Congress President Sonia Gandhi has already made the comparison that would have inevitably have been made by pundits when it became clear last fortnight that she would not be able to avoid showing up in court to face misappropriation allegations in the National Herald case.
"I am Indira Gandhi's daughter-in-law," Sonia said, reminding the world of the former Prime Minister's return to prominence after being sent to jail for a day in 1977 on corruption charges. Yet, on Saturday, as Sonia made her way into Delhi's Patiala House Court Complex, she chose to do the straightforward thing and apply for bail which was promptly granted.
Indeed, there is a more recent example of political opportunism in a courtroom than Indira Gandhi's which has served as a cautionary tale to Sonia Gandhi, who has been accused of misappropriating money along with her son, Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi, and several other top party leaders. The Congress believes that the charges against them are frivolous and politically motivated. So, unafraid of the actual repercussions, there had been suggestions that Rahul and Sonia Gandhi will go as far as refusing to apply for bail in order to get political mileage out of the situation.
Dramebaazi
In May 2014, Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal found himself in a similar position with even more frivolous charges. Accused of criminally defaming Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nitin Gadkari, Kejriwal decided to not just show up in court in the matter, but refused to deposit a personal bond – effectively demanding to be put in jail.
While the party tried to sell the move as a principled attempt at legal reform, it only confirmed Kejriwal's dramebaaz image. AAP itself not only ditched the issue altogether, it also took a u-turn and encouraged criminal defamation suits. Kejriwal probably doesn't want to remember the day he, basically, tried to walk into jail to look like a victim of the then-new Narendra Modi government.
That's why the Congress has been so confused about what to do in this case. First it was certain this was a political vendetta. Then when the party realised that it's cries of vendetta seemed like an attempt to protect the allegedly corrupt Gandhis, it changed tack, looking quite silly in the process.
Confused Congress
It followed this by issuing a call for a show of strength for the day Rahul and Sonia Gandhi were expected to turn up in court, summoning all of its Members of Parliament to turn up at the party office, with the idea that they would all march down to court. Then the party had to go back on this too, issuing a public statement that supporters shouldn't crowd around Delhi so it wouldn't look like an attempt to pressure the court. The same reasons have forced party leaders to insist that rumours about Sonia and Rahul Gandhi refusing to take bail were false. "They will cooperate," is the party line.
The difficulty of this path has been there for all to see: Congress wants to cry "vendetta!" but do so with turning into a Kejriwal-esque dramebaaz.
A few things make this more difficult: Though it may have been founded by Jawaharlal Nehru, the National Herald does not belong just to the the Nehru-Gandhi family, as this piece about its history recounts. Although the Congress has been able to rebut a fair few of the claims against them, there are some charges, particularly to do with the party's decision to move the National Herald's assets without consulting all shareholders, that may yet hold. This FAQ sheet has all the details about the case itself.
And it is those shareholders, along with the wider base of the Congress itself, that Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy is claiming to represent while he pursues his complaint against Rahul and Sonia Gandhi.
Due Process
In a normal criminal case, where police or another investigating agency has accused someone of a crime and followed it up with a chargesheet, this would be the moment where the question of jail or bail would come up. But this is a private complaint, pursued by Swamy. That doesn't prevent the Gandhis from going behind bars if the magistrate thinks they could tamper with evidence, coerce witnesses or flee from justice.
But it makes it unlikely, and indeed that is what happened. On Saturday, the most likely chances of entering jail for Rahul and Sonia Gandhi would have been voluntary, not upon the judge's orders. When the matter did come up in court, the Gandhis sought bail, which was promptly granted to them upon furnishing Rs 50,000 as a personal bond plus a surety. The Gandhis didn't even ask for exemption from the next date of hearing, which was set as February 20.
For those eager to see the Gandhis go behind bars – including those in the Congress who were under the impression that it would make them more popular – there's still hope, so to speak. Between now and the next hearing, Swamy will have time to put together his evidence. But he'll also have a chance to put together material proving that the Gandhis should not be permitted to be out where they can tamper with evidence. Until then, any sort of Indira Gandhi comparisons are going to have to be put on hold.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
"I am Indira Gandhi's daughter-in-law," Sonia said, reminding the world of the former Prime Minister's return to prominence after being sent to jail for a day in 1977 on corruption charges. Yet, on Saturday, as Sonia made her way into Delhi's Patiala House Court Complex, she chose to do the straightforward thing and apply for bail which was promptly granted.
Indeed, there is a more recent example of political opportunism in a courtroom than Indira Gandhi's which has served as a cautionary tale to Sonia Gandhi, who has been accused of misappropriating money along with her son, Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi, and several other top party leaders. The Congress believes that the charges against them are frivolous and politically motivated. So, unafraid of the actual repercussions, there had been suggestions that Rahul and Sonia Gandhi will go as far as refusing to apply for bail in order to get political mileage out of the situation.
Dramebaazi
In May 2014, Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal found himself in a similar position with even more frivolous charges. Accused of criminally defaming Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nitin Gadkari, Kejriwal decided to not just show up in court in the matter, but refused to deposit a personal bond – effectively demanding to be put in jail.
While the party tried to sell the move as a principled attempt at legal reform, it only confirmed Kejriwal's dramebaaz image. AAP itself not only ditched the issue altogether, it also took a u-turn and encouraged criminal defamation suits. Kejriwal probably doesn't want to remember the day he, basically, tried to walk into jail to look like a victim of the then-new Narendra Modi government.
That's why the Congress has been so confused about what to do in this case. First it was certain this was a political vendetta. Then when the party realised that it's cries of vendetta seemed like an attempt to protect the allegedly corrupt Gandhis, it changed tack, looking quite silly in the process.
Confused Congress
It followed this by issuing a call for a show of strength for the day Rahul and Sonia Gandhi were expected to turn up in court, summoning all of its Members of Parliament to turn up at the party office, with the idea that they would all march down to court. Then the party had to go back on this too, issuing a public statement that supporters shouldn't crowd around Delhi so it wouldn't look like an attempt to pressure the court. The same reasons have forced party leaders to insist that rumours about Sonia and Rahul Gandhi refusing to take bail were false. "They will cooperate," is the party line.
The difficulty of this path has been there for all to see: Congress wants to cry "vendetta!" but do so with turning into a Kejriwal-esque dramebaaz.
A few things make this more difficult: Though it may have been founded by Jawaharlal Nehru, the National Herald does not belong just to the the Nehru-Gandhi family, as this piece about its history recounts. Although the Congress has been able to rebut a fair few of the claims against them, there are some charges, particularly to do with the party's decision to move the National Herald's assets without consulting all shareholders, that may yet hold. This FAQ sheet has all the details about the case itself.
And it is those shareholders, along with the wider base of the Congress itself, that Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy is claiming to represent while he pursues his complaint against Rahul and Sonia Gandhi.
Due Process
In a normal criminal case, where police or another investigating agency has accused someone of a crime and followed it up with a chargesheet, this would be the moment where the question of jail or bail would come up. But this is a private complaint, pursued by Swamy. That doesn't prevent the Gandhis from going behind bars if the magistrate thinks they could tamper with evidence, coerce witnesses or flee from justice.
But it makes it unlikely, and indeed that is what happened. On Saturday, the most likely chances of entering jail for Rahul and Sonia Gandhi would have been voluntary, not upon the judge's orders. When the matter did come up in court, the Gandhis sought bail, which was promptly granted to them upon furnishing Rs 50,000 as a personal bond plus a surety. The Gandhis didn't even ask for exemption from the next date of hearing, which was set as February 20.
For those eager to see the Gandhis go behind bars – including those in the Congress who were under the impression that it would make them more popular – there's still hope, so to speak. Between now and the next hearing, Swamy will have time to put together his evidence. But he'll also have a chance to put together material proving that the Gandhis should not be permitted to be out where they can tamper with evidence. Until then, any sort of Indira Gandhi comparisons are going to have to be put on hold.