NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

The Enrons of the      rich world Editors and prime      ministers Musharraf's logic The dignity of law The rot within

The defiant finance minister

It is still a mystery how Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha has been able to escape the ugliness of the UTI mess. It was assumed that he would be asked to go if he did not offer to resign. The middle class, the backbone of the BJP-led coalition in New Delhi, has lost millions of rupees. The least the sufferers expected from the party was that it would appoint a new minister to prove that the BJP had punished Sinha. The articulate Law Minister Arun Jaitley was mentioned as Sinha's successor.

Still, Sinha's defiant statement that he would not quit has turned out to be correct. Two developments seem to have favoured him. One, the infighting raging in the BJP did not allow any firm opinion on Sinha's resignation to emerge. Both Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Home Minister L K Advani, reportedly leading the two opposite camps, did not consider Sinha important enough to put their respective strengths to the test.

He too has been clever enough to be loyal to both of them. By continuing with him, the two camps covered up the differences that would have come into the open if there had been the question of finding Sinha's successor.

The second point to help him was the unexpected turn, which the criticism of Sinha took in Parliament. During the debate on the UTI scandal in the Rajya Sabha, one Shiv Sena member injected in his speech the name of Vajpayee's foster son-in-law, Ranjan Bhattacharya. This was enough to divert attention from Sinha. He was seen at best as an accomplice, not the main actor.

The threat by the prime minister to quit changed the scenario still further. The focus shifted to Vajpayee's resignation. The Advani lobby was caught unawares. It was not ready for the development. It surrendered abjectly. Sinha was forgotten. The rest was an anti-climax.

What the whole episode has, however, proved is that the BJP is a divided house. Vajpayee and Advani do not have the same equation as they had in the past. Some BJP members, who carry tales to both sides, have soured the relationship between the two. It is difficult to say who conveyed to Vajpayee that he had been described as an old man. But the remark was attributed to Advani.

After Vajpayee's threat to quit, things have calmed down a bit. Yet, the impression spread is that the atmosphere would have been far better if Advani had been at the helm of affairs. The Congress demand for his resignation over the killings in Jammu has put his supporters on the defensive. But their effort to project Advani has not slackened. Some journalists too have jumped into the arena.

Indeed, there is a debate going on within the BJP whether Advani would be acceptable to the National Democratic Alliance in case Vajpayee were to step down. The feeling is that the NDA constituents would have no option if they wanted to stay in power.

In reply to the direct question -- what would be the BJP's reaction if the NDA did not accept Advani -- a top party leader said: "We would rather go for a mid-term poll than have anyone else as our leader."

One can understand the compulsions of the NDA or, for that matter, the BJP, not to let the UTI scandal linger. But the volte-face of the Congress is unacceptable. The party was so worked up on the day the scandal hit the headlines. It looked as if the Congress would not allow Parliament to function till Sinha had quit. All of a sudden, the criticism waned and even interruptions in both Houses were half-hearted. It was apparent that something had happened behind the scenes.

What probably did the trick was the reference to the Reliance and the Tatas during the debate. Interestingly, both companies had encashed their UTI certificates just five days before the scandal broke. But, surprisingly, their names did not figure anywhere in the discussion in Parliament after the first day.

It seems that when it comes to the corporate world, both the BJP and the Congress are wary of going beyond certain limits. The clout of big business is to be seen to be believed.

How one wishes that Sinha had owned the moral responsibility. It is no use passing the buck to former UTI chief P S Subramanyam who has openly said that he had made certain investments on orders from above. He reportedly wrote three letters and spoke on the telephone to Sinha on May 18, June 15 and June 30. All this deepens the suspicion.

So does the controversy over Subramanyam's appointment. Did Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa speak to Sinha as former defence minister George Fernandes alleges, or is she a scapegoat?

Another JPC would have been in order. But for reasons best known to the Congress, it did not press for the resignation of Sinha and compromised over the UTI scandal being referred to the JPC, which is going into the stock market scandal.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pramod Mahajan must be a happy man because he has been able to get into the sitting JPC a couple of people without any representative capacity.

One sadly notices that political parties have stopped being bothered about what is right and what is wrong. There is not even a desire to act according to what is right. Yet, if the nation is to preserve the fundamental values of a democratic society, every person -- whether a public functionary or a private citizen -- must display a degree of vigilance and willingness to sacrifice.

The UTI scandal has shown what goes on behind the scenes and that the government cares little about the people's savings.

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO READ:
The UTI Crisis

Kuldip Nayar