Senior functionaries of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) administration have discounted the possibility on the grounds that it could be counter-productive.
Despite the growing demand that the government take back its decision to award the Padma Bhushan to controversial US-based hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal, the government appears disinclined to do so.
Senior functionaries of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) administration have discounted the possibility on the grounds that it could be counter-productive. “Taking back the award would be an admission of guilt,” say government sources.
Senior party functionaries and some members of the administration admit in private that Chatwal’s nomination for the award has created an “eminently avoidable controversy”. The issue is being informally discussed at various levels within the party, and the majority view appears to be that the government has needlessly created a controversy for itself. “What was the point, he is not even a party man or even a sympathiser,” says a Congress working committee member.
Despite the murmurings in the party, no formal representation has been made to the government on the matter. The political managers believe that any formal representation will not only add to its embarrassment, but will also be lapped up by the Opposition.
The best-case scenario that the party is hoping for is that Chatwal himself might decide to opt out in order to save the government from being embarrassed further.
The UPA government’s decision to award Chatwal has come in for severe criticism. His name was not on the list of awardees prepared by the awards committee and was added at the last minute by the prime minister’s office.
The government has so far defended his nomination on the grounds that he has been of great help in lobbying for the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The government has in fact been trying to recommend his name since 2008, but the Indian embassy in the US had advised the government against it, owing to the controversy surrounding him.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}