| |
The
criminalization of Indian politics
By Sultan Shahin
NEW DELHI –
Chor chor mausere bhai. (Thieves are all maternal
cousins.)
India was reminded of this old adage
early this week with the force of a thunderbolt. As many
as 21 political parties representing the entire spectrum
of Indian politics came together in a rare show of unity
to reject unanimously the Election Commission's (EC’s)
order making it mandatory for candidates seeking
election to declare their financial assets, their
criminal antecedents and their educational background
along with their nomination forms.
Roughly 10
percent of legislators at both the central and state
level are believed to be hardened criminals and
"history-sheeters" (those whose history of crimes is
recorded in police stations for quick reference when any
crime takes place) facing charges of murder, rape and
armed robbery. At the last official count, 700 state
assembly members and 40 central parliament members had
such an unsavory background.
Almost all
legislators are, however, believed to be engaged in some
kind of corruption. In fact, a legislator routinely
embarks on his legislative career by signing a false
affidavit claiming to have spent much less money on his
election than he has actually done. It is normal for a
politician to spend about 50 million rupees (US$1.02
million) during an election. Some spend twice this
amount.
It is only natural that they would want
to make at least 10 times as much money back during
their five years in parliament. This, indeed, is the
source of the criminalization of Indian polity, as an
honest politician – and there used to be many – can no
longer think of entering into the election fray.
Businessmen and industrial houses, too, would not
support an honest person as he (or an occasional she)
would be useless for them once in parliament, in fact he
may even become an obstruction that would then have to
be removed.
No wonder the normally fractious
political class has unanimously decided to supplant the
EC's directive, which was based entirely on a May 2
judgment by the supreme (highest) court with what is
being touted as a comprehensive legislation to address
the question of criminalization and corruption in
politics. But the general drift of the discussion has
made it clear that although the ostensible purpose of
the proposed legislation would be to implement the
supreme court judgment, the actual object would be to
dilute it so much that its impact would be negated.
No one disputes the right of parliament to
legislate on issues relating to electoral reform. But
the legislation had been pending for at least a decade
and no one had bothered. Now that constitutional
authorities like the supreme court and election
commission have intervened, the politicians are in such
a tearing hurry that it is said that the government is
likely to issue an ordinance to replace the EC’s order
rather than even wait a few days for parliament to
convene.
Several analysts find this kind
of alacrity on the part of those who have sat on the
Dinesh Goswami report on electoral reforms for 10 years not
only intriguing but suspicious. Former cabinet secretary
N N Vohra's findings on the reprehensible nexus between
politicians and criminals have also been gathering dust
for roughly the same period. The report of the Rajya
Sabha's (upper House) ethics committee has not even been
tabled on the floor of the house.
The entire
Indian polity has thus united to defeat the long-overdue
first step toward fighting the scourge of
criminalization of politics and widespread corruption.
Veteran columnist Inder Malhotra calls this show of
unity blood-chilling. Though saddened by this curious
crusade, he is by no means surprised. He explains,
"Self-preservation and self-service are among the
strongest human instincts. Among Indian politicos, this
propensity, bordering on constant self-aggrandizement,
is much stronger than in any other comparable group
anywhere, barring perhaps the tycoons in the United
States running entities such as Enron, Worldcom, Xerox
and Merck."
The supreme court judgment
had given the government two months to implement
the instructions. It was only after the government failed to
comply with the court order that the EC passed its
directives. Now chief election commissioner M J Lyngdoh says
that despite the all-party meeting’s decision to legislate
on the issue, his own order remains in force. This is
the first time that any proposed legislation has been
criticized so vehemently and treated with such contempt
even before it has been drafted.
This is also
the first time any government is preparing to confront
other pillars of Indian democracy and constitutional
authority in such a brazen manner. This becomes truly
frightening following as it does so soon after the
Vishwa Hindu Parisad (VHP or World Hindu Forum), a
sister organization of the ruling Hindu fundamentalist
Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), made repeated and loud
noises about its unwillingness to abide by the supreme
court’s verdict if it comes in the way of its plans to
build a temple on the site of a mosque it razed about 10
years ago.
It remains to be seen what
attitude the outgoing President K R Narayanan will take on
the issue if he is asked to sign an ordinance rejecting
an EC directive based on the supreme court’s instructions
a few days before the convening of the Parliament that
is scheduled to start its "monsoon" session on July 15.
In an address to the nation two years ago, Narayanan
had himself spoken of a growing nexus between
criminals, politicians and important people in society. "At
every social and political level, there is a crying need
to speak out against crime and violence of all kinds.
But even such rhetoric is absent," he chided the
political class.
Narayanan’s views on the powers
of legislature vis-a-vis the judiciary and his attitude
toward judicial activism thus acquires importance in the
present context. While inaugurating a seminar on
judicial reforms on December 5, 1998, he said, "The
question of judicial reforms must be viewed against the
basic background of the relationship among the trinity
in our constitutional system - the parliament, the
executive and the judiciary. Our democratic system is
based not only on checks and balances among the trinity,
but also on the functioning of the three organs of the
state in essential harmony towards the common goals
enshrined in the constitution, that is, the safeguarding
and advancing the civil and political rights, and in a
more dynamic sense, promoting the social, economic and
cultural rights and aspirations of the people.
"There might be circumstances in which one or
other of the three institutions plays a more positive
role, but none of them is to encroach upon or highjack
the functions of the other. In fact, in modern
democracies the judiciary has often gone beyond that and
indulged in judicial activism verging upon judicial
adventurism. However, in an established and
well-balanced democratic system, judicial activism
rarely adventures beyond certain limits. Because
ultimately it is the legislature, and the executive
created and sustained by the legislature, that is
accountable to the people whose will, after all, is
sovereign."
While thus stressing the supremacy
of the parliament, however, in the peculiar Indian
context where the political class has to be virtually
forced to do some good, he would appear to be supporting
judicial activism: "In India, in most of the cases of
so-called activism, what the judiciary has done is to
bring to the fore the principles and objectives which
have been stated in the constitution explicitly or
implicitly, but which the executive, for one reason or
another, has been unable or unwilling to implement in
practice. What it has done is to amplify the scope of
the fundamental rights or to elevate some of the
directive principles of the constitution to the level of
the fundamental rights, which was what the founding
fathers had envisaged and which have become in the
contemporary world indisputable rights of the citizen
like the right to work, the right to education, right to
health and healthcare, and environmental and human
rights.
"In this respect the device of public
interest litigation could be described as a major
judicial innovation in the Indian judicial system. Lord
Wolf of the United Kingdom has expressed gasping
admiration for the work done in the field by the higher
courts in India in attempting to exercise judicial
control over the executive. Public interest litigation
has extended the scope of the judiciary to an array of
issues which remained hitherto beyond the reach of the
citizen."
One of the reasons the political class
is so determined to protect criminal politicians is that
they get elected easily. While the intelligentsia and
a section of the middle class is perturbed over the
question of criminalization of politics, the general
voters are by and large unconcerned. While corruption
has become an election issue once or twice, following
spectacular scandals breaking out and being cleverly
sustained in the media by political vested interests,
the Indian public has great patience, indeed respect,
even affection for the corrupt. They think it is just
this person’s karma to be corrupt and criminal and their
own karma to be ruled by such a vile person. In most
cases they knowingly and willingly vote for him if he
belongs to their caste.
This attitude has been
glaringly present on a number of occasions in the case
of several politicians. The most recent example is that
of Pandit Sukh Ram, former union minister of
telecommunications. Stacks of currency notes, equivalent
to millions of dollars, casually wrapped in bed sheets
and plastic bags, were recovered by the police from his
ministerial bungalow in Delhi some years ago. The BJP,
then in opposition, stalled all work in the parliament
for a record 13 days, demanding his resignation. The
then-ruling Congress party sacked him reluctantly.
However, when the BJP discovered his notoriety had only
increased his popularity, it offered him a berth in the
union cabinet when it came to power. He continues to be
its ally to this day.
Pandit Sukh
Ram was sentenced to three years' imprisonment last week.
As he is among the very few politicians to
be convicted, though superior courts generally
overturn lower-court verdicts in such cases as they cannot
countenance VIPs serving sentences, it is still an
occasion for celebration among the members of civil society.
These convictions come generally as a result of
public interest litigation cases filed by dedicated
individuals and non-governmental organizations. But Sukh
Ram’s constituency is unhappy. The people are up in arms because
their man is being punished.
This popular attitude is generally ascribed to the lack of
do’s and don’ts in Hindu philosophy. Hinduism recognizes
the acquisition of wealth, hankering after sensual
pleasures and power, etc, as legitimate goals of life. "If we
were to take Hinduism as a whole," says theologian
Huston Smith, "its vast literature, its complicated
rituals, its sprawling folkways, its opulent art - and compress
it into a single affirmation, we would find it saying:
You can have what you want."
No restrictions are placed on an individual’s
pursuit of wealth, power or sex. The idea is that one of these
days, if not in this lifetime then in one of the
next, he will himself realize the folly of his pursuit
and thus spiritually grow to the next stage. Stopping
him from his worldly pursuits will only amount to
impeding his spiritual progress.
How can any
one quarrel with religion? And since one can’t, the pursuit of
goals enshrined in secular constitutions must take a
back seat. Laws or no laws, ordinances or not,
ultimately a religious people will defeat secular goals.
A supreme court or election commission can perhaps force
the government and the political class one day to
provide the voters with information about the criminal
and corrupt antecedents of the potential lawmaker. But
it is the voter who is supreme even under the secular
constitution; no one can stop him or her from voting for
lawmakers of his or her choice.
(©2002 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
