The Hindu : Politicians close ranks

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 10, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Politicians close ranks

By Inder Malhotra

What a miracle it is. In this era of inflamed polarisation and bitter contention on almost everything under the sun, there has been sudden and striking unanimity across the entire political spectrum on ``rejecting'' the Election Commission's directive requiring candidates in elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, assets and educational qualifications. Normally, any agreement among as many as 21 political parties should have been heart-warming; sadly, the present one is blood- chilling. For, the entire Indian polity has united not in defence of any high principle but to defeat the long-overdue first step towards fighting the scourge of criminalisation of politics.

Shocking though this curious crusade is, it is by no means surprising. Self-preservation and self-service are among the strongest human instincts. Among Indian politicos, this propensity, bordering on constant self-aggrandisement, 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.

However, brave words of defiance of the Election Commission's directive may be easier to utter than to translate into action. The EC is a constitutional authority and cannot be flouted even by the high and mighty. Moreover, it issued its directive in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court that are binding on everyone. Indeed, the EC acted only after it could not get any response from the Union Government to its suggestion that the best way to implement the apex court's May 2 judgment would be to amend the nomination forms accordingly. No wonder the Chief Election Commissioner, J.M. Lyngdoh, has declared tersely that his directive ``stands''.

In all fairness, there is a point in the collective contention of the politicians that the Supreme Court's judgment and the consequent EC directive amount to these two institutions taking over the functions rightfully belonging to Parliament. But, surely, the honourable members of Parliament must ask themselves why the judiciary has to issue directives time and again in matters that should normally be dealt with by the legislature or the executive and why the country usually welcomes heartily such judicial ``activism``

The answer is simple. The legislature and the executive all too often fail to do their duty, sometimes wilfully. The concerned citizens have no option but to seek redress from the judiciary that enjoys a much greater confidence of the people than do the other two other pillars propping up the edifice of the democratic system. Over the years, the apex court has had to decide who would hold the office of Director of Enforcement or on what kinds of issues, such as hawala (circa 1996), the Director of the CBI must not seek instructions from the Prime Minister! If some half-hearted attempts are being made to clean up the Yamuna in Delhi that has practically turned into sewage, it is entirely because of a Supreme Court order.

It is in this context that the apex court, even while delivering its May 2 verdict for a clean-up of politics, had clearly stated that it was intervening because the field ``meant for legislature and executive'' had been ``left unoccupied'' to the ``detriment of public interest''. That is where the decision of Monday's all-party conference to enact with lightning speed a law that would brush aside the EC directive as well as the Supreme Court's judgment comes in. There is even talk that rather than wait for introducing a Bill in Parliament's next session, the Government, fortified with all-party support, would issue an ordinance almost immediately. This kind of alacrity on the part of those who have sat on the Dinesh Goswami report on electoral reforms for 10 years is intriguing, indeed suspicious, to say the least. 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 Ethics Committee has not even been tabled.

The country will judge the proposed new law not by the speed with which it is passed but by its contents. If it waters down or fudges the minimum requirements prescribed by the Supreme Court, the degeneration of the Indian political system could become irreversible and the politicians would have exposed themselves. Some of the noises made at the all-party meeting are extremely depressing.

It is incomprehensible, for instance, why someone convicted in the distant past or tried but acquitted more recently should be shy of stating these facts before seeking election to Parliament or the state legislature. The unwillingness or reluctance of the present or potential legislators to declare their assets and wealth is inexcusable, understandable though it may be. Especially in cases like that of the former Congress minister and current BJP ally, Sukh Ram, sentenced to three years' imprisonment only the other day. From his ministerial bungalow in Delhi some years ago were recovered huge stacks of currency notes, wrapped in bed sheets and plastic bags.

Totally astonishing is the angry refusal to reveal educational qualifications on the specious ground that this would run counter to the principle of adult suffrage. Is it because, on this score, those strutting around the political stage have nothing to declare?

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Parties and poll reforms

Trifling with Pakistan's future

A Prime Minister and his deputy

Monarchy in Nepal

Politicians close ranks

Neo-liberalism will not suffice