Category: On National Affairs

When a criminal can sit in the Union Cabinet
By H. K. Dua

THE political system that has come to prevail for the last few years across the country stands totally exposed with two orders that have just come out of the judiciary’s portals. On Monday, the Supreme Court stripped the CBI of the fig leaf of its autonomy by virtually ordering that Ms Mayawati’s trial in the Taj Corridor scandal must continue. On Tuesday, a lower court held Shibu Soren, a member of the Union Cabinet, guilty of conspiracy in the kidnap and murder of his own secretary.

The tragedy is that both Ms Mayawati and Shibu Soren have thrived under different regimes. Ms Mayawati’s involvement in the great Taj Corridor scandal was never seriously investigated either by the NDA government or by the UPA government, for reasons purely political. She has a vote bank in UP which helps her win a few seats in the Lok Sabha the NDA thought it might need for survival or for coming to power at the Centre. The Congress-led UPA also tries to appease Ms Mayawati for similar selfish reasons.

Shibu Soren has been a colourful political entity in Jharkhand for decades. He got elected to the Lok Sabha as many as six times. The NDA as well as the UPA have both tried to draw some sustenance from him and his supporters. He was elected to the Rajya Sabha with the BJP’s support in 2002 – eight years after his secretary’s murder. He has been inducted twice into Dr Manmohan Singh’s government as a Cabinet minister despite the fact that he was facing trial in the murder case. In their own way, both the NDA and the UPA provided him a sort of unmerited respectability in the political system. He even became the Chief Minister of Jharkhand for a while last year but had to quit as he could not muster majority in the Legislative Assembly.

Ms Mayawati and Shibu Soren are not the only people who are involved in crimes related to corruption and much worse and who have been in effect saved from punishment by forgiving men at the Centre, who think survival in power is more important than a parliamentary democracy’s simple requirement that only persons without a blot on their reputation should have the right to sit in the Cabinet room.

The cases of Ms Mayawati and Shibu Soren are not the only instances when sheer expediency has been preferred over principles and values that should guide the governance of the country. Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav is yet to be cleared of grave charges against him in the massive fodder scandal of Bihar. Not only has he not been brought to the book all these years, he has also been mocking at the law and the Constitution by asserting on the television channels: “I will be the Prime Minister of India – one day.”

And then no one has been punished in the Rs 50,000-crore Telgi scandal. The reason: It involves influential men in many political parties in several States. Neither the NDA government, nor the UPA government has shown seriousness in investigating the scandal which has political, economic and security ramifications. The lid remains fairly tight on the extent of the scandal; Mr Telgi is said to be suffering from AIDS; and the people denied the truth.

It is sad that no political party is hesitant about supping with criminals. In many States the criminals are enjoying the protection of the politicians; in many States the criminals provide their favourite politicians the muscle and protection they need for fighting elections. The local citizenry knows who is whose man, but is powerless to prevent the system from sliding into lawless decadence.

How do you explain that in the UP Assembly alone there are over 175 MLAs who have a history of crime backing their CVs? In Bihar, Pappu Yadavs of all sorts are having a field day irrespective of who rules in Patna – Mr Lalu Yadav or Mr Nitish Kumar. If the situation is better in some States, it is only by a degree.

The reality on the ground provides enough scope for local toughs to influence the administration in favour of those who do their bidding. Essentially, ground is slipping from underneath the feet of leaders in politics and they, irrespective of their denomination, are conveniently looking the other way.

If only they could see the dangers ahead, before it is too late! The political system should not be a sanctuary for the corrupt and the criminal.

Editor’s Column
Consensus is the way
Prime Minister must take the initiative
by H. K. Dua

NO democracy can be run without providing plenty of space for dissent and debate on vital issues of the day. A variety of opinions gives better choices and throws up more workable policies.

In a nation like India with all its diversity expressed through various religions, castes, creeds, regions, languages and ethnic groups and vast sections of society experiencing stark inequality, democracy allows some pent-up steam to come out.

By opting for a democratic polity, the founding fathers of the Constitution also ensured the country’s unity, belying the predictions of those who had thought India, with so many groups competing with each other for one reason or another, will dismember as a nation not long after Independence.

Democracy requires intense questioning of the executive by the citizen, a vigilant Parliament, an independent judiciary, a free Press and the unelected representatives of the people, who are being fashionably called the civil society these days. Their voice must be taken seriously and influence the policies of the government. This will make the State more responsive and give the people a sense of belonging.

While the right of the people to have their say in the governance of the country is sacred, there can be situations when different sections of society begin exercising pulls and pressures, which by their very nature can create social and political tensions. These tensions in turn are bound to divert the nation’s attention from the essential task it has set for itself: To emerge as a one of the major powers in the first half of the 21st century.

One way to tackle these tensions – in Parliament and outside – is to evolve a consensus among political parties on some national issues that do not permit continued acrimony among the political parties, often leading to an atmosphere of confrontation.

The need for a national consensus among political parties on vital issues was rightly emphasised by Dr Manmohan Singh in his address to the nation on Independence Day. The plea for a national consensus came at the end of the address, but it was clear that his experience as Prime Minister for over two years had convinced him that the country could not make a major headway unless the political parties “shun the politics of divisiveness” and adopt the politics of change and progress. “Our political parties and leaders must learn to work together and to build a consensus around national issues”, he said.

The Prime Minister did not spell out the issues or who is to bring about the national consensus he was seeking. The obvious leader who can take the initiative in building a consensus is the Prime Minister himself, although he gave no indication that he is prepared to undertake the task. The present is the best time for doing so. Dr Manmohan Singh has virtually completed half of his present term as Prime Minister and as the country drifts towards the next parliamentary elections in 2009, consensus- building will become more difficult.

If Dr Manmohan Singh chooses to undertake building a national consensus, he will find that the task is not as easy as it seems. This is mainly because of the sharp divisions that continue to exist in Indian society and politics. Added to this is the kind of people that have come to acquire leadership positions in several political parties and sections of society.

Evolving a national consensus will require a capacity to look ahead, tolerance of others’ points of view, willingness to give and take, and at times sacrificing personal and party interest for the wellbeing of the nation.

Unfortunately, the severe decline in the quality of leaders, their myopic vision and petty concerns, as also the growing amorality of politics hardly leave any scope for a constructive and forward-looking pursuit of consensus. The search for consensus, however, cannot be put off simply because the task has become formidable.

The Constitution was the result of the labours of a national consensus the leaders of the time had succeeded in evolving. It helped the nation tackle the post-Partition travails and steer it on to a track for building a democratic and economically strong India. Despite serious differences in political and economic policies among the leaders in those formative years, the country kept moving, riding on a national consensus. Irrespective of their beliefs, no party or leader tried to rock the boat.

Two major events shattered not only the prevailing national consensus but also the elementary consensual approach that is necessary for running a democratic country. One was clearly the imposition of the Emergency by Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay Gandhi, who chose to throw the democratic system overboard and send most opposition leaders to jail, impose censorship on the Press and suppress the Fundamental Rights, and much else. (It was shocking to see the Supreme Court uphold the denial of even the Right to Life by the Emergency Raj.)

The second traumatic event that tore the national consensus apart was the Ayodhya movement and the destruction of the Babri Masjid by the Sangh Parivar. It was an act of national shame, which sharpened the communal divide in the country and made minorities feel insecure. While the country has to a large extent come out of the after-effects of the Emergency, it is yet to recover from the psychology and the political situation the destruction of the Babri Masjid created. Narendra Modis, Singhals and Tagodias are still out doing their nasty work and sharpening the divide.

If Dr Manmohan Singh is really going to make a serious attempt on a national consensus, he could begin by taking up a few questions of utmost importance to the country. There must be, for instance, a consensus that the Basic Structure of the Constitution should not be fiddled with by the executive and Parliament, whichever political party in power. Although the Supreme Court has not defined the Basic Structure of the Constitution, it can safely include parliamentary democracy, sanctity of the Fundamental Rights, secularism and protection of the rights of minorities, independence of the judiciary, the Freedom of the Press, and a federal polity. This list can only expand, not shrink.

Parliament has lately been going through a harrowing experience with walkouts, boycotts, the storming of the well, unending uproars and many an ugly scene. No political party stands to gain from the kind of the situation that has lately been prevailing in Parliament whose reputation with the people will depend on the conduct of the MPs on the floor of the House. The MPs have to use Parliament for making laws, voicing the feelings of the people and influencing the making of policies; Parliament in turn has to provide ample scope for debate and dissent, without providing any quarter to those who want to cause disruption.

Evolving a consensus on the smooth functioning of Parliament – may be with the help of the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha – could be the first step that the Prime Minister can take towards a larger consensus on major issues.

These could also include serious electoral reforms and banning criminals from contesting elections. Recent experience shows that foreign policy and combating terrorism will also have to be added to the list, among other questions.

In the task of building a consensus on larger questions, Dr Manmohan Singh may have to involve former Prime Ministers – who all have faced similar problems – leaders of most political parties, Chief Ministers and many others who are not in the political mainstream, but shape public opinion.

Building a national consensus will not be a mean venture, if the Prime Minister decides to embark on it, even if it takes a lot of his time and effort.