The Supreme Court of India has made it mandatory for political parties to publish, including on official social media pages, details of cases against their candidates and reasons for selecting them over others. Say 'winnability of a candidate cannot be the only reason for selection, the bench of Justices R F Nariman and S Ravindra Bhatt directed all parties to comply with its order and told the Election Commission to bring to its notice any instance of non-compliance 'in contempt of this court's orders/directions.' Parties can spare themselves ignominy of justifying tickets to criminals by choosing clean candidates. The verdict marks a continuation of its efforts to reverse the criminalisation of politics. In 2013, SC removed a loophole in Representation of The People Act that paved the way for instant disqualification of convicted MPs and MLAs. More recently, SC ordered creation of special courts to try MPs/MLAs. Henceforth, political parties must publish in newspapers, official websites and social media platforms details of criminal cases against candidates and reasons for choosing them at the expense of clean candidates.
While political parties can be expected to trumpet the usual line that their candidates are victims of political machinations, such perfunctory responses will not pass muster where the charges involve murder, sexual offences against women and corruption. An NGO, ADR, had noted a 109% increase between 2009 and 2019 in elected Lok Sabha MPs with serious criminal cases like murder and rape. Candidates already have to list criminal cases in election affidavits. But SC’s new stricture also forces the political party to take explicit ownership of a blemished choice.
Any attempt to justify a bad candidate or trivialise heinous offences can invite public opprobrium. However, legally debarring candidates facing criminal cases is unworkable given the tendency of police to wantonly book opposition leaders on charges like unlawful assembly, obstructing public servants, rioting, etc even when undertaking peaceful protests. The best course would be for political parties to stop fielding criminals. Why can’t they follow a ‘Swachh Bharat’ policy when it comes to appointing candidates? With parties prioritising winnability over morality, criminals have prospered in politics and greatly contributed to weakening the rule of law.
Parliament can no longer ignore the conflict of interest posed by candidates facing serious criminal charges getting elected and becoming ministers. In Karnataka, the new forest minister Anand Singh is accused of illegal mining and violation of forest laws. Fast tracking cases against politicians could act as a disincentive for criminals to enter politics. It’s likely, however, that parties will offer vague, repetitious explanations for ticket choices in response to SC’s latest ruling. To check non-compliance, SC has directed Election Commission to approach it where parties flout the verdict. As the election watchdog, EC must cast a vigilant eye out for delinquent parties.
Britain’s ‘Desi’ Cabinet
Indians are rejoicing at the ethnicity of some of the Cabinet ministers that UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson has appointed.
Priti Patel has been re-appointed in her former role, but Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman (Fernandes) and Alok Sharma - all Indian origin - are part of the new team Johnson has put in place.
David Cameron, the former Prime Minister also gave key responsibilities to Indian origin MPs – not all at such key positions, but had important roles nonetheless. He was the first one to initiate Priti Patel’s journey onto becoming the Home Secretary – giving her a new role in fostering a very crucial tie- as a Minister for the Indian diaspora.
Incidentally Theresa May also had four Indian-origin ministers in her team - Alok Sharma, Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman and Shailesh Vara.
Johnson of course, with paternal great-grandfather as a Muslim of Circassian-Turkish descent; maternal great-grandfather as a Russian Jew is multi-ethnic himself, with wide outlook. Johnson’s second wife Marina Wheeler’s mother Dip Singh was a Sikh from India. Dip Singh, by the way was earlier married to Khushwant Singh’s brother. Johnson and Wheeler had made a number of trips to India, including one to Kolkata. Johnson also often joked about his ‘Punjab connection’ at many events- especially at those organised by the Indian Journalists’ Association.
The question that arises here is: did Johnson’s love for India made him choose such an ‘desi’ cabinet? The answer remains no. As Yusuf Begg in an article pointed out that the UK Prime Minister’s step to appoint Indians in the core Cabinet is a cold political move. The four Indian-origin ministers in Boris Johnson’s Cabinet - Priti Patel, Alok Sharma, Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman - have always been pro-Brexit. In the tussle for Conservative Party leadership, all of them also backed Johnson against Jeremy Hunt.
Johnson’s appointment of new ministers is seen in British political circles as the biggest ever purge of a Cabinet.
On the other hand the new ministers also bring connections worth mentioning. Rishi Sunak, the new Chancellor is the son-in-law of one of world’s richest man- Narayana Murthy, the founder of Infosys group. While India is on the list of Johnson’s key partners in FTA after the Brexit transition is over, a connection in the right place is something the Prime Minister would not let slip away. Behind the clownish facade is a sharp mind.
Sajid Javid’s departure comes less than four weeks before this year's budget, meaning Mr Javid left the Treasury without ever having delivered the set-piece fiscal announcement- and it may delay budget on March 11.
Mr Javid was offered the chance to keep his role but resigned following a dispute with Downing Street over his close aides.
The Prime Minister demanded the Chancellor sack all of his special advisers following turbulence between Number 10 and the Treasury in recent weeks. The Chancellor refused and as a result both sides decided to part company.
Javid made a number of pointed references to the row in his resignation letter to the PM. The former Chancellor reportedly said it was "crucial for the effectiveness of government that you have people around you who can give you clear and candid advice".
And he told Mr Johnson, "I would urge you to ensure the Treasury as an institution retains as much credibility as possible."
Question remains if Tory party’s alleged rising Islamophobic trait is to blame for what happened to Javid in a way? It is not to be missed that the reshuffle also reduced the number of women in the full cabinet from seven to six- a regressive move in the era that is trying to give women an equal voice!
Chinese and Qatari investors buying out Britain?
China has for long been eyeing the UK’s infrastructure market to create in-roads for its state owned companies- be it the telecom services with Huwawei or now the transport industry with the China Railway Construction Corporation (CRCC). While the British government insists that no concrete commitments have been made, the two countries have held "preliminary discussions" over giving Beijing's state-owned railway firm a role in building the HS2 high-speed rail line. Which in turn means that apart from having access to the student accomodation market, Chinese investors will now also have a foothold on the £100bn High Speed 2 railway.
CRCC has hung the proverbial carrot of lost completing the Y-shaped HS2 at a slightly lower cost as it approached the HS2 boss Mark Thurston to offer to build the entire line within five years. The January letter from the CRCC lacks detail on its plans. So it is unclear how seriously the approach is being taken - or whether discussions progressed beyond CRCC's interest being acknowledged and them being informed of process.
Earlier in the year, several senior Conservatives have warned Huawei involvement in the UK's next generation mobile internet network poses a security risk and can lead to the first significant Commons rebellion against Boris Johnson's government. Now, HS2 stands next in line to follow suit. However, how does this bode for local British investors and businesses who may lose out vital contracts and tenders from the government because of relatively “cheap” and easily made available product from foreign companies and offshore investors?
Perhaps, it won’t be completely incorrect to state that the property banks in Central London are now almost completely owned by Qatari investors. Reports suggest that the UK is Qatar's single largest investment destination, with £35bn in place and another £5bn on its way in the next five years. Some of the properties include the HSBC Tower at 8 Canada Square in 2014 bought for £1.1bn, London's Savoy Hotel (through owning 10% of the French hospitality group Accor), and a 95% stake in the Shard and the purchase of Harrods department store for a reported £1.5bn in 2010.This has already driven local property developers out of sophisticated Mayfair district and forced them to focus on Home Counties and Greater London Region. Whilst this may bode well for the development of the neglected suburbs of the capital city, the idea that Qatar perhaps owns more land in London than the Queen sits uncomfortably with most financial investors especially in a post-Brexit UK.
The part privatisation of the NHS has always been a consistent rumor on the table under the present Tory Government espcially while weighing in the US-UK special trade relationship once the UK is out of the EU. Are these all early indicators that in its worst nightmare, the UK is being bought by pounds?
