WITHIN the next few weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin will be welcoming the leaders of the world’s major economic powers who will gather in Moscow for the G-8 summit. What a remarkable transformation for a country that was down and out only a decade and a half ago.

But then, Russia is no ordinary country. During the Second World War, it lost more than 20 million people, and yet, within a few years, it had succeeded in becoming a credible contender for superpower status — a remarkable testimony to the indomitable will and awe-inspiring courage of its people.

If that was their finest hour, surely the suddenness with which this superpower collapsed in 1991 was its hour of ignominy and shame. Admittedly, it was the ruthless leadership of Josef Stalin that had moulded the disparate nations into a powerful state. Equally, it was the fickle and capricious leadership of Gorbachev that contributed to the collapse of a once mighty state. Unlike Deng Xiaoping, who kept a tight leash on the levers of political power, while permitting the full flowering of the Chinese genius in the field of economy, Gorbachev did the reverse. His intentions may have been noble, but glasnost and perestroika unleashed all those demons lurking just beneath the surface.

Thanks to Gorbachev’s inept policies and the misplaced ambitions of Boris Yeltsin, a great power built over centuries collapsed with not a bullet fired nor a dollar spent by the United States. The end was so sudden and unexpected that none of the great American Sovietologists could fathom what had happened. Gorbachev’s naivete has been recorded by the veteran Soviet diplomat, Anatoly Dobrynin, who watched with horror how the Soviet leader literally surrendered his country’s strategic interests, without seeking any reciprocal advantage.

After years of slide and chaos, due primarily to the drunken stupor that marked the Yeltsin presidency, Russia was fortunate to get Vladimir Putin, an intelligent and vigorous leader. Stamping his authority from the early days, he introduced far-reaching reforms, in both the political and economic spheres. Many of the autonomous regions were merged, new ones created and the power and authority of the provincial executives severely curtailed. Putin is now in the driving seat on all issues of importance.

Even in the economic sphere, fundamental reforms have been introduced. The plunder and loot of the earlier years, that created powerful oligarchs, is a thing of the past. With the drift and morass of the Yeltsin years a distant memory now, there can be no doubt that Putin has succeeded in pulling Russia up by its bootstraps.

This does not, of course, mean that Putin is a democrat, or that he has an unwavering commitment to human rights. In fact, after a lifetime in the dreaded KGB, he could not be expected to be a democrat. But two aspects are nevertheless important: one, that he was elected by an overwhelming majority in a vote that was considered free and fair by international observers. Two, his policies have resulted in a remarkable economic turnaround, after decades of drift and stagnation. These factors have combined to ensure a public approval rating that is the envy of elected leaders in the West.

Putin has also demonstrated an uncanny ability to shift gears, to take advantage of opportunities that come his way, while remaining in tune with domestic sentiments. He was amongst the first to telephone President Bush with a message of sympathy and support, hours after the 9/11 tragedy. More importantly, he extended his country’s full support to the American leader’s war on terror. He also played a helpful role in encouraging the Central Asian leaders to permit US forces to use their facilities in the war against Afghanistan.

Putin’s action earned him kudos in the West. Bush, in particular, was effusive in his praise for the Russian leader. Rejecting the advice of those who questioned Putin’s commitment to democracy and human rights, Bush declared that he had been able to peer into the Russian leader’s soul and confirm that Putin was a man who could be trusted. This public accolade permitted Putin to consolidate his power at home, refurbish his image abroad and unleash a new campaign in Chechnya, equating it with the war on terror.

Putin was, however, not amused when he realised that, notwithstanding his support for Bush’s policies, the US was quietly consolidating its presence in the Central Asian states, long considered as Russia’s soft underbelly. However, it was the perceived US manipulation of popular uprisings in the former republics of the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova that had alarm bells ringing in Moscow. Soon, the poverty stricken-Belarus alone remained faithful to Russia. Fortunately for Moscow, Washington’s aggressive support for “velvet revolutions” in the former Soviet republics, frightened many of the other authoritarian leaders into seeking comfort in Russia’s warm embrace.

Inevitably, Washington’s menacing presence on Russia’s frontiers led Putin to come closer to China, which had its own reasons for consolidating its ties with Moscow. The two closed ranks and persuaded the Central Asian leaders to establish the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2001, which in its summit meeting on July 5, 2005, came into its own, when it called upon the US to set a deadline for the withdrawal of its bases from the region.

More significantly, a couple of days before that, Presidents Putin and Hu Jintao at their summit in Moscow had issued a declaration on the “world order in the 21st century” in which they rejected attempts to “ignore objective processes of social development of sovereign states and impose on them alien models of social and political systems”. Their new assertiveness was in pursuit of their desire for “a new security architecture” that would promote “a just and rational world order based on the respect of the right of all countries to equal security”.

This was the first tangible evidence of a serious, though gentle, reminder of Russia’s growing confidence. Putin was nevertheless still prepared to keep a low profile, concentrate on encouraging foreign investment in the high-tech sectors of the country’s economy, consolidate his power at home and work to enhance Russia’s influence abroad.

But Putin saw, to his horror, the Bush administration’s relentless pursuit of its unilateral agenda, marked by disdain for international commitments, without regard to the interests of others. The list is long and the accusations are damning. Nor can Moscow ignore the threat implicit in the US National Security Strategy paper that the US goal remains “not allowing the military supremacy it (the US) has maintained since the collapse of the former Soviet Union to be equalled or surpassed”.

It was, however, US Vice-President Dick Cheney’s speech in Lithuania on May 4 that caught Moscow by surprise, not only for its content but for its location. Lithuania, after all, is the tiny Baltic republic, whose incorporation into the Soviet Union was never recognised by the West. Not surprisingly, the Baltic republics were the first to break away. The Kremlin’s initial official response was measured, though its media and political analysts unleashed a barrage of criticism against the Bush administration.

Some of the commentators compared Cheney’s statement to Churchill’s famous postwar “iron curtain” speech, in which the British leader condemned Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe, claiming that Stalin had brought down an iron curtain on Europe. Cheney’s attack on Russia’s democratic record and his accusation that Moscow was using its huge energy reserves as “tools of intimidation or blackmail”, hurt Putin deeply, for there was more than a grain of truth in both.

Cheney’s speech thus brought out into the open the simmering differences between the two powers. While Moscow denounces the West for encroaching on its backyard, the West accuses the Kremlin of using its energy resources to bully its neighbours, conveniently forgetting that control of energy sources, has been a primary goal of American foreign policy for the past many decades.

A couple of days after the Cheney speech, Putin gave vent to his anger and disappointment in an address to the nation. He accused the US of pursuing a unilateral global agenda on the pretext of the threat of international terrorism. Referring to the massive increase in US defence spending, Putin pointed out that Moscow was currently spending, in absolute figures, half as much as the UK or France.

He also expressed alarm over Washington’s refusal to honour the commitment given by earlier administrations that nuclear weapons would not be introduced into outer space. Russia would be constrained to increase its defence spending on its strategic nuclear forces, he warned. In other words, Russia was prepared to enter into an arms race with the US, in both the nuclear and conventional fields, should that be the American goal.

On other issues as well, Putin has made it clear that as a major world power, with historic, strategic interests in Central Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, Russian interests could not be ignored. He has already given evidence of this by skillfully playing on both sides of the street on the Iran issue. Along with the Chinese, he has advised Tehran to moderate its stand, while urging the West to negotiate sincerely with it.

At the same time, the two have made it clear that they are opposed to any military action against Iran. With his political power at its strongest, and flush with enormous reserves estimated at 60 billion barrels of oil and 1,680 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, Putin’s Russia is poised to dominate the world’s energy market for decades to come. With skilful manipulation, it can create fresh alliances and break up others.

Putin is, however, far too intelligent to even contemplate a relationship of confrontation with the US. He recognises that, at least for the foreseeable future, Washington will remain the world’s lone superpower and Moscow would be the loser in any overt rivalry. The Cold War has not resumed yet, but there is chill in the air.

The writer is a former ambassador.

POLITICAL parties are utilising parliament like the holy Ganges to purify themselves of dirt and fraud. They are framing laws to cover up their mistakes and, in the process, decreasing the level of morality in the country.

They are doing so purposely, with the knowledge that their actions are leading to depravity in society. They are not sensitive enough to assess the harm they are doing.

Take the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006. It condones an MP for occupying an “office of profit.” The legislation, in fact, exploits the constitutional provision (Article 102) which says that a member will not be disqualified if he or she holds an office of profit under the central or state government. What the constitution-makers had in mind was such appointments that required MPs to have credentials that were not easily available elsewhere. It was meant to be an exception for the public good, and was not meant for booty to be distributed among the politicians.

But both the centre and the states have misused the constitutional provision to reward their ardent supporters in either house of parliament and the assemblies. True, members draw no salary but they enjoy all the facilities and perks as the ministers do. It is no secret that the ruling parties make appointments to keep their flock intact. Those who are not included in the council of ministers are “bought” through the chairmanship of corporations or other such assignments.

The legislation which parliament has passed exempts some 50 members. They include the Lok Sabha speaker, Somnath Chatterjee and the leader of the ruling United Progressive Alliance, Sonia Gandhi. Like the rest, they, too, probably feared disqualification because of the position they occupied in the name of office without profit. It is regrettable that Sonia Gandhi is going to head the National Advisory Council once again. This was primarily the office that made her give up the Lok Sabha seat. No doubt, parliament has declared the position as an office of no-profit. But can an illegal act become legal through the sanction of parliament? Judicial scrutiny is yet to take place.

Since the act is applicable in retrospect, past sins have been washed away. All those who have occupied the “office of profit” retain their membership. Poor Jaya Bachchan has been a victim because her case went up to the supreme court which upheld the disqualification pronounced by the election commission. Vindictive as the top Congress leadership is, it had a vicious clause included in the bill saying that even if the law court exempted a member, he or she could not be reinstated. In any case, after the supreme court ruling, Jaya Bachchan’s membership could not have been revived.

The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill is like a runaway marriage. It cannot get sanctity because parliament says so. Do parliamentarians believe that if they put their stamp on anything illegal it becomes legal? Today the list of exempted MPs is 50. Tomorrow, it could double or even treble. The states already play havoc with the constitutional provision. After its passage into law they may go haywire.

It is no secret that the ruling party or the combination in power adjusts all supporting members against one post or the other if they are not included in the cabinet. The assessment whether the office of profit is really so should be left to the central election commission or law courts. Parliament should not poke its nose into every matter as by doing so it only dwarfs its own stature.

Take another law which parliament has passed. This is to legalise the unauthorised or illegal structures in Delhi. Chief Minister Sheila Dixit has gone on record as saying that she has saved the houses of members of the legislative assembly from demolition. Did she do so in the case of ‘jhuggis’ and ‘jhonpris’? Must the axe fall every time on the common man? The nexus between builders, bureaucrats and politicians has converted the capital into a concrete jungle. Even parks and green spots have not been spared.

Both the supreme court and the Delhi high court stand defeated because they had authorised the demolition of unauthorised structures. The supreme court has accepted a petition against the new act although it has not given its judgment yet. Maybe, it will stick to its original verdict. As for the Delhi government, one would like to know why it staged the drama of demolishing illegal buildings when its real purpose was to see them intact?

I do not want to shame the political parties, particularly the Congress, by quoting Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru who strongly believed that “wrong means will not lead to the right results.” The moral aspect of governance was central to their thoughts. They said the “contempt for what may be called the moral and spiritual side of life not only ignores something that is basic in man but also deprives human behaviour of standards and values.”

Both the acts are immoral and wrong in content and purpose. The Congress and the left have particularly brought down the dignity of parliament. Better behaviour was expected from them. Their methods were vitiated and so have been their ends. The Bharatiya Janata Party was seen to keep away from the bill on the office of profit. The party took pains to explain that its senior member V.K. Malhotra had resigned from the chairmanship of the All India Council of Sports before the office of profit scandal broke. I do not know if the party is as puritan in the states as it has claimed to be in parliament. However, the BJP was in the forefront when it came to regularising the unauthorised structures in Delhi.

The two acts have raised many questions. One of them is the political parties’ design to circumvent the court. What is still worse is the violation of the rule of law. That parliament should try to cover up the lawless laws is all the more disconcerting. I am sure that the laws, particularly the one relating to the office of profit, will be challenged in the supreme court, even at the expense of the usual attack by the political parties of “judicial activism.” We should bow before the elected representatives. But by accepting what parliament has done, we may only be encouraging the effort to dilute the authority of the law courts.

We have the shameful precedent of the emergency when the courts did not matter and when administrative procedures and conventions were subverted for the benefit of individuals. That was how dissent got smothered followed by a general erosion of democratic values. The nation has to take up the gauntlet thrown down by the political parties.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.