Age of folly There must be very few political parties in the world which concentrate all their energies on making the worst of a good thing. The Bharatiya Janata Party is of that rare breed. Even when it takes a step which can be justified from the Union government?s point of view, it is so inarticulate in the matter of explanations that it opens itself to charges of bias. Alternatively, it mistimes the step, in itself perhaps correct, in a way that charges of political motivation seem perfectly credible. The dismissal of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat falls into the first category. The direction to the sitting judge of the Madras high court, Mr C. Shivappa, falls in the second. These are only two of numerous episodes of similar colour in the BJP?s short career in New Delhi. Unfortunately, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. In the most recent case, for example, the crux of the government?s argument is that Mr Shivappa is over age. Fair enough. But if it aspires so passionately to correctness, Mr Shivappa should have been asked to step down in December, 1998, when he completed 62 years. Or rather, Mr Shivappa should have retired by the normal procedure followed in the system. Perhaps that did not happen because Mr Shivappa had made an official correction in his age which would make him 60 and not 62 in 1998. The sudden instruction to step down, therefore, is being connected with Mr Shivappa?s repeated rejections of the bail pleas from Ms J. Jayalalitha and her associates. The debate over his age has been steamrolled by the reported application of Article 217(3) of the Constitution, which gives the president of India the power to decide on a judge?s age in controversial situations after consultation with the chief justice of India. Apparently, the president has decided that 1936 and not 1938 shall be considered Mr Shivappa?s year of birth. Interestingly, Mr Shivappa?s claim that the correction of his year of birth had been officially registered seems to have been upheld by an earlier ruling of the Madras high court. By this ruling, a petition questioning the legitimacy of Mr Shivappa?s continuation in office after December 1998 had been considered not maintainable. Since the BJP has already attracted attention by making stealthy moves, not always successful, evidently to help Ms Jayalalitha out of the morass of corruption cases against her, the spurt of activity against Mr Shivappa is bound to be interpreted along the same lines. Earlier the government had suddenly shifted the heads of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the enforcement directorate. More blatantly, it had made an embarrassingly futile effort to shift the cases against the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam chief from the special court to the ordinary court, in the perverse expectation that hearings would thus be delayed. Then as now, the BJP led government has displayed a shocking ignorance of technicalities. Mr Shivappa and his colleagues have reacted strongly to the impropriety of the Union law minister sending direct instructions to the chief justice of the Madras high court. The high court registry has received no formal communication regarding the president?s decision. The BJP has developed a knack for transparency in the wrong things. Direct political intervention can only be interpreted as direct political interest. The question of the judge?s age can then be seen just as a shoddy excuse.