From Jaipur to Quota

Mr. Bainsla has done it for his community. Going all the way from Jaipur to NCR, he has found his way to Quota. Where does this 5% comes from is another problem. The first problem is, what if I want reservation tomorrow? Shall I opt for the same track? Collect a few thousand people and reach block the roads of NCR?

The Gujjar 'protest' has set a significant 'example' for many leaders. Whereas Raj Thackeray had achieved only political recognition for himself, Bainsla has really 'achieved' something and I very much fear this is going to be a pattern that might be followed by some community or the other before elections.

Instead of any action against those who had blocked life in the NCR and Rajasthan, the government has awarded the 'agitation' with a 'special' quota which comes from nowhere and once challenged in court, may even go unimplemented.

But I feel it's not the quota that is the real problem with the Gujjar agitation. It is what process they have followed and what can become a trend after seeing the instant success of the agitation. There is no need to tell how badly Gujjar agitation had affected life in Rajasthan, NCR and even UP, affecting number of trains also, some of them even cancelled or diverted.

In short, whatever the motive, Rajasthan Government has set a bad example with the way they have tackled the issue. Also, I feel any such protests that affect life of general public, such as blocking of roads or trains etc. should be banned by the law and those laws should be enforced properly.

Ethically Correct?

The so-called reshuffle of the UPA government's ministries has been done and there has been very little to talk about. In fact the way Congress has once again ignored its youth brigade is one thing almost everybody is talking about.

The PM-in-the-waiting Rahul Gandhi has not been given any ministry and simultaneously the HIgh command Sonia Ji has released a statement declaring he didn't want a ministry himself.

And although Jyotiraditya and Jitin prasad have been given ministries, there is a big question on why was the much popular Sachin Pilot not given a ministry.

Anyways, the question of ethically correct or incorrect lies somewhere else. It's about the former Chief election commissioner M S Gill being given a place in the ministry. The question is that is it right to give a ministry to a person who has been on a top post where the holders of the post are expected to be entirely neutral. Will this not raise a question on the political leanings of the person?

I agree that Mr Gill has done his work with complete neutrality, that is, to the best of my knowledge. But his inclusion in the ministry can surely leave a wrong impression on the other election commisioners who may lean more towards parties expecting a benefit from them after the completion of their tenures.

In fact this has taken place when an election commissioner Navin Chawla is already in question regarding his involvements with the BJP.

Apart from this, there is one more question that confuses me. Is it that the UPA government itself has doubts about this act of theirs? Because I find no other reason for a highly qualified beaurocrat like Mr Gill to be assigned a state ministry, even with an independent charge. Why wasn't he given a cabinet post is something that creates more confusion.