Fernandes, Political Accountability and National Security
23 Oct, 2001 · 620
Sonika Gupta questions the re-induction of George Fernandes into Union Cabinet
George Fernandes is back in the Union Cabinet as Defence Minister. He had resigned in the wake of the Tehelka scandal to “uphold the morale of the armed forces”. Therefore the government’s arguments for bringing him back into the Cabinet need scrutiny.
India
to have an experienced Defence Minister. Jaswant Singh was under tremendous strain trying to hold both the portfolios of defence and external affairs. However, what is the “experience” that makes Fernandes the right choice for the job? The
high point
in his career as Defence Minister was declaring
China
“enemy number one” immediately after Pokharan. Indian diplomats spent the better part of two years trying to repair the damage done by this statement. Fernandes’ talents would seem to lie in managing unruly members of the ruling coalition at the centre. KC Pant, who served as Defence Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi government, was seen as the front runner before Jaswant Singh laid all doubts to rest about Fernandes’ return as Defence Minister. Pant was also involved in conflict resolution efforts in
Kashmir
. At present, when the Valley is drawing great international attention, his experience might have been useful.
India
is currently engaged in important political and strategic interactions with the
US
, the people are supposed to disregard accountability but focus on the more important issue of national interest! In fact, the bogey of national interest has been raised time and again to deflect attention from domestic failures that embarrass the government. Political analysts in
India
have accused
Pakistan
of doing this using the
Kashmir
issue; the conclusion is that democratic institutions in
Pakistan
are not as strong as they are in
India
. It now seems that
India
is also eroding the credibility of its democratic institutions.
Firstly, according to Jaswant Singh, the currently obtaining political and strategic situation requires
Secondly, the NDA insists that no corruption charges have been proved against Fernandes and hence his induction into the Cabinet cannot be challenged on these grounds. The government has chosen to take this view even before the inquiry into the Tekelha episode is complete. Why then was Fernandes forced to step down when the Tehelka scandal broke? The NDA should have stuck to its guns and defended Fernandes. However, he had to resign to avoid damaging the credibility of the government. Since
Harin Pathak, who resigned last year after being chargesheeted in a murder case, has been re-inducted as Minister of State in the Defence ministry. Pathak is yet to be discharged in the murder case against him. The same argument has been applied to his re-induction – that he has not been convicted and hence is free to serve the nation as minister. Though the judicial principle of ‘innocent till proved guilty’ cannot be faulted, the political leadership has the responsibility to maintain and retain the faith of the people who elect them. It is clear that political exigencies have dictated these actions of the government with little regard for the electorate or the institutions set up by law. BJP leaders have also made statements that the opposition is in no position to fault the re-induction of Fernandes as they too had tainted ministers in their government. This argument reveals the growing moral bankruptcy of Indian polity, where public accountability is fast disappearing as a hindrance to gaining the fruits of power. After these political rehabilitations, despite the strong reservations of the opposition and the public, it is obvious that political manoeuvring and personal ambition are paramount in Indian politics.
It is ironic that George Fernandes who was accused by Tehelka of fixing defence procurement deals, is the defence minister in a BJP led cabinet – the party which treats national security as a holy cow. The re-induction of Fernandes raises serious questions about the government’s credibility to weed out corruption from defence procurement processes. The proposal to set up a defence procurement board and consultations with Transparency International are no more than cosmetic changes in a system riddled with corruption. And it is the jawans and the officers of the Indian Army who will pay the price for this corruption.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
