6 unanswered questions on what govt & Baba were up to

Nobody, barring the PM and a few senior Congress ministers, know exactly what transpired between them and the political yoga guru Baba Ramdev in the talks held on Saturday and before that. Here’s what government ministers are saying now, but are they telling the full truth? Firstpost analyses their statements and raises questions, or adds comments to them, to bring greater clarity. 1) Union Tourism Minister Subodh Kant Sahay said after the crackdown that ended the fast that “there is nothing left to discuss (with Ramdev). On what issue will we talk? Whatever talks had to happen have already happened." [caption id=“attachment_20698” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee, who had led negotiations on behalf of government, said the government had some kind of understanding with the Baba. Reuters”] [/caption] Firstpost asks: Why is there nothing left to discuss now when it is clear that the government has been hobnobbing with him for weeks before the fast? The yoga shibir, which became a political minefield for the Congress, was allowed only because the Congress expected Ramdev to deliver something. What was that something? More important, did the government’s confidence in Ramdev stem from some kind of hold it thought it had on him? Was it in a position to blackmail him? 2) Union HRD Minister Kapil Sibal said the police action had the backing of the government and the party. To a question on this he replied: “Absolutely, 100 percent. No such action takes place without 100 percent unity in the government and the party." Firstpost comments: So the opposition is right to conclude that the action has the sanction of the party. Since no one in the party can act without Sonia’s nod, it means she knew the crackdown was supposed to happen. She either approved of the crackdown, or at least knew about it beforehand and did nothing to advice otherwise. 3) Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee, who had led negotiations on behalf of government, said the government had some kind of understanding with the Baba. “When negotiations were conducted, he said he will confine (his protest) to three days. If he would have stuck to this, then this turn of events would not have happened.” Kapil Sibal also said that Ramdev was “not a trustworthy person” as he had “cheated” the government and also his followers. “He reached an agreement with the government but did not tell it to his followers.” Firstpost asks: If the understanding was that he will confine his protest to three days, why seek to terminate it on the very first day of the fast? What went wrong on Saturday that the government struck pre-emptively? Also, if Ramdev is not a trustworthy person, why did the government engage in detailed discussions with him? 4) Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said the government had to restore law and order. “He didn’t see reason and the government had to act. It was not a crackdown. We had to do it to maintain law and order.” Firstpost asks: The answer is a bit contradictory. Did the government act because it apprehended a law and order problem or because Ramdev didn’t deliver his part of the bargain? Till midnight on Saturday, there was no apprehension of violence or breakdown of the law. Is it possible that the crackdown happened because the government did not see Ramdev delivering what it wanted him to do: which is to take on the other civil society lobby, led by Anna Hazare? 5) Sibal said the yoga guru had collected 50,000 people for “political aasan” (manoeuvre) although he had sought permission for a yoga camp for a gathering of 5,000 only. “It was not a yoga platform but a political platform.” Firstpost comments: We all knew that. Even the government knew that Ramdev didn’t come to Delhi to just conduct yoga classes at the Ramlila ground. When the government engaged Ramdev in talks, it was a political engagement, not a yogic or spiritual one. So why is it now condemning Ramdev’s political shibir when it was complicit in it? 6) Sahay, who apparently knows Ramdev a bit better than the rest of the other ministers, says now that the yoga guru’s actions suggested that he had a “political agenda”. He said Manmohan Singh had written to Ramdev on 19 May informing him of the formation of the Group of Ministers on corruption and told him that Pranab Mukherjee would apprise him of the steps taken by the government in this regard. Mukherjee had sent an official response to Ramdev on 20 May listing the measures taken by the government on the issue, and the yoga guru during his visit here on 24-25 May had expressed satisfaction over the government’s efforts. He said the government did not stop at that and went “out of (its) way” in sending four ministers to the airport to discuss with him the issue on 1 June, which reflected the government’s intention and policy…”. Firstpost comments: Quite clearly, the government had entered into detailed negotiations with Ramdev well before the yoga camp at Ramlila. This is what explains four ministers meeting him at the airport, as Sahay himself admits. The question is: What exactly did they expect him to deliver that they were hobnobbing so seriously with him – a courtesy they did not extend to Anna Hazare and his camp. Is it beyond belief that they were really using him to completely split the anti-corruption forces behind Ramdev and Anna? Were they using Ramdev’s political ambitions to corner Anna on the Lokpal Bill? The government has much to answer for, but right now it is only trying to confuse the issue in a false show of solidarity. (Note: All ministerial quotes are from PTI reports)