Why Jaya is opposed to PM under Lokpal

Recently Jayalalitha posed as if she is level-headed, logical, judicious and patriotic when she opposed the plea for inclusion of the Prime Minister in the Lokpal bill, in an interview to the Times Now Television channel. Asked about her stand on the issue she had said,

“I will enunciate my views very clearly. The proposed Lokpal bill should exclude the Prime Minister for the following reasons: the Prime Minister is already covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Any misconduct by the Prime Minister can be investigated by the CBI. Sometimes the Lokpal could be used by foreign powers to destabilize the government. But when a frivolous and politically motivated complaint against the Prime Minister is referred before the Lokpal and if the same is telecast by the TV channels — which will run it round-the-clock — it would dent the Prime Minister's credibility and authority. Even if nothing comes out of it, it will seriously dent the authority of the Prime Minister.

“The Lokpal can investigate all allegations, and therefore when the allegations are levelled against the Prime Minister, when a complaint is put before the Lokpal, he will be put on the defensive and will be occupied in defending himself. In such an event, how can the government which is reliant on the Prime Minister work? The functioning of the Lokpal, inclusive of the Prime Minister, will pave the way for a parallel government which will undermine the authority of the Prime Minister. The State government of Tamil Nadu hasn't given its view, since no final draft has been arrived at. The Lokpal is much more than what is envisaged in the PCA. The State's view is that the Lokpal is much more than [has been] envisaged. The State's view can be formulated only after the final draft is given in Parliament. That's my view I have enunciated.”

On the face of it, her statement appears to be objective and born out of sincere concern for the stability of governments at the Centre and national interests. Coming from a person who brought down Vajpayee-led NDA government in 13 months for its refusal to redeem her from corruption cases she was facing, this seemingly innocuous statement did rise eyebrows in political circles.

Interestingly, in the ‘Economic Times Blog’ on July 2, one reader John Munup had posted a story under the headline, “Jayalalitha 3.0: The Media grants Amma a Free Hit” which reads as:

“A friend of mine said to me at a social gathering recently that Jayalalitha would have learned her lesson from her past defeats, and so this time around, he thinks that she will change for good. His comment, coupled with recent events, led me to explore two related issues -- a failure on the part of the media and the possibility of “Jayalalitha 3.0” being different from its previous incarnations.

The first major national issue that Jayalalitha has addressed since re-election is her stand on the issue of bringing the PM under the purview of Lokpal. She came out openly against this issue. One of the leading newspapers in an editorial promptly praised her for being forthright and expressing her views without the slightest hesitation. While she deserves credit for being open about her stand, unlike most others who are wishy-washy on this issue, what the media at large dismally failed to do was to probe the reasons for her stand and explore the possible motivations behind them. Our media is so blinded by the halo of power that it repeatedly fails to hold our elected representatives’ feet to the fire, so to speak.

One seemingly legitimate reason for her stand was that foreign powers could destabilize the nation. This is a clever way to tap into our nationalistic fervors but a weak argument at best. Given that we are likely to have coalition governments for the foreseeable future, it is highly possible that unlike today where we are lucky to have an honest person on the job, a very corrupt individual could land the PM’s post. Couldn’t foreign powers very easily destabilize the nation by co-opting this individual? Isn’t this a greater possibility than a foreign power co-opting an entire 11-member bench of the Lokpal?

Another reason she gave for her stand was that the PM was already covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the CBI can investigate the PM, should the need arise. Unfortunately, the CBI is under the government and lacks the autonomy to investigate any issue for that matter, let alone pursue investigations against the PM. As of now, the CBI virtually serves as a weapon of the ruling party to be used against its detractors.

What does it take for our media to pose these simple counter-questions to Jayalalitha and our elected officials instead of tossing them virtual free hits?

Anyone who has followed Tamil Nadu politics even in passing will be able to tell you that Jayalalitha alias Amma has had very serious allegations of corruption against her over the years. Thanks to our slow and corrupt legal system, she has had no major problems so far despite these allegations. Her arch-rival Karunanidhi, indicated that he is in favor of bringing the PM under the purview of Lokpal. Given the history of animosity between Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha, it is no surprise that her stand on the same issue is the exact opposite to that of Karunanidhi’s. In fact, since coming to power, she has already reversed a number of steps taken by the previous Karunanidhi government. In short, her consistent, life-long opposition to anything that Karunanidhi is in favor of has not changed a bit.

Another very interesting comment she made with reference to the political climate was that “anything is possible.” I suspect that what she really meant was that “Anything is possible, including me becoming the PM.” Should she ever become the PM, the last thing she would want is to face an all powerful Lokpal. The loyal voters of her state have diligently voted her to power with handsome majorities on three occasions. So she is not accustomed to opposition of any kind.

On the issue of the PM, she continued, “Unless he is vested with full powers, he cannot function. Nothing should erode or undermine the Prime Minister’s authority.” This comment from her is not in the least bit surprising. She has headed a major regional party for over two decades but has never thought it worthwhile to groom any second line of leadership. She promotes a culture of sycophancy where party workers routinely prostrate at her feet. There is little doubt that she believes in complete control and absolute power -- absolutely no questions to be asked of her. End of story. Amen.

The good news, if any, is that Jayalalitha knows what she wants and is not afraid to say it and this is more than what most politicians today have to offer. Thank heavens for small mercies. In short, there is little sign of “Jayalalitha 3.0” being any different. I already feel for my friend.”

Besides the point that she had taken the stand, just against the one taken by Kalaignar (as pointed out by the blog-writer), the issue of immediate importance for her to take a stand in favour of the Prime Minister, is that the Lokpal bill also includes all Chief Ministers of all states under the purview of the Lokpal. Her present position as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu will become untenable in such circumstances. On the contrary, Kalaignar had the moral tenacity to include the office of the Chief Minister when he enacted an Anti-Corruption legislation during his rule in 1973.

And Jayalalitha, who used fully and exploited frivolous and politically motivated charges against the DMK and Kalaignar telecast by the TV channels running round the clock (even if nothing came out of it), to win elections, expressing such concern for the credibility and authority of the Prime Minister on that count is like crocodile shedding tears.

Because, she had demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh umpteen number of times in very harsh and impolite statements. To cite two instances: On August 18, 2007 she demanded that  Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh must resign as he had lost 'credibility', accusing him of 'trying to foist' the India-US nuclear deal on the nation. 'The Prime Minister has completely lost the confidence of parliament and the people of India. In fact, he has totally lost all credibility in the eyes of the nation,' Jayalalitha said in a statement. 'If he is not ready to demit office, all patriotic parties should come together and work out a plan for holding protests at all-India level to achieve the purpose,' she added. Accusing Manmohan Singh of 'exercising all his might to foist the nuclear deal with the US on India,' Jayalalitha said he was 'keen to thrust an agreement on India, which has many pitfalls, quicksand and dangerous whirlpools'. She also alleged that almost all the deals with 'foreign countries during the past three years seem to be having an American nexus'. The Prime Minister's statement on the deal in both houses of parliament Aug 13, 2008 contained many untruths, she said. She pointed out that the Congress that leads the ruling coalition in New Delhi had only 150 members in the Lok Sabha and 'had no legitimate right to push the nation into such a deal'.

Recently on 25 January 2011, Jayalalitha termed Dr. Manmohan Singh a ‘weak Prime Minister’ and said he should resign if he cannot protect Indian fishermen from being killed by the Sri Lankan Navy. "India is said to have one of the largest armies, navies and air forces in Asia. Despite this, a small country like Sri Lanka is daring to kill Indian fishermen. The central government is weak. The Prime Minister is weak," she said. "The Prime Minister should resign if he does not know how to protect Indian fishermen," Jayalalitha told reporters in Pushpavanam village near Vedaranyam, where she went to enact a drama of consoling family members of the victim.

The people of Tamil Nadu, who had started realizing within a month of committing the grave mistake of electing her to lead the state, are also witnessing the speed with which the ADMK regime withdrew cases against her and ADMK functionaries and the manipulations to frustrate the Disproportionate Asset case against her in the Special Court in Bangalore, would understand the real purpose for which she sought and usurped power and see through her nervousness with regard to the issue of ‘Prime Minister under the Lokpal’ vis-à-vis the moral tenacity of Kalaignar in 1973 and now.