India: The crime of
politics By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - The controversy over the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) granting membership to a top mafia
don has drawn attention to the extent to which the
membership of India's political parties has become
criminalized. While the BJP has subsequently reversed
its decision under pressure from the media, the issue is
far from closed as almost every party has members with a
criminal background.
The mafia don to which the
BJP opened its doors is D P Yadav, a "hardened
professional criminal" - as police records describe him.
His area of operations is said to extend across national
capital New Delhi and the neighboring states of Uttar
Pradesh and Haryana. Besides being named in nine murder
cases, Yadav's name figures in three cases of attempted
murder, two cases of dacoity (robbery by an Indian gang
of bandits), besides several cases of kidnapping for
extortion. He has been charged under a number of acts,
including the Excise Act, Gangsters' Act, and even the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. Illicit liquor
supplied by Yadav was responsible for the death of
around 350 persons who consumed it. His son is the prime
accused in a murder case in Delhi last year.
While Yadav's criminal record can be traced back
to the late 1970s, his economic clout brought him rich
political returns within a decade. In 1989, he stood for
elections, won and even held a ministerial post in the
Uttar Pradesh state assembly. He has made his way
through several parties, including the Janata Dal, the
Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party. But his
stint in the BJP lasted barely four days - the party
withdrew membership to the mafia don on Tuesday,
realizing that his entry would dent its image as a
self-professed "clean party".
While the Yadav
membership episode has thrown the spotlight onto the
BJP's nexus with criminals, a look at the membership
lists of India's political parties would indicate that
the BJP is not alone in welcoming society's delinquents.
And it is not as if those with criminal records remain
mere members. They figure as contestants in elections,
and some even sit in parliament and state assemblies.
The weekly newsmagazine India Today reported that of
the 5,539 candidates who contested the Uttar Pradesh
assembly elections last year, 965 had criminal records.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the
Constitution pointed out that criminalization has become
a worrying characteristic of India's politics and
electoral system. According to unofficial studies cited
by the commission, in 1996 as many as 39 members of
parliament, including four ministers, faced criminal
charges, which included murder, rape, dacoity,
abduction, assault and breach of peace. An investigation
into the record of 500 persons who were candidates in
the lok sabha (lower house of parliament) elections of
1998 revealed that 72 of them had criminal proceedings
pending against them.
Phoolan Devi, better known
as the "Bandit Queen", is perhaps among the most
well-known of India's criminal-parliamentarians. A lower
caste woman who suffered a bad marriage and sexual abuse
for years, Phoolan became a bandit and spread terror in
villages in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In 1981,
during a raid on a village, she recognized two men there
as the assailants of her lover. She returned to the
village and gunned down 20 upper caste men. She
surrendered two years later and served 11 years in jail.
When she came out of jail, she emerged as a leader of
the underprivileged, contested elections and entered
parliament. Phoolan's transformation from outlaw to
fugitive to law maker was dramatic. To many, she was not
a criminal, but a victim of caste and sexual oppression
who was forced to violate the law as it provided little
justice to people like herself. Her entry into
parliament was therefore justified by some political
parties and sections in the media.
Criminal
intent The reason many criminals enter politics
is to gain influence and ensure that cases against them
are dropped or not proceeded with. They are able to make
it big in the political arena because of their financial
clout. Political parties tap criminals for funds and in
return provide them with political patronage and
protection. As the Times of India points out: "Indeed,
today, far from shrinking at the thought of harboring
criminal elements, parties seek them out, judging the
muscle and money combination they represent to be of
enormous value. Rough estimates suggest that in any
state election 20 percent of candidates are drawn from
criminal backgrounds. For the parties, it means
overflowing coffers and unlimited funds to fight
elections and for the criminals it means protection from
the law and respectability in the eyes of society."
Another reason why political parties are not
averse to fielding mafia dons is that winnability, not
merit or experience, determines who gets to contest
elections. And mafia dons and other powerful gangsters
have shown that they can convert their muscle power into
votes, often at the point of the gun. Voters in many
pockets in the country are forced to vote for the local
strongman. The reign of terror that these criminals have
spread in their area of operations ensures that they win
the seat for the party.
In the 2000 elections to
the Bihar state assembly, every single one of the
underworld dons and scamsters who contested the polls
either from jail or in hiding was elected, and with big
margins. Among those who won with huge margins were men
accused of offences ranging from extortion and
kidnapping to murder. Some of them were even brought
from the jail by police van for the swearing-in ceremony
at the assembly building.
It is the mutual
benefit that the criminal-political party nexus promises
which has prompted India's parliamentarians to refrain
from passing legislation that would rid politics of the
corrupt and criminal. Indian parliamentarians, normally
divided along party lines on most issues, closed ranks
when the judiciary issued an order calling for steps to
address the problem.
Acting under the Supreme
Court's orders, the Election Commission made it
mandatory for candidates to disclose at the time of
filing nominations details of criminal background (if
any), their assets, their liabilities to public
financial institutions, and their educational
qualifications. While this is a step towards weeding out
criminals entering the electoral arena, it is really
more about disclosure rather then disqualification of
criminal elements. While reluctance of politicians and
political parties to tackle the problem is a major
reason for the growing criminalization of politics in
India, there are other difficulties.
An
editorial in The Hindu observes: "One problem with the
'criminalization of politics' contention is that many
characters with an unsavory public reputation can point
out that they have no 'criminal background' in the sense
they may have faced, or may be facing, criminal charges,
but have not been convicted in any court of law. In
other words, they must be presumed innocent of any
crime. A second problem is that when it comes to
criminal cases, the lines are blurred. Mainstream
politicians, including some senior ministers, chief
ministers and even ex-prime ministers, have faced
corruption and other criminal charges and a few have
even been convicted by courts at some point in the
marathon legal process. What is the yardstick that can
be applied to them? It is clear that technical or
legalistic answers will not suffice. The answer must lie
in good, clean democratic political practice, watchdog
news media, and a vigilant public opinion that insists
on raising the bar for all political parties."
Sharp media criticism of the BJP's decision to
welcome Yadav into its fold pushed an embarrassed BJP
leadership to backtrack and withdraw membership to the
don. This is a positive signal and augers well for the
future.
What makes the problem even more complex
is that these candidates with a criminal background
manage to get democratic endorsement. The fact that
these dons are able to win indicates not only the
enormous clout they wield but also that corruption and
the background of the candidates have become non-issues
to voters. Every politician and bureaucrat is seen to be
corrupt and criminal. So the question of voting for a
"clean candidate" does not arise. Moreover, with
religion and caste factors determining their choice,
voters do not ponder enough on the merit of the
candidate.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
