The Hindu Business Line : A Salvo on Chapra

I HAVE known Mr L. V. Saptharishi for as long as he has been in the IAS both as a member of the West Bengal cadre and as a friend of more than 30 years' standing. I have a high opinion of his public-spiritedness and earnest application of his energy and mind to the tasks assigned to him.

It is out of character for him to hanker after the trappings of office, or to kowtow to politicians of whichever party. Hence, I do not doubt the motives behind his letter of May 6 addressed to the Law Minister on the background to the ordering of repoll in the Chapra constituency in the last general election to the Lok Sabha.

Briefly, his contention is that he, as the Special Observer appointed by the Election Commission (EC), had given a clean chit to the poll process in his report to that body, but that two of the Commissioners, Messrs B. B. Tandon and N. Gopalaswamy, under the influence of the BJP leader Mr L. K. Advani and that Party's candidate, Mr Rajiv Pratap Singh Rudy, ignored his finding and pressured the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) also to countermand the poll.

It is easy to see why the letter should be upsetting to Mr Rudy. But it is reprehensible on his part to indulge in character assassination of the official in the media.

The proper course for him and others concerned is to wait for the EC's version and then take recourse to whatever legal or parliamentary remedies were available. Mr Rudy by descending to such low depths has shattered the impression I had of his public persona as one of the more sober members of his party.

Mr Saptharishi's side of the case too is intriguing in some respects: There is no clear explanation as to why, if he felt so strongly about it, he should have waited almost a year to protest, or how a copy of his letter was in Mr Lalu Prasad's hands on the very day it reached the Law Minister.

The EC, along with the judiciary, has been an inviolable pillar, indeed the fount, of democracy and grave accusations impugning its authority sanctity and credibility, should not be made merely because it overrules after due consideration the opinion of a Special Observer.

From this perspective, it is best to avoid going public in such cases unless there are stronger and more convincing grounds.

B. S. Raghavan

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Not persuasive enough

Two emerging giants: The global debate

Why doing business on French soil is difficult

A Salvo on Chapra

Small hydro-power projects — The SPV model can be electrifying

There may be no virtue in portfolio diversification

Movement in WTO negotiations

Power failures

Energy security