Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s inner voice has once again proved a point or two and this time more significantly from the heart of India’s most revered political institution, Parliament. By resigning as Member of Parliament from the hallowed portals of the Lok Sabha, Mrs Gandhi has done another masterstroke when she was being cornered by her political opponents from all sides. Even if the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its NDA Allies were to term Mrs Gandhi’s resignation as a face saving attempt, the latter has demonstrated for a second time that she has a shrewd political mind and can take on her opponents at their own game.
Mrs Gandhi, who had told the nation on May 18, 2004, that her “inner voice” compelled her to forsake the prime ministership, has now turned this acid test into yet another moral victory for her personally and also for the image of the Congress party. On both occasions—when the ruling UPA government was being criticized for its plan to bring in an ordinance to ‘redefine an office of profit’ in order to allegedly save Mrs Gandhi’s skin as pointed out by the BJP and also two years back when her foreign origin was being questioned—the BJP has been made to eat crow. All this goes to show that Mrs Gandhi has the wherewithal to play her own game of political one-upmanship every time the BJP bays for her blood. And that Mrs Gandhi uses the moral high ground to get her message across only pushes her to political supremacy over her rivals. It is this unique trait that Mrs Gandhi is able to bring to the political centre stage which only sets her apart from the run of the mill Indian politicians.
Coming to the question of how the entire development snowballed, there is no doubt that the Congress party may have shot itself on its own foot. Jaya Bachchan’s disqualification earlier from the Rajya Sabha for allegedly holding an office of profit was clearly the handiwork of the Congress party. As such the move to bring in an ordinance to redefine on what constitutes an office of profit was not only mischievous but a politically unwise move. This malifide intent of the Congress only made the Opposition more suspicious that the government after drawing first blood was now trying to save their Queen from being dethroned. That Mrs Gandhi herself was opposed to bringing in an ordinance is again a different matter.
On the other hand, given that there are more than 40 MPs—including Mrs Gandhi and Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee—who come under the shadow of holding an office of profit, the problem itself cannot be dealt within the straitjacket of a politically motivated ordinance. That technically Parliament still remains in session there is no reason why Parliament should be circumvented in the manner that was intended by the UPA government. The democratically proper route is to bring in a Bill when Parliament reconvenes and arrive at a political consensus on whether there is a need for redefining what an office of profit should be. After all the issue goes much beyond Mrs Gandhi and her resignation has in no way cleared the path of what is now a constitutional dilemma.
