Nursery rhyme of an experts’ committee

Friday, 11 January, 2008 , 03:20 PM

.

At last, the Committee of Experts, politically nominated by T R Baalu, has submitted its report saying that the Ramar Sethu (Ramar Paalam) is not man-made. In this context, I am only reminded of the following hilarious and popular nursery rhyme which I learnt in my Ist standard. Here is the rhyme which speaks for itself. Rub-a-dub-dub Three men in a tub; And who do you think they be? The butcher, the baker, The candlestick maker; All scrubbing their way out to sea!

.

The origin of this rhyme seems to be from an old English side-show attraction including three maids in a tub. The rhyme depicts the scurrilous behaviour of some members of a group lacking self-control. The Members of the Committee of Experts have behaved like those ‘Rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub’ Immediately after the Committee of Experts with Dr Ramachandran, Vice- Chancellor, University of Madras, as chairman was appointed by the government of India, in these columns in October 2007, I had observed as follows: under the headline: SSCP VS RAMA SETHU: THE GAME OF SINISTER PAWN BROKERS, there is enough documentary evidence to show that Dr Ramachandran is a biased and prejudiced person who does not seem to have even ordinary belief, much less faith, in the processes of equity and natural justice. He has already gone on record several times publicly espousing the government’s stand on the existence of the Rama Sethu and on the viability of the said project. Hence, unless he has undergone an opinion change and now has an open mind, the committee’s deliberations would be vitiated by pre-judgemental bias of the chairperson, which under settled law would negate any claim of the committee of having reached a conclusion after fairly and impartially considering all objections and suggestions. In the same article in October 2007, I had even then observed that having spoken to the press several times that the Rama Sethu is not a ‘man-made structure’ and that it is a natural formation, Dr Ramachandran can not be expected to take a different view on the subject in his new capacity as chairman of this committee. On the deplorable want of procedural probity and decorum on the part of Dr Ramachandran, I had concluded as follows: Any other self-respecting man placed in a similar situation would have rescued himself with courage and conviction declaring that justice should not only be done but seem to be done. I had also correctly foreseen in advance when I referred to that committee as ‘Sham Committee of Eminent Persons’ and clearly stated that it does not require extraordinary crystal gazing powers to appreciate the contents of the conclusions and recommendations that ‘Their Eminences Committee’ will be submitting. It’s a foregone conclusion. It will be a ‘command performance’ in pursuance of ‘THEIR MASTER’S VOICE’!! (Sonia, Ambika Soni, T R Baalu and Karunanidhi). As I had correctly anticipated and forecast in October 2007, the disgraceful and fraudulent committee of ‘Dubious Eminences’ has given a political ruling to the effect that the Rama Sethu Bridge is a natural formation only to suit the political and commercial interests of Baalu. It is understood that the government has decided not to file their counter affidavit on 16 January, 2008, in the controversial Sethu case filed by Dr Subramanian Swamy and others in the Supreme Court. I also understand that having come to the categorical conclusion that Baalu will not be in a position to handle this case in a statesman-like manner in the Supreme Court; the Prime Minister has taken upon himself the onerous responsibility of steering this controversial ship across the swirling waters of tortuous and turbid litigation. It is understood that this matter came up before the Union Cabinet meeting yesterday that was presided over by Dr Manmohan. I reliably understand that Baalu failed in his attempts to convert the Union Cabinet meeting into a ‘DMK Kitchen Cabinet Meeting’. Pranab Mukherjee led the attack on Baalu and told him in clear and unmistakable terms that what was politically expedient and reasonable for the DMK party would be totally unacceptable because it would be disastrous from the point of view of the Congress party. Union Law Minister Bhardwaj, the newly turned ‘Rama Bhakta’ and prodigal son of the Congress, told Baalu that the massive report submitted by the Committee of Eminences a few days ago has to be scrutinised carefully by the Ministers concerned and the Ministries and therefore there can be no question of hurrying and scurrying through the finalisation of any counter affidavit of the government for being presented on 16 January 2008. I also reliably understand from my sources in New Delhi that the Union Minister for Culture Ambika Soni came out with a classical cover drive in the true manner of a Sir Jack Hobbs (1882-1963) when she seems to have told Baalu at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. ‘We cannot file the counter affidavit in the Supreme Court on 16 January. We require more time for more detailed study, discussion and analysis. Both my Congress party and I have got into unnecessary trouble with millions and millions of people in northern India, though I am in no way responsible for it. You seem to be the chief architect of all this trouble and mischief.’ Thus, it has been reported to me that Baalu found himself in splendid and insular isolation at the Union Cabinet meeting, with none of the Ministers from his own DMK present at the same meeting, supporting him openly on this issue. The UPA government, ever since it came to power in 2004, has consistently shown an unprecedented contempt for constitutional proprieties and procedural safeguards, both in letter and spirit. Talking about America, Justice Felix Frankfurter said, ‘The history of liberty in USA has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards.’ The same view was also taken by another great American Judge Justice Francoise Brandeis: ‘And in the development of our liberty insistence upon procedural regularity has been a large factor. Respect for law will not be advanced by resort, in its enforcement, to means which shock the common man’s sense of decency and fair play.’ I am of the view that the ‘Committee of Eminences’ through their final report have only succeeded in shocking the common man’s sense of decency and fair play. V.Sundaram in News Today