Rukavat ke liye khed hai!

Sorry for the interruption in the interview series, but there's something that's been bothering me over the past few days: the Prime Minister's ill health. Well, not his ill health per se, but the consequences of it. As you all know, the Prime Minister underwent a 12 hour redo-bypass surgery earlier this month. In his absence, his duties were divided between Vice-President Hamid Ansari and external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee. And this was because there is neither a provision in the Constitution nor any agreed convention as to who should officiate in the Prime Minister's position should he become incapcitated. Mind you, I do not use the word death because once the Prime Minister dies, the cabinet ceases to exist. In this particular case, the Prime Minister has been deemed unfit to perform his official duties for a few days. Now, the question arises as to who should officiate on behalf of the Prime Minister if such a situation takes place in future.

I was watching an interesting debate on CNBC-TV18 on Sunday night anchored by Karan Thapar where analyst K Subhramanyam, Business Standard editor-in-chief T N Ninan and former deputy national security advisor Satish Chandra analysed the issue in detail. They also discussed a few plausible solutions to this problem such as having a Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) or nominating the seniormost cabinet minister to officiate in the Prime Minister's absence. I beg to differ with both issues on a few counts. Let's take the first one. The post of Deputy Prime Minister is not a constitutional post and whether or not to have a DPM is the Prime Minister's prerogative. If we look at past DPM's, barring L K Advani, most of them were given the position due to compulsions of coalition politics (or other political compulsions). Also, a DPM, in certain cases, may not be competent enough or may not have the requisite political experience to officiate as Prime Minister. He/she may have been given the post to satisy the demand of an ally or to balance other political equations. Lastly, in an era of coalition politics, there may be some political allies of the government who may not be comfortable with the DPM taking over as PM even if it is temporary arrangement. Sample this; if the NDA were in power with Advani as DPM and Mr Vajpayee were to undergo a similar surgery, I doubt that many NDA allies would favour Mr Advani to take over. Hence, this doesn't prove to be a feasible solution.
Now, the second solution offered is that the seniormost cabinet minister officiates in the PM's abesence. Till date, all the seniormost cabinet ministers of governments which have lasted their full term - Jagjivan Ram, Narasimha Rao, Pranab Mukherjee, L K Advani - have belonged to the same political party which the Prime Minister also belongs to. However, what if, in future, the seniormost cabinet member belongs to party which the Prime Minister doesn't belong to? And, in an era of coalition politics. such a possiblity cannot be ruled out. Also, in such a scenario, the seniormost cabinet member's party may not have the appropriate representation in Parliament. Moreover, the office he/she holds - Home, Defence, External Affairs, Finance - may be due to the compulsions of coalition politics. Most importantly, the allies may start squabbling amongst themselves, thereby making it difficult for this person to function. Hence, would it be fair to have the seniormost cabinet minister in the Prime Minister's seat? I guess not.

So what, then, are the solutions to such a peculiar problem? One of them could be that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) officiates in the Prime Minister's absence. And I say this after giving the solution a lot of thought. Firstly, nobody can dispute the importance of the post he/she holds. Secondly, the CJI fulfills the requisite criteria of being knowledgable about the law of the land and, most importantly, he would be the appropriate neutral authority who would command the respect of all allies of the government. Moreover, the Prime Minister is also the chairperson of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) which means he/she can give the go-ahead in the event of a nuclear war. In this context, the NCA would require a person who has the requisite knowledge and authority to head such a body, should a nuclear war break out. Therefore, it is on these counts that the Chief Justice of India should officiate in the Prime Minister's absence, should he be incapacitated.

Again, the above solution is not the only solution. There maybe legal hurdles in the CJI taking over and other better solutions which will benefit the country. The idea behind this post is to suggest a person of considerable stature and authority who can officiate in the absence of the PM. Readers are most welcome to post alternative suggestions as well.

For now, it's back to the interview series.

The dichotomy of being Sanjay Dutt

If there is one word to describe the life and times of Sanjay Dutt, it is dichotomy. His debut movie, Rocky, hit screens within a few days of his mother's death. I remember watching an interview of his where Dutt told father Sunil that he didn't know whether to be happy or sad about the occasion. Indeed, it must've been a tumultous period for the young man whose mother was adamant on attending the movie premiere. But, the will of God deemed otherwise. 

A few months later, Sanjay's tryst with drug abuse was disclosed and Sunil Dutt checked him into a rehab clinic in America. This time, it was the public which was baffled about how to react: should it dismiss the young man's misdeeds as workings of an immature mind and disturbed mind? Or should it react angrily about how the son of a well-respected politician and movie star be indulging in such illegal activities? 

Cut to 1993. As Bombay burned in the winter of the January riots that year, it was found that Sanjay possessed dangerous weapons such as AK-53 rifles and grenades. Even more shocking was the revelation that these weapons had been given to him by Abu Salem, the notorious underworld don. Sanjay was arrested under TADA and the Arms Act. In his defence, the actor, now a star in his own right and a mature 34 years old, pleaded that he had received death threats and hence bought the weapons. Again, the dichotomy was visible: shouldn't a man-in this case, a son of a politician and a public figure in his own right-have acted with maturity and responsibility? Or was the threat to his half-Hindu half-Muslim lineage so grave that he had no option but to take such an extreme step? Add Khalnayak (and later Vaastav) to his kitty and his errant son-turned-notorious gangster image reached its pinnacle. 

It is Circa 2005 and father Sunil Dutt passes away, leaving behind a political legacy which would create yet another dichotomy for Sanjay. Is he the right person to continue the legacy?Logically speaking, yes, as he is the most visible face of the family now. But, given his troubled past, will he be able to uphold his father's name or will he tarnish his image of an honest politician? Well, it hasn't been proved that he's a criminal and there are many politicians who've had worse track records than Sanjay's. But, is he mature enough to tackle the rough and tumble of public life? At 45, of course he is. Eventually, it was sister Priya who was chosen to continue her father's work and it seemed Sanjay could breathe in peace. But only for a while.

July 2007. The TADA court finds Sanjay guilty under the Arms Act and for illegal possession of weapons. What follows is another dichotomous reaction from the public. Has the judge been fair on Dutt by sentencing him for five years? Of course he has. In fact, its a good example as all public figures will now think twice before messing around with the law. But he's Munnabhai and he was naive when he committed the crime! His movie career cannot be the reason for pardon and at 34 he was naive. You must be joking! (Mahesh Bhatt did agree with the last argument in a piece he did for Tehelka)

Cut to January 2009. Amar Singh, the Samajwadi Party's general secretary announces that Sanjay Dutt will be the party's candidate for the Lok Sabha elections from Lucknow. Dichotomy time again. He's convicted by a TADA court and is out on bail. So are many other MP's and MLA's? What's the big deal? His maturity and responsibility levels have been under constant scrutiny and he reportedly doesn't get along with sister Priya-the torchbearer of his father's legacy. Well, he's 47 now, married again and is willing to serve the people. What more proof does one want of his responsibility and maturity? And family feuds are common in Indian politics. Nothing new.

So will this latest episode reduce, if not end, the dichotomy in Sanjay Dutt's life? Or will he be questioned, debated about, analysed and post-mortemed by the public and the media about each of his decisions? 

Only time will tell.