One rule for me and different rule for you - 2


To continue with the the first post, do the politicians think differently when ‘their’ interests are affected while pursuing a more amenable line when a common man’s interests are involved?

For two days it was big news that cabinet ministers no less, objected to ‘all’ the sports bodies of India being brought under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), and some sort of oversight by the Government of India, though the report was denied by the sports minister, .

It was funny to note that some of the cabinet ministers howled about Cricket and its administration being bought under such a move, while being least bothered about other sports.  The reason is also quite plain and understandable - of the cabinet ministers, no less than 3 (to my knowledge) hold office as Chief’s of their state (or the national) cricket associations - it is only natural for them to defend that sports, and only that sports, which they represent.

The principal Opposition party does no better in this matter with their leader in Rajya Sabha holding on as chief of the state unit in, what else, but Cricket and many of his party colleagues lording over some state sports federations.

Of course it was too much to expect from these able administrators to recuse themselves from decision making when there is an obvious conflict of interest.

But then as a wit put it today morning at the newspaper stand, ‘What conflict of interest?  There is no conflict with ‘their’ interests!’
:-P

BTW, if you think that it is some heinous or underhand move by the present administration or the Sports Minister Ajay Maken, think again.  A move to enforce some sort of regulations on the sports bodies and their administration had been mooted as early as 1975 and was attempted to be enforced in 2010 before being shot down - the main culprit who acted as a marksman at that time was, surprise surprise, one Suresh Kalmadi.

Suresh-Kalmadi-arrested

What caught my goat was that the cabinet minister Farooq Abdullah who did not recuse himself citing a conflict of interest went ahead and accused the sports minister Ajay Maken of ‘breach of secrecy’, by discussing the reasons for the rejection of the proposed bill by the Cabinet, to the media.

Wait a minute!  Am I getting it wrong?  Have I put my head somewhere it shouldn’t be?  Let be bullet it out:
  • A minister wants to implement transparency in sports bodies.
  • A group of ministers who have interests in sports object, and the wimps that their cabinet colleagues are, the move is dropped.
  • The media questions the proposing minister on the failure for cabinet consensus and he obliges.
  • The spokesman for special-interest-coterie then accuses the proposing minister for going transparent.
So what are they saying?  No transparency but Opaqueness at every cost?

What I also do not understand is that why are these politicians/ministers not state or national federation chiefs for Gilli-Danda, or Pallankuzhi, or Aadu Puli Attam?

And if at 74 he can do ‘many’ things as Farooq Abdullah says, then why insist that the Judges of the Supreme Court of India should retire at 65 years of age?

Why not the judges of Supreme Court of India be appointed for Life, like in the US?

If a politician can do a lot of things admirably despite his age, why not the Judges in the Supreme Court?
Is the reason for restricting the service of the supreme court judges that more sitting and serving judges might enable the judiciary to take up more petitions from the common man regarding transparency in the government?

I sure don’t hope so!

No comments:

Post a Comment