It’s not ‘‘the right thing to do’’ for a leader to cover up the wrongdoings of one’s own party and government—wrongdoings that have landed the entire political establishment in a messy and avoidable crisis. The past few days have witnessed a bizarre profanation of noble terms such as ‘‘sacrifice’’, ‘‘martyrdom’’ and ‘‘political morality’’. Even Dr Manmohan Singh, an honorable man, has demeaned himself by becoming a super-sycophant and praising the person who nominated him as prime minister as ‘‘the country’s tallest leader’’ with ‘‘a rare commitment to moral values’’.

Where is the ‘‘sacrifice’’ on Sonia Gandhi’s part, when she has declared her intention to regain her Lok Sabha seat from Rae Bareli? Where is the ‘‘sacrifice’’ when her disqualification seemed reasonably certain under the same law that axed Jaya Bachchan’s Rajya Sabha membership? The archaic 1959 law on ‘office of profit’ is indeed an ass that’s waiting to be amended into a creature suited to today’s conditions. But why didn’t the Government bring in a Bill to amend it right at the beginning of the Budget session, when it could have got the support of all the parties?

Instead, Congress leaders, because of their vengeful attitude towards political opponents, first conspired to get Jaya Bachchan disqualified under that law. They were full of glee when their plot succeeded. It’s only when they discovered that the plot could devour their own leader that they scripted a new ‘‘sacrifice’’ act for her.

In an educative article in The Indian Express on Thursday, Subhash Kashyap, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, has shown how chairmanship of the National Advisory Council is an ‘office of profit’ under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act. Indeed, what Sonia Gandhi was enjoying was more than that. It was an office of super-profit, if we see this sentence in Kashyap’s article—‘‘Profit doesn’t necessarily mean remuneration in cash, but it certainly means some kind of advantage or gain.’’

... contd.