Is this Nepotism?
Pratibha Patel's son
Should the President stay silent?
Rajinder Puri
There is a serious constitutional issue thrown up by the Amravati constituency poll in the Maharashtra Assembly election. President Pratibha Patil’s son, Rajendra Shekawat, is the Congress candidate in that constituency. Nobody can take objection to that. Being the President’s kin should not impede Shekawat’s political career.
During a campaign meeting, however, a local Congress leader, Bhau Saheb Dhere, claimed in his speech that the President should be credited for bringing two trains to Amravati and for reviving the defunct Finlay Mills. Congress leaders are stressing to the voters that by electing the President’s son they would help Amravati with rapid development. Last Sunday the President’s son himself claimed in a campaign speech that he had started the train services and revived Finlay Mills. Since Shekawat holds no official position he was clearly implying that he had been instrumental in using the President’s influence to render this service to Amravati.
Should the President be participating even indirectly in election campaigns? Our written Constitution is grossly misinterpreted. Its written text clearly gives the President powers and responsibilities that impel an activist political role. However, this view reflects a minority of one. The overwhelming view consistently stressed is that the President like the British Sovereign is a titular head devoid of any political role. So how do those who cling to this view accept the President’s name being dragged as a partisan into a fiercely political election? If the President’s name is being dragged in without her consent should she not speak up and contradict the Congress leaders and her son for claiming that she was instrumental in bringing two trains to Amravati and restarting the Finlay Mills in order to quicken development in her son’s electoral constituency?
One waits for the reactions of the President and of the galaxy of constitutional experts who fiercely maintain that the President is a mere titular head.
If Rajinder Puri is expecting the President to react he is naive.
If she had any morality, she would not have put up her son as a candidate in the first place.
Those leaders who did not allow to benefit from their position are.
Two persons, Mahatma Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri come to mind.
Tje present pack pf leaders (wolves?) just fight, bark and attack each other to promote their children.
Of course, this was first promoted by the so called first family of India, Nehru -G
Gandhi.
Motilal, Jawahar, Indira, Rajeev and now Rahul.
Rahul is the 5th generation and the Congress is waiting with abated breath for his marriage so that the lineage could continue.
Five generation would have given us 150 years of rule but since two generations lives were cut short, we have only 90 years, since pre-independence.
Can you blame poor Pratibha Patel for wanting a bit of the pie?
After all in most states now the politicians have gone into the second or third generation
Rajinder Puri
There is a serious constitutional issue thrown up by the Amravati constituency poll in the Maharashtra Assembly election. President Pratibha Patil’s son, Rajendra Shekawat, is the Congress candidate in that constituency. Nobody can take objection to that. Being the President’s kin should not impede Shekawat’s political career.
During a campaign meeting, however, a local Congress leader, Bhau Saheb Dhere, claimed in his speech that the President should be credited for bringing two trains to Amravati and for reviving the defunct Finlay Mills. Congress leaders are stressing to the voters that by electing the President’s son they would help Amravati with rapid development. Last Sunday the President’s son himself claimed in a campaign speech that he had started the train services and revived Finlay Mills. Since Shekawat holds no official position he was clearly implying that he had been instrumental in using the President’s influence to render this service to Amravati.
Should the President be participating even indirectly in election campaigns? Our written Constitution is grossly misinterpreted. Its written text clearly gives the President powers and responsibilities that impel an activist political role. However, this view reflects a minority of one. The overwhelming view consistently stressed is that the President like the British Sovereign is a titular head devoid of any political role. So how do those who cling to this view accept the President’s name being dragged as a partisan into a fiercely political election? If the President’s name is being dragged in without her consent should she not speak up and contradict the Congress leaders and her son for claiming that she was instrumental in bringing two trains to Amravati and restarting the Finlay Mills in order to quicken development in her son’s electoral constituency?
One waits for the reactions of the President and of the galaxy of constitutional experts who fiercely maintain that the President is a mere titular head.
If Rajinder Puri is expecting the President to react he is naive.
If she had any morality, she would not have put up her son as a candidate in the first place.
Those leaders who did not allow to benefit from their position are.
Two persons, Mahatma Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri come to mind.
Tje present pack pf leaders (wolves?) just fight, bark and attack each other to promote their children.
Of course, this was first promoted by the so called first family of India, Nehru -G
Gandhi.
Motilal, Jawahar, Indira, Rajeev and now Rahul.
Rahul is the 5th generation and the Congress is waiting with abated breath for his marriage so that the lineage could continue.
Five generation would have given us 150 years of rule but since two generations lives were cut short, we have only 90 years, since pre-independence.
Can you blame poor Pratibha Patel for wanting a bit of the pie?
After all in most states now the politicians have gone into the second or third generation
|
|
