Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     11 January 2011

If you can appear before PAC, why to shy before JPC?

Shekhar Gupta: My guest today is my old friend, and if I may say so, a friend with whom my friendship is as old as her political career and my journalistic career. This has been the best year for the Opposition. Aapne ek chief minister gira diya, aapne ek mantri girwa diya, Bihar ko sweep kar liya. Could there be a better year for the Opposition?

Sushma Swaraj: It will be better. 2011 will be better, 2012 will be even better.

 

Shekhar Gupta: 2011 could be the year of woman politicians. Mamata (Banerjee), Jayalalitha, then you are there in the ascendant.

 

Sushma Swaraj: It started from 2010. Rather before that when we got our first woman President.

 

Shekhar Gupta: And don't forget Sonia Gandhi, your very close friend now. We only see pictures of the two of you smiling.

 

Sushma Swaraj: That's my duty towards democracy. I'm leader of the Opposition, she is chairperson of the ruling alliance. And I think it's the beauty of Indian democracy that in the opposition we are not enemies. We are only ideologically opposed to each other. There is opposition on policies, but we are not enemies.

 

Shekhar Gupta: One notices a degree of personal warmth that one did not see earlier. Is there a new respect? Or what is it?

 

Sushma Swaraj: When I became Parliamentary Affairs Minister, it started from there. I thought it was my duty as Minister of Parliamentary Affairs to call on the then leader of Opposition and she was the leader of the Opposition at that time. So I went and called on her at her residence. It started from there and I think she is reciprocating that now.

 

Shekhar Gupta: Has she changed over the years?

 

Sushma Swaraj: In personal relationships, yes. Earlier, she was very quiet, she never used to speak, she very rarely smiled and she was not interactive. Now she interacts, now she has opened up.

 

Shekhar Gupta: Let me take you back to 2004. Go back to your anger—you threatened to shave off your head if she became PM. Do you think it was misplaced? Has that changed?

 

Sushma Swaraj: No, not at all. It was my duty towards my country. And let me tell you that today if she (Sonia) claims that post, I will do the same thing. This is my duty towards democracy.

 

Shekhar Gupta: But what is the difference between being that and being chairperson of the UPA? She is so powerful, she is more powerful than the PM.

 

Sushma Swaraj: Maybe, but being Prime Minister is totally different, constitutionally or officially. I will never accept a foreigner as Prime Minister of the country. She may be the chairperson of the ruling alliance, she may be the chairperson of the Congress, that is their matter. A party chooses whoever as its president, it is for the Congressmen to decide. But the Prime Minister of the country, Indians must decide. It hurts my sensibilities. It hurts the sensibilities of Indians.

 

Shekhar Gupta: So that has not changed?

 

Sushma Swaraj: That has not changed and that will not change.

 

Shekhar Gupta: It doesn't look like that when you see your pictures now.

 

Sushma Swaraj: No, that is what I am saying. That was my duty towards this country and even today if the same thing is repeated, I will repeat the same vows. But as my duty towards democracy, I will always give her respect and I remind you even during the Bellary election...I didn't speak a single word against her as a person. I always said main ek videshi ko pradhan mantri nahin dekh sakti. Meri ladai wahi thi. 2004 main bhi meri ladai wahi thi. (I always said that I cannot see a foreigner becoming the Prime Minister of India).

 

Shekhar Gupta: Sushma, lately we see both trends. We also see, on the one hand, the Opposition and the government talking, at the same time we saw a whole Parliament session completely stalled for the first time. Where are we heading?

 

Sushma Swaraj: It is only due to the obstinate and stubborn attitude of the government. What were we demanding? We were demanding a JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) probe into these three scams. And why was the government so stubborn? I don't know. Earlier also, on two occasions, the Congress gave us a JPC. On two occasions, during six years of our rule, we gave a JPC. And if I may remind you, as Health Minister, I gave a JPC within 15 minutes of the demand. I was Health Minister and there was an issue of pesticides in cola and there was one irritating remark that some Congressman made and the other person said can you give us a JPC and I said, 'Speaker saab, inhe JPC de do (Give them a JPC)'.

 

Shekhar Gupta: What was the irritating remark?

 

Sushma Swaraj: Ki chanda kitna khaaya hai (How much donation did you take)? I immediately said—Manohar Joshi was in the chair—'Speaker saab, give them a JPC'. And I would like to tell you that according to the rules, a JPC is always headed by a person from the ruling coalition, ruling party. Then Sharad Pawar said, JPC de denge, kya mujhe aap adhyaksh bhi bana dengi (you will give us a JPC, but will you make me its head)? Within 15 minutes, I gave a JPC and Sharad Pawar was made the chairman.

 

Shekhar Gupta: But why is the government so firm on that if it is so simple?

 

Sushma Swaraj: I'm unable to spell it out because in three meetings, two convened by Pranab Mukherjee and one convened by the Speaker earlier, all members of the Opposition were asked, why a JPC? We gave them 10 reasons and we asked the government to give us one reason for not setting up a JPC. They could not spell out even a single reason. Even the media is asking them this. Earlier, I heard something that a JPC may call the Prime Minister and so that was the fear. Now, the Prime Minister has offered to appear before the PAC (Public Accounts Committee). If the Prime Minister can appear before the PAC, why can't he appear before a JPC? It's beyond comprehension.

 

Shekhar Gupta: But what is your reading?

 

Sushma Swaraj: My analysis is that they think that the issue may remain alive if they constitute a JPC and they don't want the issue to remain alive. So again and again they were pressing for a discussion. Because if the issue is discussed...

 

Shekhar Gupta: Then it is over...

 

Sushma Swaraj: Then it is talked out. You say Parliament was stalled and that it did not function for the whole session. I tell you, I have reached the conclusion that stalling of Parliament has proved more effective than the functioning of Parliament at this time because the issue is in focus now. Everybody, even in a village, they may not know anything about spectrum, but they may know about 2G. They may not know about 2G, but they say, daal main kuch kala hai, kha gaye aur kuch zyada kha gaye. Kitna kha gaye? 1,76,000 crore kha gaye. This issue has reached the people. So this has been their miscalculation. Had they constituted a JPC, its members would have worked on one side, the session would have also started. The House could have functioned. The issue would not have been focused in this manner as it has been done now.

 

Shekhar Gupta: So what do you see happening? If they don't concede a JPC, then no Budget session?

 

Sushma Swaraj: No, then we will sit again—as the NDA, we will sit also with other parties—and then we will chalk out a strategy.

 

Shekhar Gupta: This government has three-and-a-half more years. You can't sustain this for three-and-half more years.

 

Sushma Swaraj: No, that's what I'm saying. Now the Speaker is calling meetings. Day before yesterday, she called us. Yesterday also she called some Opposition leaders and now again the signals are going to the government that no JPC, no session. Maybe they will concede. We are not asking for the moon.

 

Shekhar Gupta: But you gained a lot. See, the Supreme Court is monitoring the investigation which would not have happened. Do you accept that?

 

Sushma Swaraj: Yes.

 

Shekhar Gupta: The PAC is getting more empowered. So, it's not that you haven't gained. So can you declare victory at sometime, short of a JPC?

 

Sushma Swaraj: No, not short of a JPC, because one issue remains unanswered. All these investigations are into frauds but after the Nira Radia tapes disclosures, there is a question mark on the very existence of democracy in India. The corporates' interference in Indian polity is to this extent that all the four pillars of democracy are under cloud—legislature, judiciary, executive and press. I don't know whether you have listened to those tapes or not, I have listened to those tapes. Corporates decide how a ministry will be formed, corporates decide which portfolio will be given to whom.

 

Shekhar Gupta: No, there is a lot of name dropping and tall talk. There is no evidence that it got done.

 

Sushma Swaraj: No, it got done because the same person became the minister. See the spectrum allocation took place in 2007. Why was the same person, Raja, made the minister in 2009? It needs an inquiry. I'll be happy if we reach the conclusion that there was no influence.

 

Shekhar Gupta: You are saying something very interesting now. Are you nuancing what the JPC would do instead of investigating the 2G scam?

 

Sushma Swaraj: I'm saying, and we have told the government also, that we do not want only to probe 2G spectrum or CWG or Adarsh Society or anything. There are larger questions of governance. There are larger questions of broader corruption. We want a JPC because in a JPC, all parties send their very senior members and the JPC does focused thinking. Agar main Hindi mein kahoon, toh ek sagar manthan ki zaroorat hai (there is a need for some churning). We need introspection. We don't want to keep the government in the dock, even we need introspection.

 

Shekhar Gupta: That is very significant, a JPC not to catch the thief, not to put the government in the dock. A JPC for introspection. And for systemic correction.

 

Sushma Swaraj: For systemic correction because we need remedial measures. Who will suggest those remedial measures? Will the Supreme Court?

 

Shekhar Gupta: So, this will not be a vindictive, name-calling body?

 

Sushma Swaraj: Not at all. We have told the government that there are larger issues of governance which we need to sit and talk about.

 

Shekhar Gupta: You will not call the PM and humiliate him?

 

Sushma Swaraj: The PM has himself offered to appear before the PAC. We never decided because we cannot hijack the powers of a JPC. Whosoever will be members and chairman of the JPC, they will decide on whom to call and whom not to call. What I'm saying is that we need to sit together.

 

Shekhar Gupta: But there is honour among thieves. Some broad contours can be agreed upon between the Opposition and the ruling parties?

 

Sushma Swaraj: But only after a JPC is formed. A JPC is always headed by the ruling party and generally the majority of the members also belong to the ruling coalition. They will sit and talk. We need to sit and talk. We need to ponder over all these things.

 

Shekhar Gupta: Is there sufficient communication between the government and the Opposition now?

 

Sushma Swaraj: Not sufficient because in the earlier sessions—the fourth and fifth sessions—there was more communication. This time though the session was stalled for about 17 days, only two meetings were called. One by Pranab Mukherjee and one by the Speaker. I won't call it very sufficient because in the meeting that was called by Meiraji (Meira Kumar), it was at her initiative and not the initiative of the government.

 

Shekhar Gupta: So what is your personal view? You think come February you will be sitting and debating in Parliament or there will again be...

 

Sushma Swaraj: I can't say.

 

Shekhar Gupta: Are you optimistic that there will be a session?

 

Sushma Swaraj: I am always optimistic. For example, in this meeting with Meira Kumarji, Pranabda (Pranab Mukherjee) was saying that a JPC is an ineffective body, it doesn't do much. Even its earlier recommendations, nobody saw and nobody implemented them. I joked, agar itni ineffective hai toh de kyon nahin dete hain aap (If it's so ineffective, why don't you give it)? So he asked, faydaa kya hai. What is the gain? I said, there is one gain, Parliament will continue. He had a hearty laugh and then said, 'This is a matchless answer, I can't match this'.

 

Shekhar Gupta: But now you propose a JPC that looks into the larger picture of systemic reform?

 

Sushma Swaraj: Not now, right from the word go.

 

Shekhar Gupta: Sushma, the Congress will always turn around and throw Karnataka at you.

 

Sushma Swaraj: They both are not comparable. As regards Karnataka, Advaniji has said that the party is already seized of the matter.

 

Shekhar Gupta: Doesn't it undermine your party's moral position on corruption?

 

Sushma Swaraj: No, it doesn't because we are seized of the matter. The day Advaniji was addressing the press conference, somebody asked the same question. He said you are presuming that we have not done anything and we will not do anything. So, I think that answers it.

 

Shekhar Gupta: So the presumption that the party will do nothing about (BS) Yeddyurappa is wrong?

 

Sushma Swaraj: Yes, he (Advani) said you are presuming this. Don't presume this.

 

Shekhar Gupta: Before we conclude, the big challenge lately has been Naxalites and the country is in some way intellectually very polarised. Where do you stand now, particularly after Binayak Sen's case?

 

Sushma Swaraj: See, I don't know whether you see my tweets or not. But the very day this judgment was pronounced, I tweeted, 'violence against the state, massacre of innocent policemen and civilians and propagating this is certainly treason'. I'm of the firm opinion that such activities have to be curbed and have to be condemned. The problem is that there is a dilemma in the government. The PMO and the NAC (National Advisory Council) are at loggerheads on this question.

 

Shekhar Gupta: I thought the government and the Opposition were at loggerheads.

 

Sushma Swaraj: The government and the Opposition are not at loggerheads on this question but on this question of Naxalism, there are vast differences of opinion between members of the NAC and people close to the PMO. For example, the Home Minister wants to deal with the situation with a tough hand. We have always supported him in that. But have you seen the statements made by NAC members? They remind us of the colonial Raj. The NAC is an active body of policy making. They are not the Congress party.

 

Shekhar Gupta: It's not an NGO.

 

Sushma Swaraj: That's what I'm saying. If five members of the NAC speak against the judgment, they raise their voices. So the government is in a dilemma. Madam Sonia Gandhi today is wearing three hats. She is president of Congress party, she is president of the ruling alliance and she is chairman of the NAC. So, I think this dilemma must go. If the NAC members speak in this voice, then how will the PMO work and how will the Home Minister work because he (the PM) also gets the signals.

 

Shekhar Gupta: Did anybody in the government ever admit to you that they are confused by this?

 

Sushma Swaraj: No, they have not, this is my own analysis. This is very obvious. There is no need of any analysis on this, even you would agree.

 

Shekhar Gupta: So, the next time you meet Mrs Gandhi and exchange smiles for cameras, maybe you give her a word of advice on this.

 

Sushma Swaraj: I will. Thank you so much.



Learning

 0 Replies


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register