March 1, 1999

After the Bhandari mess let ministers speak with their actions alone.

Despite the alacrity with which professional BJP baiters have discovered S.S. Bhandari's backbone, it is nobody's case that the governor of Bihar is an exemplary administrator. To be fair, he is no more than a seasoned BJP backroom boy. As such if he is to be replaced by somebody more suited to governance, there can be no real objection. Home Minister L.K. Advani's motives in recommending that Patna's Raj Bhavan needs a new, "apolitical" incumbent are, therefore, unimpeachable. His methods, however, are entirely debatable. In making a public announcement about Bhandari's imminent removal without the courtesy of informing him, Advani has committed two errors. One, he has violated protocol -- quite like Rajiv Gandhi dismissing A.P. Venkateshwaran as foreign secretary during a press conference. Two, in jumping the gun on what was a delicate political matter, Advani has needlessly provoked Bhandari's friends within his party.

After nine years of Laloo raj -- direct or by proxy -- it should be patently obvious that Bihar is crying out for hard-headed, unprejudiced governance. Thanks to a moment's indiscretion, this verity lies buried under a heap of political one-upmanship. The Centre will have to eat crow as its opponents argue that Bhandari was sent to Bihar for the sole purpose of facilitating the state government's dismissal. That every ruling party is guilty of such constitutional subterfuge will mitigate the embarrassment, not efface it. That apart, the Government's reputation for talking first and acting later -- if not never -- will be further strengthened. Some months ago, the finance minister promised a recovery "by September", the economy is still waiting. Early in 1999, the prime minister promised a cabinet expansion -- only to postpone it to "end January" and finally develop amnesia. Should the people of Bihar similarly renounce hopes of a responsive ruler?

Woman Power

Long overdue judicial initiatives should help correct gender imbalances.

The Supreme Court has, by ruling that the mother under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) is as much a natural guardian of the child as the father, driven home a vital point concerning gender equality. The writ petition on this matter by novelist Githa Hariharan had challenged the Reserve Bank of India's refusal to record an investment in the name of her minor son. The bank justified its action by citing a section of the HAMA which states that for a legitimate child, the father, and "after him" the mother, was the natural guardian. However, a bench of the apex court, led by Chief Justice of India A.S. Anand, has overturned this interpretation of the law, stating that the words "after him" in the act does in no way denote the exclusivity of the father's right. According to the judgement, both parents are the child's natural guardians and, in the absence of the father, the mother becomes the single natural guardian. The judgement therefore corrects the imbalance inherent in the country's family laws, tilted as they are in favour of the male guardian.

In another memorable judgement earlier this year, concerning sexual harassment of a female employee at the workplace, the chief justice had held that sexual harassment could take place even without physical contact and that its occurrence at the workplace amounted to violation of fundamental rights. In yet another suit this year, concerning the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Supreme Court held that the property of a female Hindu must be her "absolute" property, with full right to own or sell it. Such judicial initiative in setting right the gender imbalances is most welcome in a country where two-thirds of the female population is illiterate and atrocities on women are reported from even the best urban localities.

© Living Media India Ltd