There is a deadline – the “first day of the last week of Monsoon Session”. In essence, this means that the Bill is unlikely to be passed by Rajya Sabha in the next session. Given past experience, one can safely say that five days will not be sufficient for the government to make amendments in the pending Bill and secure its passage.

The Bill will then be dragged into the Winter Session and even if passed by the Rajya Sabha it will not become law because it will have to return to Lok Sabha as it would be different from the one passed by it in December last.

The Lok Sabha will then set up another group for reconciliation of the two versions and pass verbatim the one endorsed by Rajya Sabha. There of course is no guarantee that the Lower House will agree with the version of the Upper House and instead may pass a different version.

If the two Houses pass conflicting legislations, the government will have to convene a Joint Session of Parliament where members of the two Houses will vote on a single Bill brought by the government after reconciling the two versions.

In the annals of Indian Parliament, this has happened only thrice. The first time was in 1961 when the first-ever joint session of both Houses of Parliament opened in Central Hall on May 6, 1961 to discuss and vote on Dowry Prohibition Bill.

At that time the Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1959 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in April 1959 and after discussion, it was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee presented its report with some amendments in the Bill. Both Houses of Parliament did not agree with the amendments as reported by the Joint Committee and ultimately the Bill was considered at the Joint Session of both the Houses of Parliament.

The second occasion when the Joint Session was called was due to the rejection of the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1977 by the Rajya Sabha. The motion Bill as passed by the Lok Sabha was negatived by Rajya Sabha resulting in the Joint Session on May 16, 1978 where the Bill as amended was passed. The third occasion it happened was with the POTA bill during NDA in 2002.

But beyond this parliamentary quagmire lies the inability of the UPA to insulate itself from the charge of not being serious about passing the legislation. While there is a general agreement that the entire political class is not very serious about enacting the law, it is the UPA in general and the Congress party specifically that is seen as being responsible for the delay in passing the Bill.

Governments have often dithered on key issues but rarely have they been seen to be stalling a process for which there is popular support. As far as the Lok Pal Bill is concerned, the government of Manmohan Singh will need to be more innovative to dust off some of the dirt that has stuck to it.

I have long maintained among friends that she is the Uma Bharti of West Bengal. Meaning, both – and they are inherently well-meaning leaders – can lead an agitation to its logical culmination but cannot govern in their wildest dreams. In politics you require the chutzpah to ensure that the government – or people in authority – of the day bend before your agitation. But in governance you are required to listen, think, put one against another and act if you want to be your agitational self – or not act if you want to pick a leaf from the tome of Manmohanomics. It is only rarely that an Indira Gandhi comes along who has the capacity to call a Spade a Spade and also ensure that all the creases are ironed out.

The bottom line is that as a leader of agitations you require to be spontaneous and have the ability to cock a snook at your adversary. In governance you need to be routine (diligent if you prefer this word), ensure that the horse comes before the cart (meaning systems are followed) and above all grant the others, the right to disagree with you and agitate if they wish to exercise their democratic right.

CM Banerjee is doing none of the above. There is unanimity about her churlish behaviour also. The reason is why?

I am reminded of an honest confession by one of the stalwarts of Indian politics – Lal Krishna Advani. After the rubble of the Babri Masjid had settled down he had confessed that December 6, 1992 was the saddest day in his life. Why? Because the hate symbol that had propelled him and his party from obscurity to political dominance had been demolished.

Mamata Banerjee has a similar problem. Last year on May 13, when the tidal wave in West Bengal swept her into Writer’s Building, she discovered that the figurine she had used as a hate symbol in her pursuit of power had fallen by the wayside. With that symbol gone, she was without an ally as the entire campaign had been built on a negative plank – off with their heads. There was never an alternate plan. Not a manifesto (however much one dislike this word, it still serves a purpose) of what she wanted to do if she came to power.

Negative planks have never survived. Remember the Janata Party experiment of 1977? Whose manifesto would shape policy of the government? The government fell even before the question could be resolved.

Mamama Banerjee’s plight has lessons for every political leader. While chipping away at an edifice, it is also important to keep building your own platform. Like a writer does, one word followed by another with some mortar in between.

But more importantly, punctuations have to be precise. You cannot have a question mark when an exclamation mark is the order or the moment. A smile and smirk – both start with the alphabet ‘S’. The rest is different.

In 2004, when the National Democratic Alliance lost the parliamentary election, the Congress-led coalition announced it would review the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2000, that had been drawn up by the NDA. A National Steering Committee, chaired by Prof. Yash Pal, and 21 National Focus Groups were set up for detoxing textbooks from the saffronisation they underwent during the NDA years.

A new National Curriculum Framework was released in 2005 through a participative process. The document was further debated and it was decided that instead of reverting to old textbooks with a top-down approach, new ones would be prepared, incorporating fresh pedagogic thinking. A fairly intensive collective process of textbook writing followed.

While releasing the political science textbook containing the now extracted Shankar cartoon in December 2006, the NCERT Director, Krishna Kumar wrote in the foreword: The NCF 2005 recommends that children’s life at school must be linked to their life outside the school. This principle marks a departure from the legacy of bookish learning which continues to shape our system and causes a gap between the school, home and community.

The National Monitoring Committee headed by Mrinal Miri and GP Deshpande oversaw the process and Suhas Palshikar and Yogendra Yadav were chief advisors for this particular book. There would have been other advisors for textbooks in other subjects – all of which are now to be reviewed by a committee headed by Sukhdeo Thorat.

Sections of the intelligentsia became active partners of UPA-I because of its endorsement of secular politics and social and economic inclusion. Committees for Rights to Information and Education besides the National Advisory Council and of course the NCERT had members of civil society.

At one point, many thought that government was just an instrument of the party which in turn was totally guided by its non-political advisors. This has now turned out to be a mirage. The party and government were always on the same side making use of the intelligentsia till the point when it suited its political needs. The moment, it felt no further need for them and wished to return to conservatism of yore, it did not bat an eyelid before jettisoning those who were championed earlier.

It is time to prepare a balance sheet on what the engagement with the system has achieved. If all school textbooks go back to Gyan-giving approach because of some illustrations that can be interpreted variously, then what had this period achieved?

Similarly, the impasse over the Lokpal Bill should prompt civil society into scrutinising what it has achieved by being part of deliberative processes – be it food security, environmental protection, communal harmony or even the anti-graft Bill. It is for the civil society to consider if in the final analysis, they changed or influenced the system or was the system successful in co-opting this section of the intelligentsia. Finally, one needs to consider if it possible to influence policy without being participants in electoral politics.

When BCCI launched Indian Premier League it had two avowed goals: identify and nurture Indian talent and provide a platform for them; and bring newer audience to the sport especially families, women and children. The latter has happened as palpable from brawls in stadia and hotels. I am not sure about the former.

In 2011, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance headed by former Finance Minister, Yashwant Sinha, examined tax exemption matters related to BCCI and IPL. The Committee took oral evidence from representatives of Finance Ministry, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Directorate of Enforcement, Reserve Bank of India and BCCI.

The Committee prefaced its report by stating that the fair name of a ‘gentlemen’s game’ should not have been allowed to get sullied and embroiled in transgressions of law ‘off the field’.

The report then established that the Income Tax Department had been lenient on BCCI, “allowing them to enrich their coffers at the expense of the exchequer”. Because of this the Committee asked for a thorough probe into the matter. There is no information on whether this was done or not.

The Committee also investigated investments made by IPL franchisees – Rajasthan Royals, Kolkata Knight Riders, Kings XI Punjab and Mumbai Indians and established that these had been routed from entities located in countries such as Mauritius, Bahamas, British Virgin Island etc. The Committee concluded that the franchisees had committed FEMA violation and asked the government to “thoroughly investigate” violations committed by BCCI and IPL franchisees. This is yet to be done but new franchisees have been added by BCCI.

The Committee also investigated IPL related bank transactions and established – after a RBI enquiry – that several banks had not complied with FEMA provisions and had not exercised due diligence in obtaining necessary declarations and documentation. The Committee noted that the Income Tax Department had been lenient on BCCI. The Committee wanted this matter probed further and an Action Taken Report submitted within a month. This is yet to be done.

The conclusions of the Committee are available in the public domain. Despite this there has been no effort by government to act decisively. Incidents like SRK vs Wankhede Bosses (good name – can be considered for another franchisee) were waiting to happen.

Like most things that have endlessly dragged on for years together, the government has to make up its mind whether it wishes to act or not. The problem with IPL is that with every passing year, it is losing its appeal even while operational costs have gone up significantly for both BCCI and franchisees.

Without going into the merits and demerits of various arguments it needs to be understood that franchise holders like SRK are waking on thin ice and the moment there is a slightest provocation like in the case of SRK, all decencies are forgotten by people whose nerves are already frayed. IPL needs a permanent fix!

In the fortnight since the last post in this series has there been any tangible movement in the unfolding saga of India’s next President?

Well not really except that the media has reported that Pranab Mukherejee and Vice President have emerged as frontrunners. After the initial mention as one of the contenders, the name of PA Sangma had dropped off the horizon but resurfaced on May 17. Two significant regional satraps – J Jayalalithaa and Navin Patnaik extended support for the former Lok Sabha Speaker.

The common posturing of the leaders of the governing parties from Tamil Nadu and Orissa is indicative of new alliances being struck and sheds light on some of the ginger groups that are beginning to coalesce not just for the Presidential election but also for the next Lok Sabha polls.

There however is a problem with Sangma’s candidature. The raison d’être of Sangma’s politics since he left Congress in the mid-1990s has been anti-Congressism – and anti-Sonia Gandhi to be precise.

In 1996 when he was elected Speaker, Sangma was in the Congress and the BJP headed government in its first stint that was just 13-day long. The BJP had used this opportunity to get its man – Suraj Bhan – elected as Deputy Speaker even when everyone knew that the BJP would not be able to muster the support of any other party and be able to run the government beyond the fortnight granted by President Shankar Dayal Sharma to prove its majority.

Later when Sangma parted ways with the Congress, he was extremely critical of Sonia Gandhi and this should probably be the reason why little support for him is coming forth from the Congress. This is also probably the reason why Praful Patel also declared on Thursday: “We are a small party, we cannot have our candidate.” The NCP does not want a clean break from Congress as state elections in Maharashtra are also due in 2014.

Sangma’s election as India’s next President is likely to be possible only in the event of a new Front comprising regional chieftains emerging – with the idea that this alliance is going to continue for the next parliamentary polls. With other political figures such as Kamal Nath, there will be plenty of people keeping their eye out on this presidential election.

At the moment it appears that no political party has been able to reach a final decision on India’s next President. All names doing the rounds are either speculations of the media or names that are being floated by leaders in their personal capacity to check on possible reactions of alliance partners and political adversaries.

From the calendar followed in 2007 it appears that we are almost a month away from the opening of nominations. The two largest parties – Congress and BJP – who have well above 300 Lok Sabha seats are keeping their options open even while keeping the others – and the media – guessing.

The BJP has found it easier to amend the other Constitution that is in its realm – the party Constitution. In less than a week, the document is widely expected to be amended once again to pave the way for Nitin Gadkari to get another three years stint as party president.

If this happens at the National Executive meeting in Mumbai on May 24-25, it would be the second time the party Constitution would be amended in quick succession for making changes to the same clause: the tenure of party president.

Earlier in 2006 this had been changed from a maximum permissible two terms of two years each to one term of three years duration when Rajnath Singh was re-elected party president. This is being once again altered because Big Brother in Nagpur wants another term for the ever-unpopular Gadkari.

Unlike the Constitution Review Committee, there is no opposition to the move to amend the party constitution because it is probably not a sacrosanct document and is instead just a convenient assortment of clauses to serve immediate interests of political pygmies.

It would actually take considerable effort to track the number of times and the clauses in the BJP constitution that have been amended in the party 32 year long history. The latest occasion was in 2009 when LK Advani stepped down as Leader of Opposition and was appointed Chairman of the BJP Parliamentary Party – a newly created post through an amendment in the party constitution.

History shows that the BJP has amended its rules for the benefit of a handful of leaders. In the present instance, Gadkari will be the blessed one despite his lacklustre stint so far. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leadership has backed Gadkari because choosing one leader from the Delhi-based aspirants for the top spot in the party would create imbalances at the Centre.

Among other leaders, the name of Narendra Modi has cropped up on several occasions. Outside the party, the non-elevation of Modi has been attributed to the negative image he conjures up because of the Gujarat riots of 2002. But within the party it is no secret that the reasons for Modi to stay confined to Gujarat is because of the animosity towards him within the RSS and also among significant sections of the central leadership.

Gadkari’s re-election is unlikely to extricate the BJP from the crisis it has found itself in since 2004. How the party can buck this trend and under whose leadership is a completely different story.

At the heart of this question lies a presupposition that school students have little or no political consciousness and that subjective portrayal of situations – which is what a cartoon does – would present subjectivity as the only truth, because textbooks are supposed to contain nothing but the truth.

School students are also members of society and get affected and influenced by the prevailing currents of social discourse. I was (also) in Class IX when the first whispered sloganeering was done by our lot while dispersing after morning assembly. The period of Emergency had just been ushered in by Indira Gandhi and someone had distributed slips which goaded us to call out her name aloud without the alphabet ‘N’ in the surname. None of us were radicals and to the best of my knowledge no one save this writer went on to make political analysis a component of the professional career.

In almost four decades, school children would only have become more politically aware given that they would be just a couple of years – or at best three years – away from becoming voters. Does this not mean that those arguing for the need to protect school children from partisan views are in fact trying to block views that take a critical look at the political process?

It needs to be kept in mind that the system is always on the prowl to shut out any material which is discomforting to it. Not having seen any of the textbooks that are being scrutinised by the appointed censors, I wonder what would be the fate of any text on the Emergency Era that also used Abu Abraham’s famous cartoon  depicting President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed in a bathtub signing ordinances.

New Delhi’s Toon Strike also brought out the old practise of neo-converts being more loyal than the king. If Dr BR Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru had no objections to Shankar’s portrayal of the perceived slow progress in drafting India’s Constitution, does it make sense for those who survive by chanting their names, to protest?

Another crime has been committed: Ambedkar has been reduced to a Dalit icon – nothing more, nothing less. Protestors presented Ambedkar solely as a champion of Dalit rights – the campaign against the cartoon was led by Dalit political leaders – and thereby ended up negating his contribution to non-Dalit issues in the course of the national movement.

Ambedkar was relevant in his lifetime not only for bringing Dalit issues into the political mainstream but for being a reasoned critic of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru when few dared to make their point.

Once again, the State has succumbed to populist political blackmail by those who wear the label of the discriminated.

Ten years ago the celebration to mark the golden jubilee of Parliament was not so lavish given the fact that the occasion was close on the heels of the riots in Gujarat. But in the function in the evening to mark the event, speakers had stressed on the same issues that they did on Sunday – May 13, 2012.

On November 26, 2001 the then Lok Sabha Speaker GMC Balayogi, Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Krishan Kant, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Leader of Opposition Sonia Gandhi were among those who attended a one-day conference of All India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers and Legislators. The day-long meeting unanimously adopted a resolution that if it had been implemented would have laid down a code of conduct for the legislators including automatic suspension of any member from the House for misconduct. The resolution was adopted because of growing misconduct and unruly behaviour of MPs in Parliament and MLAs and MLCs in state legislatures.

More than a decade later, the political class is yet to move beyond platitudes and resolves!

Certain statistics have often been cited to drive home the point that parliamentarians and legislators have reduced the House into a veritable boxing ring. It is underlined that the number of days that Parliament now sits is far less than in 1952 and that the number of Bills passed by Parliament has declined over the last few decades.

To take up the second figure, it must be remembered that in the early years of the Republic there was a far greater need for passing new laws as every day saw the emergence of new situations that needed a legislative fix. This situation has altered in six decades and it is only natural that there would be fewer laws that need to be passed.

On the other set of figures, it is true that the average number of days that Parliament now sits has come down when compared to the first Lok Sabha. But it also needs to be understood that Departmentally Related Standing Committees were instituted in 1993 and since then many Bills and issues besides the Demands for Grants are referred to these committees.  This work though happening outside the scheduled sittings of Parliament is in every way also parliamentary work.

This basically leaves the matter of disruptions. In 2001, the Congress was in Opposition and the Treasury Benches of that time wears the hat of the Opposition now. Experience shows that whichever party is in Opposition, it is the leader in disruption. Experience also suggests that such disruption can be somewhat reduced if government suo motu decides to meet likely demands after the eruption of a controversy.

The fix has to be political and the ball will always be in the government’s court regardless of the party that has its reins.

This section of the civil society argued against that section – comprising one-time fellow-travellers – making their draft of the Bill, a non-negotiable instrument. Parliamentarians across parties rightly contended that the task of making laws was their prerogative and it could not be coerced into either circumventing the parliamentary process or accepting the draft prepared by a private group.

In April, Mamata Banerjee turned into the Queen of Spades and wanted the heads of cartoonists and those who circulated it on the Internet. At that time, this blog had argued against rejection of humour and recapitulated Francis Ford Copolla’s quip to Capitol Hill’s criticism of Apocalypse Now.

The political farce enacted over a 62 year old cartoon that has been part of a NCERT book for five years has shown that Hazare and Banerjee are not alone in their intolerance. It has also shown that the political class as a whole does not have the guts to stand up for principles in the face of unreasoned championing of popular causes. Historians and scholars will shudder at the following assertions:

“Dr. BR Ambedkar was the only person who made this Constitution, without any support of the Drafting Committee…”

“Samvidhaan ki dhajjiyaan urhai ja rahee hai” (The Constitution is being smashed to smithereens).

The statements were made by two honourable Members of Lok Sabha – Thol Thirumaavalavan and Shailendra Kumar of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi and Samajwadi Party. Others who added to the din in Lok Sabha were not identified as it was not on record.

So what was the outcome of this demagoguery? HRD minister Kapil Sibal came back to the House after the disruptions and declares that government had almost a fortnight ago (on April 26) written to the NCERT making it clear that the ministry after examining the issue had found it “advisable to withdraw the cartoon from the NCERT Textbooks.”

There is silence on why the cartoon had been allowed to be part of the Textbook for all of five years. There is also no word if the ministry is examining other cartoons or other portions in that Textbook or in any other book. There is also no word if the government is considering any pre-emptive action to prevent recurrence of similar incidents if any other group finds material objectionable to their icons.

The removal of the cartoon by Shankar is symptomatic of the culture of intolerance that is gripping Indian politics. Previously the spirit of intolerance was synonymous to majoritarianism but has in the past two decades become a powerful tool in the hands of self-professed representatives of the underprivileged sections of society.

Government has demonstrated itself to be weak-kneed and incapable of taking a principled position on the Ambedkar cartoon issue. It is reminiscent of the buckling down by Rajiv Gandhi’s government on the Shah Bano judgement in 1985. The civil society has no option but to steer clear of the system that does not have courage to stand by the principles it wishes its appointees to follow.

An application under the Right to Information had been filed with the BMC Commissioner seeking the information regarding the fine that Tendulkar finally paid after initial reports suggested it had been waived off. But since the information pertained to a private citizen and concerned disclosing confidential information to a third party, BMC sought clearance from Tendulkar.

The batting maestro chose decline sharing the information. In a situation like that and with no clarification issued by Tendulkar as to why this was done, the field has been thrown open to insinuations. There is also no information available about the date on which Tendulkar advised BMC against sharing the information.

The timing of his denial becomes vital because it is important to know if this is prior to the date when Tendulkar’s term as a nominated member of Rajya Sabha began. The nominated members’ terms begin from the date when her or his name gets duly included in the official Gazette.

Under the Members of Rajya Sabha (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Rules 2004, every elected member of Rajya Sabha is required to furnish declaration regarding Assets and Liabilities and Assets of her or his spouse and dependent children within 90 days from the date on which they take oath. However, nominated members of the Rajya Sabha are exempted from filing their assets and liabilities under Section 75A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.

But, in an era where increased transparency is the general demand, the question that rises is that if nominated members are indeed eminent citizens, then should they not take the lead and disclose their assets and liabilities even though the rulebook does not specify it.

As far as Tendulkar is concerned, it would be wise for him to remember that by accepting the nomination to Rajya Sabha he can no longer hide under the label of being a private citizen. Being a Member of Parliament is as public an act as can be and he would qualify to be a public servant by virtue of the salary he would be entitled to draw.

Even if it transpires that Tendulkar’s decision to decline permission to BMC to divulge information regarding the penalty that he paid, was prior to his nomination, there is nothing stopping him from suo motu making the information public.

Tendulkar is yet to take guard in the new ground that he has acquiesced to play in. His stance will have to be different. The more he tries hiding behind opaque norms the goodwill earned over two decades will begin to erode. The new arena that Tendulkar has stepped in is a veritable minefield.

Indian President Pratibha Patil reads a emblem with South Africa's constitution written on it, inside Parliament in Cape Town, South Africa, Friday, May 4, 2012. Pic: AP

There is, however, one criticism that has come from more than one quarter which is difficult to accept: A friend was telling me the other day that his son – in his early twenties – was complaining about the terrible image of Indian women that the President has portrayed to the world outside on her trips abroad. Well, how has she done this? Why, by all that ghunghat-shughat, all that pallu-wallu. After all, that imagery is a part of the past that India is trying to live down and instead present a modern look. This lot would have preferred India’s first woman President to present a more urban (and urbane) image and pretend that is the way the majority of Indian women were.

The young lad is not alone in his opinion. There are many others in his peer groups who think likewise. This is the generation that has grown up buying their daily bottle of water because the taps in cities provide contaminated water; the generation that has been lead to believe in the power of money; the generation that would like the hemlines of the skirts of their girl friends to rise but drop down in the case of their wives or mothers. This is the same generation that would not have faulted Patil if she was their grandmother (or great grand mom) but they find faults with her because she is someone else’s granny.

This problem is felt by not just the young generation but even others who think likewise. And, it is not restricted to Patil’s attire. Their problem is with the pre-modern imagery that Patil has projected throughout her presidency. It has come as a handicap to her that her term came in the footsteps of APJ Abdul Kalam who built a constituency among the upwardly mobile middle classes in the course of his tenure.

Patil’s presidency can – and may be should also be – faulted for various reasons but not surely for projecting a certain stereotype of Indian politicians. Basically the discomfort with her stems from a colonial hang-up where the ultimate certificate of merit is issued by the fair skinned.

This can be understood best by also keeping in mind the fact that ones who reach similar conclusions are also those who still follow footsteps of predecessors and migrate from India after picking up a basic professional degree. For them, their redemption – and recognition – will also come abroad or from people across the proverbial seven seas. It is the same reason why the President is bad because she projects a dehaati image. Not of any consequence to them that this is the same lady who in her youth was a table tennis champion before taking to politics. One can understand this outlook in the 1960s and 1970s, but it is a tad difficult to accept in the post-liberalisation era.

Albert Pinto has surely returned with his anger. Like the character essayed by Naseeruddin Shah in Saeed Mirza’s classic film, his girlfriend can ride the bike but not let the skirt ride. But if she is someone else’s girlfriend or even the Mahamahim, it is acceptable because it would bring a favourable nod from the West.

Did anyone say double standards do not exist any longer in India?

The first edition of the programme was mainly a summarisation of the issue of sex-selective abortions that has raged for close to three decades in different parts of India. Viewed dispassionately, the first edition of Satyamev Jayate does not add any fresh dimension to the issue. On the contrary, it was too Rajasthan-specific and left out key facts like the one that the ultrasound tests – in their previous avataar as amniocentesis were first reported from Punjab in the late 1970s. There of course were liberal doses of tear-jerking moments, some natural and others contrived, many would contend.

In fact, if one were to morph Aamir Khan’s face and digitally tamper with his voice in the programme, the episode would appear no different from countless talk shows that have been aired on different news channels in India during the past decade and a half. The anchor of this episode also said nothing new that the previous news anchors – some of them being celebrities in their own right – have not already said on the subject.

The only innovation in the entire programme were the SMSs that were solicited to endorse a petition to the Rajasthan chief minister for clubbing all the cases following a sting operation in one single fast track court. But barring the name of the NGO to which the funds generated would be routed to, the programme made no further disclosure about it.

What then is Satyamev Jayate? Is it journalism or entertainment with the spin of celebrity endorsement of a cause célèbre? Is the programme any different – except being expanded forms – from those CSR-type ads that have Amitabh Bachchan – or some other smaller celebrity – imploring people to spare time for administering just two drops of polio drops for their child?

Is Satyamev Jayate a more realistic venture when compared to Aamir Khan’s Taare Zameen Par – the hit film that successfully portrayed the life of a dyslexic child? Or can one say that the entire programme has been conceived to give a more humane face to the corporate sponsors – after all some of the giants of the corporate world, including the foundation linked to the biggest emergent media baron of India – are sponsoring the programme?

These are questions that need to be weighed rationally and analysed in a circumspect manner. This is a new medium – a celebrity picking up a social cause as a subject for his chat show. Responses to it have to be calibrated and cannot be kneejerk in nature – like the wah-wahs that erupted just as the last strands of the evocative Swanand Kirkire song were playing out.

An important point that scriptwriters got Aamir to make was that sex-selective abortions were forced on hapless women by people who were urbane, educated and professionally accomplished. Unfortunately, a lot of them would also have watched Satyamev Jayate. And then would have said to each other, it’s still going to be business as usual.

Two words abound in the run-up to the presidential poll: consensus and non-political.

Let us take the concepts and suggestions one by one. Firstly, there is no tradition of consensus in the Indian presidential poll. The only time there has been a no-contest was in 1977 when Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy’s nomination was the only one among those filed by 37 candidates that passed muster at the scrutiny stage. Those polls were held in July 1977 – barely four months after the electoral drubbing of the Congress led by Indira Gandhi. As a result, the Congress did not field a candidate against Reddy – whose defeat was ensured by Gandhi in the 1969 election.

There were three occasions when there was a consensus among the largest political parties on one candidate. The occasions were in 1957, 1962 and 1997 and the consensus choices were Dr Rajendra Prasad, Dr S Radhakrishnan and KR Narayanan. But most importantly there was no consensus in 1952 – the first presidential polls.

On that occasion, Prasad sailed through but after facing a limited challenge from KT Shah, a member of Constituent Assembly from Bihar who had been put up by the Communist Party of India and Akali Dal. The reason given was that Prasad had been sponsored by the Congress. Having a contest in the President election is thus the tradition and a consensus is an aberration – a special situation.

The loudest voices for a consensus choice this time has so far come the Left. Ironically, it was this bloc which propped up candidates against persons who eventually Presidents in 1987 (VR Krishna Iyer against R Venkatraman) and in 2002 (Lakshmi Sehgal against APJ Abdul Kalam).

Contests are always healthy for a vibrant democracy. Consensus choices always smack of a behind the scene arrangement among members of the political class. Such public perceptions only strengthen the causes of non-believers in the democratic system – people like Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev.

The clamour for a non-political person as President is also symptomatic of political naiveté. True Radhakrishnan, Zakir Hussain and Abdul Kalam had not become Presidents through the political process. But the first two had been the Head of States when Indian polity did not have the contemporary complexities. Abdul Kalam was a political choice because of his pedigree and his professional background. In the end he turned out to be no less a political President when compared to others like Zail Singh, Venkatraman, Shankar Dayal Sharma, and Narayanan. The clamour for another term for him may also indicate that he ended up being the most political of all Presidents.

Events in 1989, 1990 and 1991 had tested even an astute politician like Venkatraman. With an unclear political looming large in the next hustings, it is better to have as President a person who has slightly more than just rudimentary knowledge of the constitutional and political process of the country.

There is nothing romantic about a presidential poll. Politics cannot become more direct than this. The people however would want it to stay in e realms of the spirit of democracy.

The media interest however has been sustained because of interest from the viewing public. For once, the media has not been off-target in its favourite we give the people what they want argument.

It would be unfair to single out Indians. Over the years urban consumers of print and TV media have shown great taste for murder cases involving well-heeled people. In India, such cases are often termed celebrated cases in the media as if a murder is an event of celebrations.

The Nanavati murder case in Bombay in the late 1950s was among the first cases labelled crime of passion or honour killing. The case drew great media attention and was one of the factors behind Maharashtra Governor, Vijaylakshmi Pandit, pardoning the Naval Commander Kawas Maneckshaw Nanavati.

In the early 1970 Vidya Jain, wife of reputed eye surgeon NS Jain was murdered outside their South Delhi house. The case that led to the conviction of the doctor and his nurse who was also his lover was also led from the front by the newspapers.

Barely a few years later, a case in Calcutta hogged headlines for years. The Surupa Guha murder case again involved the rich other – in this case the promoters of the elite South Point School.

For the past four years every involved group in the NOIDA twin murders have plugged their moral line. Even the local police chief had taken recourse to moralising instead of sticking to legalese. Though the CBI accepted its failure in cracking the case, its closure report nonetheless was as suggestive as media reports. The judiciary too decided to utilise this window to moralise further and ordered trial in a case where the prosecution does not have evidence but only imputations.

Barely a few kilometres from the site of the NOIDA twin murders and just 18 months before the two murders the Nithari murder cases had drawn hordes of the media. But after the initial months, the interest has died down and few crime reporters would be able to give an impromptu update on the number of cases where trial is over and details of the verdicts. Why? Because the victims (and one of the accused) are not well-heeled – not one of us?

Cases like the one involving Talwars are closer to the middle class world and are non-political – unlike mass riot cases – and thus make to demands on taking a political position. It also panders to the voyeur within the middle classes. The skeletons in the cupboards of the neighbours always makes for good kitty party and evening gossip.

The media always partook in this. Now even the judiciary wants to lead trial by hearsay. Investigate the Talwars again, even re-examine all witnesses. But let that be driven by intention and not by suggestion. If the Jessica Lal case could have been solved after seven years and an acquittal, there is no reason why the police and courts cannot prise this case open. Provided everyone stops playing to the gallery.

The basics first – the likely calendar.

President Pratibha Patil’s tenure comes to an end on July 24, 2012. Vice President Hamid Ansari’s term ends on August 8. The laws – and elections rules – that govern these two polls specifies that notification should be issued – as per convenience – any time after the sixtieth  day  before  the  outgoing President or Vice President’s term expires. Only elected members of Parliament and legislative assemblies of States can vote for the President but nominated members of the two Houses of Parliament vote for the Vice President. Members of legislative assemblies do not vote for the VP.

By convention, Secretary Generals of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are by rotation appointed Returning Officers by the Election Commission. In 2007 SG, Lok Sabha was Returning Officer for the presidential polls while SG of Rajya Sabha was given charge of the Vice Presidential election. In 2007, the term of office of APJ Abdul Kalam, was also to end on July 24 – so a similar calendar is likely this time. The then VP – Bhairon Singh Shekhawat’s tenure was to end on August 18 but he announced his resignation on July 22 after his defeat in the presidential poll.

The notification for the presidential poll was issued in 2007 on June 16 and June 30 was the last day for filing nominations. For the Vice Presidential poll, nominations opened on July 9 and closed on July 23. The election for the President was held on July 19 and for the Vice President on August 10.

If a similar calendar is followed this time, the media and pundits still have two entire months to keep speculating on likely candidates, frontrunners and dark horses. For the VP, there is even more time.

From the calendar another fact is evident. A deal between political parties – adversaries or allies – for a quid pro quo arrangement on the two polls, is unlikely as nominations do not open and close simultaneously. No political party in today’s political climate is likely to accept a promise of another on face value.

It also needs to be recapitulated that Hamid Ansari was named as the UPA-Left candidate on July 20 a day after the presidential election. In 2007 relationships within UPA and with Left Front was not as tenuous as at present. On the basis of current reading, no political party is likely to consider a package deal at this stage and they would rather cross the two bridges one by one.

There is also no necessity for any political party to finalise the names of any of the candidates. In 2007, the UPA-Left announced Pratibha Patil’s name on Jun 14 – three days after nominations opened. Prior to this however – journalists later reported – the Prime Minister “got prepared a list of 10 top women in the country”.

Surely, some – if not several – leaders and parties may be quietly drawing up lists. May be a list is quietly being prepared by someone on 10 top Christian men. India after all has never had a President from this religious minority.

To begin with, for the past 11 years – ever since the Tehelka tapes were first telecast in March 2001 – the defence of Laxman by the BJP was never as vigorous as it might have been if an upper caste leader had been accused of similar charges.

From the beginning Laxman made two points – very vital in the entire case. Firstly he told interviewer after interviewer that he “accepted the money because they gave it to me by saying it was for the party fund… I had immediately told the party treasurer about the whole thing. We even kept the receipt ready, but they never came back. The money was kept in the suspense account…”

Secondly, Laxman suggested that he had discussed government matters – especially those pertaining to defence deals – with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office. Within days two officers had come under a cloud for their alleged role in the entire episode – Brajesh Mishra and NK Singh. The former was the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and the latter Officer on Special Duty in the PMO.

On both issues, the BJP leadership chose to remain silent. The only effort the BJP made to save Laxman was by getting the government led by the party to give tacit instructions to the Central Bureau of Investigations to go slow in its probe of the case.

Even this cover was pulled off Laxman once the National Democratic Alliance was voted out of office in 2004 and the CBI resumed pursuing the case with vigour.

There were some BJP leaders at that time – like CP Thakur – who argued that Laxman was made a scapegoat and that his resignation as party president should not have been accepted. At that time there was virtually no argument – in the BJP and outside it – that was similar to those that come to the fore whenever corruption charges were levied against Mayawati (that it is a Upper Caste conspiracy) or whenever she indulges in an unabashed display of wealth (the underprivileged syndrome – wanting to send signals to previously dominant social groups that the table had been turned).

However, this does not mean that one can condone Laxman for accepting the money from unknown people who were masquerading as arms dealers. But the BJP cannot absolve itself of the charge that Laxman was a product its thought factory having been part of the Sangh Parivar for decades.

Clearly, despite its KN Govindacharya-led attempt at social engineering mainly in the 1990s, the BJP has once again demonstrated that at core it remains an Upper Caste party with a few strategic alliances in some regions with Other Backward castes.

If Dalits stray into the BJP, then they are to be shunned by mainstream and more representative Dalit parties and organisations. La affaire Bangaru Laxman has underscored that being Dalit in the BJP is a bad deal – either way.

But, before this we need to quickly recapitulate those who have been in this high office. The first President, Dr Rajendra Prasad had a political background and having headed the Constituent Assembly, his choice was a foregone conclusion. But a corrective decision was taken simultaneously – Dr S Radhakrishnan’s election as Vice President. Corrective because the message sent out initially and finally endorsed in 1962 was that the Vice President would eventually be promoted. In 1962, it was also signalled by Nehru’s government that the President’s office would be kept away from partisan politics – to underscore this, Dr Zakir Hussain was elected VP.

The need for a political President arose after the 1967 election resulted in Congress losing its stranglehold and VV Giri became VP. In 1969 when Indira Gandhi began the process of splitting the Congress by supporting Giri against Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy – the official Congress candidate, both were political candidates.

Thereafter, there was no looking back. Even KR Narayan, despite his academic and diplomatic background was initiated in politics before becoming VP and eventually President. APJ Abdul Kalam neither had a political pedigree nor had he ever held an elected office. But the decision to field him was a political one – as the poll was held in the aftermath of Gujarat riots in 2002. The Congress did not oppose Kalam and a couple of other anti-BJP parties also extended support to him primarily because of his professional background and religious identity.

The present occupant of Rashtrapati Bhawan was the only one on whom most journalists had to do a quick Google search to know who she was.

Coming back to the only apolitical President in decades, Kalam lived up to the expectations by not being a doormat or a rubber stamp. His stance on Gujarat elections immediately after being elected required the matter to go up all the way to the Supreme Court. He also carved a separate constituency for himself and endeared himself to the middle classes who found him a clean alternative to dirty world of politics.

Hamid Ansari was a non-political VP which surely raises the spectre that he may buck the trend of the past decade (of two VPs not going past that office). But, make no mistake political parties are unlikely to take chances with someone who does not have a political past given the likely fragmentation in the next parliamentary election.

No prime ministerial aspirant among the satraps would want anyone from their region to be nominated to top spot as it would preclude their rising. Earlier, every Congress leader of some worth and outside the family was keen on the top spot because they knew the being prime minister was impossible. Now, no leader worth his salt would accept the offer and become a forced bystander in 2014.

No real options remain for the people except accepting the compromise choice. One only hopes that the person remains committed to the Constitution, sets a high standard for her (unlikely though) or his conscience and does not fear shaking the edifice if the flow of events is contrary to public and political morality.

Article 80 of the Constitution of India: “The Council of States shall consist of – (a) twelve members to be nominated by the President in accordance with the provisions of clause (3); and (b) not more than two hundred and thirty-eight representatives of the States and of the Union territories.”

Clause 3 says: “The members to be nominated by the President under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely: Literature, science, art and social service.”

The Rajya Sabha booklet is part of its Practice and Procedure Series and seeks to highlight, the role and importance of nominated Members of Rajya Sabha. It says:

“By adopting the principle of nomination in Rajya Sabha, the Constitution has ensured that the nation must also receive services of the most distinguished persons of the country who have earned distinction in their field of activity, many of whom may not like to face the rough and tumble of the election (sic). By nominating them to Rajya Sabha, the State not only recognises their merit and confers honour on them, but also enables them to enrich the debates by their expertise and knowledge that they have in different areas.”

The first dozen nominated in 1952 were distinguished people and included Dr Zakir Hussain who later became President. The list included poet Maithilisharan Gupta, Professor Satyendranath Bose, Rukmini Devi Arundale besides Prithviraj Kapoor.

On May 13, 1952 when India’s first Parliament was convened, India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, said: “…The President has nominated some members of the Council of States who, if I may say so, are among the most distinguished in arts, science, etc, (sic) – and our Constitution in its wisdom gave that.  They do not represent political parties or anything, but they represent really the high watermark of literature or art or culture or whatever it may be.”

Of the ten nominated members currently, Mani Shankar Aiyar is a member of the Congress party and has faced the “rough and tumble” of elections several elections including in 2009 when he lost from Mayiladuthurai in Tamil Nadu. Another of them – Bhalchandra Mungekar – is an eminent economist and educationist but became a member of the Congress party after being nominated in March 2010. The Congress is not alone in inducting nominated members: Hema Malini, Dara Singh and Chandan Mitra were among those nominated but who joined the BJP later.

Sachin Tendulkar’s nomination may have irked people as the majority of them have said that do not want him in Rajya Sabha. But if one goes through the list of 121 members nominated since 1952, one finds that this is not the first time that the Constitution has not been followed in letter and spirit.

The RS nomination has often been used as a political dole, an instrument of wooing, a tool to placate and as a ploy to bolster numbers. Even the otherwise blemish free record of the United Front government – between 1996-98 – was spoiled by nominating a member of Samajwadi Party (which was part of government) – Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav.

QED: Whoever has the power to pass the executive order does so – no one really cares for constitutional niceties.

For that matter is a bill any different from a Bill and / or is the Act the same as act?

Several weeks ago I had written a post on the declining standards of news writing in India. But this is more serious and I have intended to write about this for several years because every time I was confronted with it, my blood would come to a boil. And mind you, I do NOT pride myself in being the perfect one when it comes to the use of the English language. But language matters – to me and to others. Including to those who find no differences between lower and Lower, scheduled and Scheduled, tribes and Tribes.

I believe that if we write lower castes then we using language as a political tool to undermine an entire community as lesser mortals.

If one uses the lower case as a name for the entire community, then it means that one believes that the people are actually lower. Similarly, if Brahmins or Rajputs are called upper castes, then it would imply that that they are actually from the upper strata of society.

A better way would be use these words in the Upper Case – or as proper Nouns.

It is no different for a Bill and an Act. Unless used in the Upper Case, both words can mean completely different things from the intended legislative documents that they are used to describe. A bill can be both a Verb and a Noun while act will mainly be restricted to something that one does on stage, screen or in life in response to situations.

Both the Bill and an Act go through the portals of Parliament – the former is the name of a law when it is introduced by government or a Private Member and the latter becomes the name of the legislation after it is enacted. It is a different matter that it is routinely written that the bill was first introduced it the lower house of parliament and after enactment, the act was sent to the president for assent.

Language does matter but few are concerned about language matters.

It needs to be kept in mind that an act is the one which two people are purported to have engaged in, in the latest sleaze CD doing the rounds. But an Act would have been the one if on the basis of recommendations of the Standing (not standing) Committee formerly headed by Abhishek Manu Singhvi and after other alterations, the Jan Lokpal Bill had finally been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

The Case Rests!

For the moment, let’s cast this Kolaveri aside and look at the bare skeletons of la affaire Singhvi. An angry sacked driver manages to lay his hand on a visual track allegedly showing his one-time boss in an obviously extra-marital dalliance.

So far there is no complainant except for Singhvi who managed to secure a court injunction preventing the broadcast and circulation of the CD alleging depicting him with an unnamed lady. Of the two characters, Singhvi says one of them is not he.

Whoever the two people in the CD are, there is so far no reason to believe that there was any non-consensual element in the exchange. There is also no evidence so far of the episode creating a domestic discord in the Singhvi household between the former Congress spokesperson and his ghazal singer wife, Anita Singhvi.

There is no charge against any of the three people involved in the creation and dissemination of the controversy – Singhvi (or the person whose face has been morphed with Singhvi’s), the lady and the driver. Charges can be brought by the police against anyone who forwards the images electronically to others – if the police consider the material to be pornographic.

Who is feeling outraged? Mainly, the people who have watched the video in community IPL-type screenings in offices or clandestinely at their homes. If people were so outraged, would it not be better if they stopped viewing the CD?

Sleaze has always existed – except that its form and speed of dissemination has changed dramatically due to technological advancement. Our seniors in the profession used to regale crowds with stories of various glamour girls of Indian Parliament during the Nehruvian era and how they would often flirtatiously banter with their male counterparts who included the estranged son-in-law of the Prime Minister.

Be it Nehru’s relationship with a certain Tantric or his daughter’s ties with a bearded yoga instructor who also claimed to be man of holy orientation, these tales have abounded for decades. But their circulation remained restricted to the word of mouth and a few scurrilous pieces of writing. The writing of Nehru’s secretary – MO Mathai – has been on the internet from the time google became part of everyday lexicon in India.

The pictures of Suresh Ram – Jagjivan Ram’s son – with a lady played a significant role in hastening the fall of the Janata Party government in the late 1970s. In the last decade several CDs of private acts of public figures have surfaced forcing them to retreat to their private worlds.

Earlier, these dalliances were either part of oral gossip or published in a sleaze press with either political motivation or commercial intent. Now circulation has become viral – driven due by voyeuristic instincts and due to the mystified nature of internet’s commerce. None of the two are indicative of decline in moral standards of people in public life. It only shows that despite being aware of the potentials of technological intrusion they remain as complacent as their predecessors.

It was another decade before DDA decided to get into housing activity – that is, build, allot and sell residential properties. Despite the fact that building and selling houses was not the main objective of DDA when it was set up under law, it came to be seen as the provider of reasonably priced homes for the middle and lower middle class through the 1970s, 1980s and the first years of the 1990s.

In the 45 years that DDA has been engaged in housing activity it has allotted a grand total of 394,738 residential flats. Pay attention to the word allotted as it does not mean built because the number displayed on the DDA website includes the re-allotment of surrendered and cancelled flats. Even if you include those flats it translates to DDA making available a princely number of 8971 flats every year.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge on Delhi’s burgeoning demography would agree that DDA’s housing division has built too little. But because it has DDA’s stamp, its houses have drawn hordes at the time of registration of new schemes. In the initial decades the schemes enabled the lucky few from middle classes to secure a house, but in the post liberalisation era, even the DDA has been motivated by trying to desire to get the maximum dividends. No scrutiny has been made if the DDA has remained faithful in fulfilling its objectives – both in letter and in spirit.

Let us look at the latest DDA offering – 110 flats with two, three, four and five bedrooms in the Commonwealth Games Village. The advertisement says that flats are in the most desirable place in the capital. Fair enough – good location, polished pedigree and has the trappings of modern conveniences.

But the fine print reveals that there are a total of 711 flats that DDA has to sell but is presently putting only 110 on the shelf because it was to ascertain the market rate. Forget for a moment if DDA – of all institutions – is unaware of the market rate. Even if we accept the strategy to be legitimate let us see how DDA will do this.

They have asked for tenders form bidders and the flats will go to the highest bidders. Who is eligible for bidding for the ridiculously miniscule number of flats? Citizens of India, NRIs and PIOs, and Central government, state governments, government departments and PSUs.

Only governments and their agencies are entitled to bid for more than one flat.

This way, the ones with the deepest pockets will determine the market rate. It will also falsely inflate the price because the ones who have such deep pockets will bid higher with an idea of out-biding others. This includes governments and its departments who have little constraints of resources. Auctioning resources for business is understandable but not urban housing. For the moment it appears that DDA wants to falsely jack up the market rate as the price in this auction will have a cascading effect.

Given that DDA is a body created by an Act of Parliament, it should not be guided by market diktats alone. It is better to set a reasonable price, seek applications and go in for lots drawn in a transparent manner. Or else, steer clear of housing activity.

With the temperature set to soar in a matter of weeks in Jammu, it is time for the shift to the cooler climes of Srinagar. The summer capital will function till the autumn rings in the annual ode and it will be time for another Darbar Move – back to Jammu.

Reports say that the state government spends Rs 100 million (US$1.2 million) annually on the administrative exercise. Add to this the cost of almost two weeks when the government is in transit. Add another few weeks before the relocated capital sheds its inertia and begins to function efficiently.

For a change in a country where most archaic practices have a colonial past, this one is rooted in feudalism. The Darbar Move was started by the Dogra kings way back in 1870 as they wanted to escape the extreme winters of Srinagar while enjoying the wadiyan during summers.

But the colonial order had its influences even on this as Shimla used to function as a summer capital for the Sahabs from 1864 – much before the city of Delhi officially became the Capital of colonial India. In the half century before the birth of New Delhi, Shimla used to be the summer home of the local British bosses. The national capital oscillated between the summer and winter homes till 1939. But the tradition stayed on in Jammu and Kashmir.

Twenty five years ago, Omar Abdullah’s father – Farooq Abdullah the chief minister then, tried to end the practise and have only Srinagar as the all-weather capital. The people of Jammu protested vehemently when the move was made in October 1987. They perceived it as a grave injustice to them – apprehending that this was the first step towards making Srinagar the capital of the state and thereby institutionalising the process of discriminating against them.

The decision was taken summarily without even a proper agenda note circulated prior to the cabinet meeting. Jagmohan who was Governor of the state at that time – and later returned for another stint – has written in his book ‘My Frozen Turbulence’ that Farooq Abdullah had acted with undue haste and strengthened the belief in the Jammu region that he wanted to favour the people in the Valley for political gains. In the wake of a powerful agitation the decision was abandoned within a month.

Militancy had not reared its head in 1987 in J&K. The situation is different now and Omar Abdullah will have to be more circumspect while trying to reverse a perverse tradition. He has set out the “South African model” in which Bloemfontein, Cape Town and Pretoria are the three capitals – each housing the three estates of the State, as the model for J&K.

Darbar Move was started when governance was a party – and good climes were needed for. In today’s world – especially in states like J&K, nothing is a party. Some archaic traditions thus need to be abandoned – but in a planned manner.

If this was not enough, the survey provided more irksome details: The job of a reporter is even worse than that of a waiter or a worker in an oil rig.

How long are these going to be around for? Pic: AP.

These findings were rightly contested and re-posted. Of the eight reasons listed to argue why being a journalist is not such a bad idea, here are two rather crass ones: You get to meet celebrities and maybe you even get to enjoy a little celebrity.

But, three reasons stand out as important enough to jettison other professions: You’re always learning; you get paid to read a ton and you get paid to meet interesting people. This however still does not break the stereotype of journalists – especially in India – of either being TROUBLE or freeloaders.

Ask mothers-in-law-to-be of journalists about how they feel about the choice of their daughters. Most would wear a worried look: “I am sure he will either get bashed up or will be unable to fend for my daughter”.

Those who have access to the world of journalism, would in contrast take solace – “at least on a few days every month, he will walk in with a gift received at a press conference.” Provided of course, if the son-in-law is a reporter. But then, in public perception every journalist is a reporter – as if there is no need for a news desk in the print media and the packaging and production teams in television!

If one scrolls down the page after the same survey, people who have visited and posted their comments have a common argument: the money in journalism sucks – it’s too little.

In post-colonial India, journalism – like politics – evolved from the national movement. Early post-Independence journalists had a stake in nation-building. The profession thus had a missionary zeal – its pursuit was as good as social work.

Those who entered the profession in the late 1970s and early 1980s were part of the post-Emergency generation for whom public-cause co-existed with political radicalism. Journalism was its extension and though money was important, it was not of paramount importance.

The advent of the Ambanis in the late 1980s forced an upward revision of wages in the industry. This was preceded by the change in the outlook of media barons who started looking at papers and magazines as products not much different from any other – say even toothpastes.

Liberalisation resulted in a boom. Television channels mushroomed and with growing literary levels the print media also expanded.

In the past two decades a piquant situation has arisen: the industry has grown manifold with little thought to ensure quality entrants at the entry levels. Due to technological advancements, most managements think technical skills are better than knowledge bases. Technically skilled manpower is available in abundance and since the supply is more than the demand, wages have not risen like in other professions.

In 1997, as a part of the Gujral Doctrine, Eight Issues were listed as the framework for Indo-Pak dialogue. Talks are still on.

I wonder if the eight reasons listed for journalism’s primacy will continue to be reiterated after an equal number of years.

Revisits are also very useful. In April 2011 an interesting piece of analysis – albeit sympathetic – of the persona of Mamata Banerjee made some interesting points. Foremost among them was the argument that there was need to “contextualize her in Bengal’s thriving culture of male chauvinism”. The article further argued that Banerjee did not fit the frame of the stereotypical respect-worthy “good, maternal, married” Bengali woman and thereby the CPI(M) led animosity and public campaign against her.

But at the same time, the author who was then working on a biography of Banerjee which is since out in the market, also accepted that “within her own party Banerjee functions like a dictator; she evokes awe and even terror among her colleagues”.

While commenting briefly on the post, I had argued that people will eventually not like “only Mamata’s way to the truth” and that what had been seen as a journalist for over 25 years suggested that Mamata did not appear to have “scant respect for systems”.

There is no denying that despite the so-called Bengal Renaissance being ushered in almost two centuries ago, the state has not made a mark in gender parity. The andarmahals of the 19^th century may have disappeared along with feudal Bonedi Baris, but the inner compartments remain in the minds. But with every public display of social and political authoritarianism, Mamata Banerjee is allowing her detractors to use the “look we told you so” argument.

If Mamata has to circumvent the patriarchal animosity towards her, she has to be seen more amiable than she has ever been. By opting for the path she is currently treading, she risks the loss of those sections of the Bhadralok who joined forces with her after getting fed up of the Left Front.

Mamata Banerjee should remember that when political jokes begin to get coined about any leader, party or a movement, more often than not it is a forerunner of its decline. The regime change in West Bengal happened less than a year ago. But in such a short period a lot of goodwill has got eroded because of not being all-encompassing. The West Bengal chief minister has to remember that running a government is different from waging an agitation.

Twenty five years later when one visits the chapter, the moot point is not what came out of the Bofors allegations, investigations and court proceedings. But historians will look at the chapter more as the beginning of a significant political process.

To gets our moorings right a quick recap of the political backdrop: After securing an unprecedented mandate in the 1984 election (304 Lok Sabha seats out of 515 for which polls were held) and spending considerable part of 1985 in signing Accords with rebels groups in the country, Rajiv Gandhi began floundering. This happened due to the twin problems of the Supreme Court’s Shah Bano judgement and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Ayodhya campaign.

Coupled with this trouble was brewing for Gandhi in his political stable. By the end of 1986 evidence surfaced that Finance Minister, VP Singh, had engaged – without Cabinet clearance – an American investigative agency called Fairfax to look into the affairs of Dirubhai Ambani, Amitabh Bachchan and probably even Sonia Gandhi. Predictably Singh was shifted from Finance to Defence Ministry.

When Swedish Radio broke the Bofors story, ties between Singh and some of his associates – Arun Nehru, Arif Mohammed Khan and Mufti Mohammed Sayeed – and Rajiv Gandhi were frosty at the least. It was a matter of time before the parted ways – Singh finally ending up with an anti-Congress party – Janata Dal formed by merger of several groups.

The late 1980s was when Indians came to realise two things: that single party governance was not a prerequisite for policy stability and that social groups denied a share of the political cake till then could also dig in if the social base of ruling party (parties) underwent a change.

But in 1987 when the Bofors story grabbed headlines and cover stories, few would have said that India would never again have a party with its own majority at the Centre for at least a quarter of a century.

In the past 25 years, one has lost count of the number of scams that have surfaced. On several occasions it has appeared that Indians have come to accept that corruption is inbuilt in the Indian political system. But whenever it has appeared that the people have begun to accept the inevitability of corruption, some developments have shaken up the political establishment.

The campaign led by Anna Hazare in 2011 for an effective anti-graft legislation was symptomatic of this. Matters do not appear to be on the boil any more. But it needs to be remembered that Bofors and the damage it did to Rajiv Gandhi are part of folklore and cannot be erased from memory. People know that a rerun is possible anytime.