Singh talks tough with Pakistan PM
NEW DELHI: Twenty-three years after he “fraudulently” nominated undeserving candidates for MBBS seats during his stint as Union health minister, Rasheed Masood, now in the Congress, has been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
However, nobody appears to be complaining about the long delay. Rather, people seem happy that at least conviction has taken place.
But Masood’s case is not the only one. Be it former Bihar chief minister and RJD president Lalu Prasad’s conviction in the fodder scam, former Haryana chief minister Om Prakash Chautala’s 10-year jail term in the junior basic teachers recruitment case or former BJP president Bangaru Lakshman’s four-year sentence for accepting money from Tehelka journalists posing as arms dealers to facilitate government contracts, all these have taken more than a decade (see graphics).
In fact, the case against former Kerala chief minister K Karunakaran in palmolein oil import (in 1991-92) had to be closed after his death in December 2010.
While their cases remain pending, most of these politicians enjoy power.
Why do corruption cases involving politicians take so long? Are investigating agencies prone to political pressure?
Barely five months ago, the Supreme Court described India’s premier investigating agency — the CBI — as a “caged parrot” which has too many masters and censured the government for interfering in its work, forcing Ashwani Kumar to quit as law minister.
The CBI’S flip-flop in the probe into the alleged disproportionate assets of Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav is another example.
“You (CBI) are acting at the behest of Centre...you are not acting on your own,” the Supreme Court had said on February 10, 2009, after government counsel admitted that the CBI’S plea to withdraw its application for filing the probe report before the court was based on the government’s direction. The probe has since been closed.
In December 2010, the NEW DELHI: Resisting tremendous pressure to include diplomats in the forthcoming DGMO level talks between the two neighbours, PM Manmohan Singh made it clear to his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif that Pakistani Army should be held accountable for ceasefire violations along the LOC.
Top government sources said the PM did plain speak with Sharif during September 29 meeting to such an extent that he expressed regret that the Pakistani Army exercised dominant influence on Islamabad’s policy.
Singh made it clear that he had done all he could to improve bilateral relations but cross-border terrorism was unacceptable. An unusually tough Singh poohpoohed Sharif ’s attempt to raise the so-called Indian involvement in the Baluchistan insurgency. Calling the charge baseless, PM told Sharif that even his predecessor could not give any evidence in support of the charge.
FIRING LIMITED TO POONCH SECTOR
As India and Pakistan move towards seeking mutually convenient dates for Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) level meeting to restore peace along the LOC, the recent pattern of ceasefire violations shows that firing has been large ly limited to the Poonch sector and is directly related to cross border terrorism.
Although Indian DGMO Lt Gen Vinod Bhatia has been in constant touch with his Pakistani counterpart Major General Amir Riaz over cross border firing, records show that ceasefire violations went up in January after two Indian soldiers were beheaded by Pakistan’s border action team and again in August after Indian troops were ambushed in Poonch sector.