite danger to “public order” as a valid reason for preventive detention, such detention can be justified only in rare cases. The level of violence witnessed in Pilibhit before Mr Gandhi surrendered was certainly not of the kind that would justify invoking the NSA, and it is hard to see how the government can substantiate its charge of “attempt to murder”. The BJP, which has emerged with little credit from the whole episode, is right in saying that ordinary laws were sufficient for dealing with Mr Gandhi and his supporters. But is it too much to hope that the BJP will reconsider the wisdom of wanting draconian laws on the statute books, ostensibly in the name of fighting terrorism? The 35-year-long experience with all such laws, from Misa to Tada and Pota, has been that they get misused by the government of the day—against political opponents and against innocent victims who are not waging war against the state or involved in terrorism. Now that the BJP finds one of its own at the receiving end, it should re-think its position on the subject.
As for the party’s response to Mr Gandhi, it is said to be torn between keeping the focus on governance and taking advantage of the situation created by Mr Gandhi. But it has gone no further than taking the pro forma position that the charge had been denied and therefore needed to be proved, and that the party was not associated with Mr Gandhi’s alleged statements. Mr Advani has advised his party candidates to exercise restraint in their speeches (presumably, he does not want more trouble with incendiary speeches), even as he and the party president, Raj Nath Singh, have resolved to campaign for Mr Gandhi at Pilibhit. The party’s message is as clear as it is regrettable: even if Mr Gandhi is in the wrong, the party will stand by him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
