 |
| Ashutosh, AAP |
Till recently, I had not met Najeeb Jung, the Lieutenant Governor of
Delhi. I was pleasantly surprised to see a different person from what I
had expected - a man who loves his coffee strong, and enjoys welcoming
his guests with a similar brew. He has a lovely cat that likes to sleep
on the table where you are seated in his office. He is an extremely
polite person, and his English, laced with Urdu, is impeccable. He comes
across as a supremely well-mannered man, but the very next day, when I
read the newspaper or switch on the TV, I see an entirely different
person. When I hear that he has written a letter to the Delhi Chief
Minister claiming that he, and only he is the government of Delhi, then I
am reminded of his coffee with the cat.
During our meeting, he gifted me his collection of articles and greatly appreciated my recent book on the 2014 elections. I have also been told that he had earlier taught at Oxford University. So I have no reason to believe that he naive about constitutional definitions and their broader understanding. So as tough as it is to believe that he wrote a letter declaring the appointment of the Chairperson of the Delhi Commission of Women null and void, while at the same time saying his office amounts to the government of Delhi, the letter is a fact.
As a student of history and politics who has recently finished reading the biographies of Mao Tse Tung and Hitler, this statement does not look bizarre to me. There comes a time in history when leaders appear to hallucinate on their power, and this confusion between dream and reality appears both tragic and farcical. Can you believe that when there is democracy in India, when an election has just concluded in Delhi, when AAP has won 67 seats out of 70, the same context produces a constitutional functionary who says "ONLY I AM THE GOVERNMENT"?
During our meeting, he gifted me his collection of articles and greatly appreciated my recent book on the 2014 elections. I have also been told that he had earlier taught at Oxford University. So I have no reason to believe that he naive about constitutional definitions and their broader understanding. So as tough as it is to believe that he wrote a letter declaring the appointment of the Chairperson of the Delhi Commission of Women null and void, while at the same time saying his office amounts to the government of Delhi, the letter is a fact.
As a student of history and politics who has recently finished reading the biographies of Mao Tse Tung and Hitler, this statement does not look bizarre to me. There comes a time in history when leaders appear to hallucinate on their power, and this confusion between dream and reality appears both tragic and farcical. Can you believe that when there is democracy in India, when an election has just concluded in Delhi, when AAP has won 67 seats out of 70, the same context produces a constitutional functionary who says "ONLY I AM THE GOVERNMENT"?
But this is true. And it raises certain fundamental questions. The
bigger one is whether India is turning into a constitutional
dictatorship where a duly-elected government is not allowed to function
and choose its own officers. Everybody knows Arvind Kejriwal is the
democratically elected Chief Minister of Delhi, and Najeeb Jung is an
appointed functionary who holds a little more than a ceremonial post. In
a functioning democracy, in a people's democracy, it's always the
elected leader who has earned the power to rule on behalf of the people,
and if such a leader flounders, then he or she has to ultimately face
the people and be booted out. It's called elections. An appointed
functionary, on the other hand, is accountable to the person who
appoints him, not to the people, and such a person can't be allowed to
say that I AM THE GOVERNMENT. This is not democratic and this is not
good for the Indian people. Mao and Hitler used to say they equaled
government and we know how that turned out. We will not allow that in
Delhi.
Mrs Indira Gandhi used to believe that she was the government and her
cronies used to say, "India is Indira, and Indira is India". She, in her
deluded state, imposed the Emergency, but finally, she also had to take
a democratic route to seek legitimacy for her act, and the people of
India punished her and rejected the Congress, which, till then, seemed
incapable of losing an election. Indira Gandhi lost her own election in
Rae Bareilly. This is the beauty of the democracy; it does not let
anyone feel that he or she is bigger than the people. Unfortunately,
Najeeb Jung is not an elected representative and does not have to
contest elections, so he can continue in his seat as long as the central
government desires.
Which is why he is not his own master. He is being controlled by those who have no faith in democracy. For such people, democracy is a facilitator, a tool which is used by them and their ideologies to function, flourish and reach the top; and once they reach the pinnacle, they destroy democracy. The question is should it be allowed to happen? Today I want to remind Mr. Jung about the great 'revolutionary' Bukharin and his letter to Stalin before he died: "I was at your place, and you said to me: do you know why I consider you my friend? After all, you are not capable of intrigues, are you? And I said: no I am not." This letter was written by Bukharin when he was arrested by Stalin and death was looming upon him.
Niall Ferguson writes, "Bukharin had pleaded to be allowed to go to exile in the United States, or to be sent to a labour camp in Siberia, or at least to be allowed to drink poison rather than be shot." And you know what Stalin did to his 'friend' - he got Bukharin to be shot by a firing squad on March 14, 1938. And you know why this happened? Because when Stalin was killing other members of his politbureau and cabinet, Bukharin was on his side. History is cruel and so are dictators.
Which is why he is not his own master. He is being controlled by those who have no faith in democracy. For such people, democracy is a facilitator, a tool which is used by them and their ideologies to function, flourish and reach the top; and once they reach the pinnacle, they destroy democracy. The question is should it be allowed to happen? Today I want to remind Mr. Jung about the great 'revolutionary' Bukharin and his letter to Stalin before he died: "I was at your place, and you said to me: do you know why I consider you my friend? After all, you are not capable of intrigues, are you? And I said: no I am not." This letter was written by Bukharin when he was arrested by Stalin and death was looming upon him.
Niall Ferguson writes, "Bukharin had pleaded to be allowed to go to exile in the United States, or to be sent to a labour camp in Siberia, or at least to be allowed to drink poison rather than be shot." And you know what Stalin did to his 'friend' - he got Bukharin to be shot by a firing squad on March 14, 1938. And you know why this happened? Because when Stalin was killing other members of his politbureau and cabinet, Bukharin was on his side. History is cruel and so are dictators.
Comments
Post a Comment