Why did Vadra say what he did and why now?

More than meets the eye in what he said.

What was the provocation for Robert Vadra to give an interview to a private media outlet? And why now? How do you explain the claim, “I did not need Priyanka to enhance my life. I had enough. My parents gave me enough.” Really?

Of course, there is not even an iota of truth in that claim. For, without the Gandhi link he would still be selling thalis and katoris in some obscure part of Moradabad. He would not have become the cynosure of the entire nation, a member of the elite golf clubs, an integral part of the incestuous Page Three set in the capital. Without the all-important Gandhi link, the real estate czars, who now do multi- crore deals with him, would not have given the time of day even by a common passerby. Only upon becoming Mr Priyanka Gandhi did one Robert Vadra “enhance” his life in multifarious ways he now refuses to acknowledge. Simply put, without Priyanka, he would have remained an anonymous Mr Nobody.

The question as to why Robert gave the interview remains unanswered. And why now? And what does he really mean that marrying Priyanka did not “enhance” his life.

The world knows it did, and in ways he would not have dreamed of. But marrying into the first family of politics, and specially someone blessed with film star good looks, can give any husband a complex. Vadra, all muscle and brawn, would have gone unnoticed even in a crowd of one had he not married into the Gandhi family. And how do you make any sense of his claim that people are so angry with the Narendra Modi government that they will soon rise in revolt—yes, revolt. And, pray, who are these people? “Business people, real estate people…” Of course, they have reason to be upset because no government has clamped down on their black deeds the way the Modi government has. But that is another matter. If Vadra’s barometer for assessing the public mood is “business people, real estate people” then this government has nothing to fear.

It is true, business people are upset because the government has most fiercely assaulted crony capitalism under which Robert Vadra had thrived, swinging things for his business associates for a hefty commission. Like the land deals he swung in Haryana and Rajasthan.

Frankly, if you were to consider the public utterances of Robert Vadra over the years there can be only one conclusion: He is all brawn, no brain. From the threat to “join politics when the people want me” to calling Indians “mango people in a banana republic”, to the latest about the people rising in revolt against Modi, there is a common strand of half-wittedness. And we are not even talking of the claim about his wife not “enhancing” his life, even if the public taunt is actually meant for Priyanka’s consumption. Politics is all about striking deals. Though Lalu Yadav cannot be enthused about Nitish Kumar projecting himself as the prime ministerial candidate of an allembracing anti-BJP front, he might still reluctantly fall in line, hoping that it would help him install his younger son, Tejashwi, as the next Chief Minister in Bihar sooner than he had earlier believed. Tejashwi is now Deputy Chief Minister under Nitish Kumar.

If things pan out as Lalu believes they would, soon Nitish would get busy in concretizing the so-called anti-BJP front in time for it to be ready for the 2019 Lok Sabha battle. This would eventually call for Nitish to step down as Bihar Chief Minister so that he can devote all his energies and time to cobbling together an omnibus anti-Modi front. In the normal course, Bihar is not due for a fresh Assembly poll till late 2020. Lalu’s calculation would be to install Tejashwi as the leader of the RJD-JD(U) combine long before that, persuading Nitish to step aside for him to be able to nurse his prime ministerial ambitions. Since, anyway, RJD is a bigger party than Nitish’s JD(U), the latter would not be in a position to stake claim on leading the coalition once Nitish shifts fulltime to national politics. Thus, whether or not Nitish is able to realise his prime ministerial dream, Lalu at least would have reclaimed the Bihar gaddi for his own son. You feel sorry for Amitabh Bachchan. Yes, we do. By far the best actor that India has had in decades, Bachchan is one of the more self-centred persons in real life. Unlike a Dharmendra or a Mithun Chakraborty, Bachchan’s ways make him one of the more unpopular denizens of the film world. He is known to use people and then discard them with utter disdain. If you don’t believe us, ask Amar Singh.

Though he has denied that he owned any of the shell companies as revealed in the Panama Papers, only the most credulous will buy that claim. Let us recall a small instance.

Back in the days when he was an MP from Allahabad, he donated a couple of crores of rupees to a newlylaunched hospital in Mumbai.

And his constituents were left wondering why he wouldn’t donate to an Allahabad-based charity, his hometown, which had sent him to Parliament with a huge majority, defeating the stalwart Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna. You know why? Because making a donation to a Sethji-owned hospital assured tangible returns, whereas giving money to a charity in Allahabad would have yielded zilch from his perspective.

That then is Bachchan the man for you, though as an actor he has few peers in the industry. The order of the Uttarakhand High Court reinstating the Congress government in the state and as a consequence ending the controversial President’s Rule has demonstrated that the Indian judiciary was not going to be ever over-awed by the action of the executive and was committed to upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. There may be many opinions on the verdict by a division bench comprising Chief Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice V.K. Bist, which the Centre has challenged in the Apex Court, but there can be no denying that the two distinguished judges, by their order, have asserted the independence of our judiciary. The Supreme Court on Friday gave an interim injunction by staying the High Court order. It clarified that it was keeping in abeyance the judgement of the High Court till the next date of hearing on 27 April as a measure of balance since the copy of the verdict was not made available to the parties.

Nevertheless, the proclamation of the President’s Rule a day ahead of the date set by the state Governor, Dr K.K. Paul for a floor test by the Harish Rawat government had taken everyone by surprise since the act was perceived to be in contravention of the Supreme Court judgement in the S.R. Bommai case. The landmark Bommai judgement had once and for all settled the conditions under which President’s Rule could be imposed in a state and had laid down a framework for the use of Article 356 of the Constitution. It had further made it virtually mandatory that a floor test was the only way of establishing whether an elected government had a majority or not. Any other method was not acceptable. The Union Cabinet’s view, on the developments in Uttarakhand after nine Congress MLAs had apparently turned “rebels” and had allegedly not supported the passing of the Appropriation Bill, was not seen to be consistent with the Bommai judgement, even though the Centre had argued that the “defeat” of the Finance Bill had plunged the hill state into a constitutional crisis.

Sources within the government stated that there was a clear cut difference of opinion within the Cabinet on the issue, where at least two senior ministers opposed the dismissal of the elected government. However, they were overruled before the government decided to go to President Pranab Mukheree recommending the use of Article 356. This was done despite the fact that Governor Paul at no stage had made such a suggestion in writing to the Centre and was seemingly keen to allow the floor test to determine the fate of the Rawat ministry.

Justice Joseph and Justice Bist, by their path breaking judgement, have acted according to the best traditions of democratic practices. India does not have a clear demarcation of separation of powers between the three wings of the government—executive, legislature and judiciary—but observes its objectives in action. The fathers of our Constitution had been inspired by Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers that resulted in the system of checks and balances, which is prevalent in many countries such as the United States and France.

Eminent French political philosopher Montesquieu was influenced by the ancient Greek and Roman system of demarcating the powers of the three branches so that they did not overstep each other’s jurisdiction and thereby exercised restraint. The system has succeeded in democracies with the presidential system, but is not as effective in countries where the Parliamentary form exists.

In India, for instance, the legislature and the executive are rolled into one, with the Prime Minister being both the executive head of the government as well as the leader of the majority party in the legislature (Parliament). However, the system observes the essence of the objectives. Therefore, the Indian judiciary, time and again, comes out with rulings which are free from the influences of the parties in power and conform to the principles of law and Constitution. Such orders highlight the independence of the judiciary, so important for any democracy.

The High Court order has far reaching ramifications politically and any government at the Centre would ruminate several times before resorting to any kind of political adventurism. It can definitely be discerned as a major setback for the BJP, which was being accused by its opponents of trying to topple governments by engineering defections. The BJP and the political establishment have to comprehend that in a democracy, elections are the only legitimate way of coming to power. The hard- hitting quote by Montesquieu, “there is no crueller tyranny than that which perpetuates under the shield of law and in the name of justice” in this instance is most apt.

The High Court’s actions could have halted plans, if any, of the ruling party to replicate what it did in Uttarakhand and Arunanchal in other states such as Himachal. The Congress is on cloud nine but has to realise that the crisis in Uttarakhand was as much its own creation as it was the political folly of the BJP. The party must get its house in order before accusing its rivals of overthrowing and dislodging its governments. The entire episode of President’s Rule could have been prevented had the Congress taken internal measures to assess the looming threat from its own dissidents. If the Rawat government has got a reprieve it is little thanks to the party leadership. An independent judiciary has saved the day for its government momentarily. The first test it has to pass will be on the floor of the Assembly next Friday. Thereafter, many more arduous tests will follow. Between us.