Why the Rahul fake encounter with morality doesn't wash

The one thing many commentators are willing to give Rahul Gandhi credit for is this: since the ordinance to protect convicted criminal MPs from disqualification was a bad, bad idea (and had little public support anyway), it does not matter how he managed to scuttle it. In other words, the rah-rah backing Rahul receives from some quarters is based on the argument is that the end justifies the means. [caption id=“attachment_1147669” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  AFP[/caption] If we take this position, it is possible to justify almost any action as long we can convince ourselves that the end is holy. In fact this is what we have been doing all along: in the name of secularism, we are happy to compromise with casteism and corruption. In the name of fighting casteism, we are willing to abandon every principle of equality before the law. In the name of protecting farmers, we will compromise fiscal prudence. In the name of fighting terror, we are willing to wink at serious human rights violations. And in the name of being fair to the accused, we are willing to let the guilty go scot-free: let’s not forget, the ordinance that the Congress has just agreed to scrap was previously justified on the high principle that no one should be judged guilty till he exhausts all avenues of getting an adverse verdict annulled. So, the argument that Rahul – rightly or wrongly - came down on the side of the angels is flawed. And not only because Lalu Prasad does not look like an angel. If you say the end justifies the means, you have to accept a whole lot of other justifications for a whole lot of wrongs masquerading as rights. Rahul’s incursion into the debate thus opens a whole can of worms. Second, we also have the troubling point of determining who are the villains if Rahul is the angel. Today’s (2 October) decision to rescind the ordinance was taken by the Congress party’s Core Committee, of which the key power is Rahul’s mother Sonia Gandhi. Manmohan Singh himself said the other day that the cabinet considered the ordinance not once, but twice. He was indirectly saying that but for pressure from the Core Committee (read: Sonia) there may have been no ordinance. Rahul’s “nonsense” should have been uttered at the gates of 10 Janpath, not the Press Club, with Ajay Maken going red all over the face. Is he not on talking terms with his mom? Third, Rahul’s concern about not protecting wrongdoing does not, it seems, apply to the conduct of his own family. He hasn’t said a word about UPA-1’s decision to let Ottavio Quattrochi run with his Bofors money; he has had nothing to say on his brother-in-law Robert Vadra’s real estate capers. And he has said nothing at all on how he and his mother used Congress party money to acquire a Rs 1,600 crore property belonging to the defunct National Herald and keep it in a private trust controlled by him and his mother. Fourth, the biggest problem with Rahul’s interjection is not about right or wrong – but how it perpetuates the separation of power from responsibility – which is what made Manmohan Singh so ineffective. If all glory is to go to the family (which is why Rahul ranted against the ordinance, in the first place), and the government has to carry the can for all disasters (price rise, slow growth, etc), we are in for another round of irresponsible government if Rahul Gandhi comes to power. The only right course for Rahul right now is to enter the government and shoulder some responsibility – so that he is not left as a loose cannon who can fire at will and emerge hero from the fake encounter with ethics and morality. It hasn’t helped Manmohan, who has been shown up again as someone who just kowtows to the Dynasty; it has damaged Sonia, who was probably the real mover behind the ordinance; and it has shown Rahul himself up as someone who discovers morality when it suits him.