Sonia's reply to Hazare is actually a declaration of war

UPA and National Advisory Committee chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s reply to Anna Hazare is actually not what it claims to be. Newspapers on Thursday headlined the fact that she did not support the “smear campaign” against Hazare supporters— mostly launched by Congress leaders Digvijaya Singh and spokesman Manish Tiwari—in the joint government-civil society committee to draft a new Lok Pal Bill. But when you read between the lines, her reply is actually a sullen declaration of non-cooperation, if not actually a declaration of war. Let’s see what Hazare said, how she responded, and how she evaded the real charges made by Hazare in his letter of 18 April addressed to her. Hazare’s letter accused Digvijaya Singh, Congress general secretary, of trying to sully the reputations of key members of the Hazare group, especially legal wiz Shanti Bhushan, against whom a CD has mysteriously surfaced. The media has also been running stories on how he acquired property in Uttar Pradesh at below-market rates. In this context, Hazare pointedly asked Sonia: “Do you personally approve of his (Digvijaya’s) statements?” Sonia’s reply does not answer this question. It merely says: “As for statements appearing in the media, let me assure you that I do not support nor encourage the politics of smear campaigns.” Hazare was not referring to “statements in the media”, but Singh’s specific conduct. To be theoretically opposed to smear campaigns and to specifically ask Digvijaya Singh to shut up are two different things. Sonia made a motherhood statement, but obviously does not propose to ask her partymen to pipe down. The fact that party spokespersons continued defending their attacks on Hazare & Co in terms of their right to do so in a democratic society shows that efforts to undermine the civil society members’ credibility will continue. Sonia may wink at it. Hazare’s letter also raised an issue about Kapil Sibal briefing the media wrongly about how the civil society members had been “influenced” on the Bill during the first meeting of the joint committee. In an informal briefing, Sibal apparently told the media that the civil society members had climbed down on their demands. Hazare pointed out that there was “no discussions (sic) at all on the law within the committee.” Sibal separately rebutted the charges and said he had not briefed the media. Sonia made no reference to it. This obviously means: “Don’t pin me down to specifics. I will make the general statements, and not be tied down to disciplining my partymen.” In short: the party will continue with its diversionary tactics, and Hazare & Co will be battling on two fronts: in the media, to rebut charges, and in the committee, where they will be cornered and under pressure. The media attacks have softened the group and put it on the defensive. Sonia’s move to answer in generalities when the allegations against her partymen are specific stems from the fact that Hazare’s fast hijacked her ability to claim credit for the original Lok Pal Bill, which had no teeth anyway. Which is why she begins here letter to Hazare claiming she was all for the Lok Pal Bill. But she also adds a caveat: “I strongly support the institution of a Lok Pal that is consistent with the practices and conventions of our parliamentary democracy.” The second part of the sentence is a reference to the claim made in Left circles that involving civil society members in drafting a bill is somehow anti-democratic. If that is so, her NAC should also be called undemocratic. Her reference to “conventions of our parliamentary democracy” is little more than a hint that Hazare had no business muscling into her civil society show. Only her hand-picked civil society representatives have a right to speak to government. This tone is apparent from another paragraph in her reply to Hazare: “The Lokpal Bill was very much a part of the agenda of NAC. As you know, the NAC working group on transparency, accountability and governance under the convenership of Ms Aruna Roy held consultations on this subject on April 4 with several representatives of civil society, including Shri Shanti Bhushan, Shri Santosh Hegde and Prashant Bhushan, who are now on the joint committee, as well as Swami Agnivesh and Shri Arvind Kejriwal, who have been closely associated with you. The working group had decided to hold further consultations and evolve broad principles for discussion and approval in the next meeting of the NAC scheduled for April 28.” In short, Sonia has not forgiven Hazare for stealing her show. In retaliation, she is effectively accusing him of muscling in on her turf, and so any problems emanating from this are his worry. Quoting an earlier Hazare letter asking her to get the NAC to discuss the Jan Lok Pal draft and make a recommendation to the government, Sonia drives home her point that she is the one fighting corruption. In that letter, Hazare had asked Sonia to “get the draft discussed at a full meeting of NAC at the earliest and recommend the outcome to the government”. Sonia now delivers her real point: “As I have just mentioned, this is the very course that the NAC was following until the process was, as you know, overtaken by subsequent events.” Translated, this means, “I have not forgiven you for intruding into the corruption dialogue and hijacking the agenda with your fast unto death movement. You have decided to challenge me, and you can fight your own battles.”