Judge Swamy all you want, but India can't afford to ignore him

You may like him or lump, you can disagree with his views, as some of us do. But it's difficult to deny the kind of effect he has had in Parliament, even on a day when his  performance on the floor of the House fell short of the hype. Even those who hate his guts, as most Congressmen do, and some within his party, find it difficult to ignore him.

Consider this, around 4pm, the central hall of Parliament was full to the brim with MPs cutting across party lines and journalists taking a short break over tea and snacks.

Others were in the smoking room puffing away. The moment Swamy stood up to speak, the entire hall emptied out as if on cue, as MPs rushed to the Rajya Sabha to hear him speak.

By his own standards it was a restrained performance. He appeared to have heeded the PM's advice, and by and large, played by the rules. Swamy made his points, accusing the UPA of favouring Agusta Westland, spoke of corruption but without taking names. Much of his attack was by way of innuendos and insinuations, like when he seemed to praise Manmohan Singh, saying he will never do anything wrong personally, but then added that Singh may have been forced to do so by somebody else. He demanded that the government treat the note written by Christian Michel as evidence and investigate all those whose names are mentioned, even if meant custodial interrogation.

Dr Swamy's thunder appeared to have been stolen by Abhishek Singhvi of the Congress. His was the standout performance of the day. He vigorously defended his party and the UPA government and then counter-punched with panache. He marshalled his facts as only a skilled and accomplished lawyer like him can, clinically taking apart the case being built against his party leadership and the UPA government.

Merely names being mentioned in a letter does not establish culpability, he said. Singhvi quoted from the Italian courts judgement to say that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Gandhi's or Ahmed Patel, or for that matter. He warned the government against trying to intimidate or blackmail his party.

The two defence ministers, AK Antony and Manohar Parrikar, were pedantic, lacking the oratory skills and the flair of some of their colleagues. They quoted extensively from the files, both defending the bonafides of their governments. After all the sound and fury and the name calling, there were two big take a ways from the much awaited debate in parliament. One that   corruption took  place and money changed hands.

The second and equally significant is the fact that so far there is no proof whatsoever of the Gandhi family or the Congress leadership being involved in the pay-offs.