Ordinance row: Don't criticise Rahul, give him credit instead

What does the storm in the media over Rahul Gandhi’s so called ‘nonsensical’ stand over the ordinance on convicted leaders tell us? Lots. The most important being the brute overpowering of good sense by cynicism. When one gets too cynical or too politically partisan one loses their sense of proportion — something that was evident in the brouhaha over the ordinance on convicted netas. Now that it is set to be withdrawn, let’s hope there would be sanity in public discussions over it. Let’s call it the victory of democracy, but let’s also admit that it would not have been possible without Rahul’s abrasive intervention. [caption id=“attachment_1148487” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Let’s call it the victory of democracy, but let’s also admit that it would not have been possible without Rahul’s abrasive intervention. PTI[/caption] The shrill abusiveness with which his dramatic denouncement of the ordinance was greeted across the media is surprising. Only a few days ago, everyone was criticising the UPA for pushing through something as obnoxious as it — with the immediate aim being seen as one to protecting RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav and Congress member of Parliament Rashid Masood. Of course, there were caustic references to the growing public disenchantment with the habit of the political class to offering constitutional cover to the criminals in their ranks. However, soon after Rahul made his opposition to the ordinance public — it was passed in consultation with the UPA allies in the presence of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and despite the opposition from the young guard in the party — the focus shifted to propriety and procedure as dramatically as the Congress vice-president gate-crashed party spokesperson Ajay Maken’s show at the Delhi Press Club. There were few praising him for going against the party and the decision of the government in a matter of public interest. If Rahul’s intervention forced a re-think in the party on the ordinance and led to its withdrawal, it should be welcomed, not belittled with malicious interpretation. There was a lot malice all around indeed. The entire issue was stage-managed to showcase him in a better light, goes one interpretation; it was timed to embarrass Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his foreign tour, goes another; it was all planned by Sonia Gandhi to diminish the prime minister, goes yet another. How frivolous can it get? What happened to all that moral outrage against convicted criminals? The matter of propriety does not come up here. Since when the questions of the dignity of the prime minister’s office became so important for the media commentators and the BJP? Manmohan Singh has been subjected to the choicest of abuses by all of them all these years - weak, spineless, poodle, overrated economist, doormat, Gandhi family supplicant, corrupt and what not, chose the vile expression and it has been used somewhere to describe the prime minister. The argument that the Congress vice-president’s outburst reduced the authority of Manmohan Singh to dust, was simply stretching things too far. It was conveniently forgotten that the ordinance was not a decision of the Congress alone, but it involved several other political parties. For those not in the know, the constitutional amendment bill to circumvent the Supreme Court order on convicted leaders had the support of almost all the parties, including the BJP. The ordinance was only quickening the process. All political parties stand to lose members if the convicted members are thrown out and some, particularly the regional ones, could land in a precarious political situation. The understated suggestion in the media outcry is the Congress fixed the allies such as the NCP, the National Conference and the Samajwadi Party to give a boost to Rahul’s image. It also ignores the fact that there could be fissures in the Congress over the issue too. Whatever the matter, the ordinance on amending the Representation of People Act is finally withdrawn. Credit should be given where it is due. One may not agree with Rahul on several issues, but there’s no denying the fact that it would not have been possible without his intervention. If it was nonsensical, we expect more nonsense from him.