Tamil Nadu's shame

By P. Radhakrishnan

THE CRUDE and cruel post-midnight police swoop on the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president, Mr. M. Karunanidhi, is certainly an outrageous act of vendetta, and an affront to human dignity, as the front-page editorial of this newspaper rightly deplored on July 1.

From the time the AIADMK general secretary, Ms. J. Jayalalithaa, was sworn in as Chief Minister the arrest of Mr. Karunanidhi, the sinister muckraking, including by digging into the long buried and long forgotten Sarkaria Commission's corruption charges against him, the harassment of bureaucrats and police identified with his Ministry, and such other misdeeds that go with one saddled with the fury of an imagined Fury (of Greek mythology, ordained to pursue and punish doers of unavenged crimes); with a megalomaniac; and with what have you, were only to be expected.

But the haste with which Ms. Jayalalithaa tried to push the State into a new depth of sordidness, merely for the pleasure of wreaking personal vengeance was probably not anticipated. She may have her justification for this to satisfy her ego, which she may not like to publicise. That is, having already completed 45 days of her now fixed term of six months as Chief Minister, and being uncertain about what is in store for her during and after the remaining 135 days or so, she has been in a hurry to fulfil her life's mission which she could not do when she was in power earlier. The ongoing political crisis in Tamil Nadu raises at least four issues.

One, whether the turn of events culminating in Mr. Karunanidhi's arrest could have been avoided. The answer is yes, and it could have been done in one or more of at least three ways. (a) By the refusal of the Governor to swear-in Ms. Jayalalithaa, which, despite some politically orchestrated hullaballoo before the Raj Bhavan and elsewhere, possibly to the accompaniment of some violence, would have spared the State its present monstrosity and ignominy. It is in this context that Ms. Fathima Beevi's swearing-in of Ms. Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister on May 14 has drawn flak from different parts of the country, with some persons even moving the courts. It is pertinent to note here that the framers of the Constitution could not have had Jayalalithaas in mind when they framed the Constitution, and even if they had some inkling of the emergence of the present avatar of political buccaneers, as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, architect of the Constitution, indicated in the Constituent Assembly, no constitution in the world has provided, nor can any provide for all future contingencies. It is in this sense the Constitution has to be seen as a vibrant document and not as a compendium of dogmas. So, as a person familiar with the State's volatile political situation, the well-being of the State should have been her main consideration overriding her own gubernatorial right. The Governor's indiscretion has not only made the State's political scenario more perilous, but also forced her to leave in disgrace, as it has just happened.

(b) By the Supreme Court's expeditious disposal of the writ petitions challenging Ms. Jayalalithaa's appointment as Chief Minister, considering again the volatile political situation in the State, her earlier track record as Chief Minister, and reading her pronouncements during the election campaign as writings on the wall; or at least restraining her from taking policy decisions without being sworn-in as full fledged Chief Minister. The outcome of the Governor's indiscretion and the court's inaction is there for all to see. That is, governance in Tamil Nadu by witch-hunt, which may cause a lot of harm to the State, socially, politically, economically, and, most importantly, administratively.

(c)In the first flush of euphoria after her swearing-in, Ms. Jayalalithaa announced that her Government would not be vindictive against her political adversaries, but responsible and responsive to the people's needs. Had she honoured her commitment, in all probability Tamil Nadu would have been a better place, and she could have still continued as Chief Minister.

Two, whether the electorate has elected Ms. Jayalalithaa to be in power for being obsessed with avenging personal affronts. The answer is no. While the assertion by the Union Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani, followed by the Union Cabinet, that in a democracy there is no place for political vendetta makes immense sense, how Indian democracy will transform this into reality is a moot issue. The Constitution Review Commission may have to expatiate on this as well.

Three, whether real or imagined, why the bureaucracy has been pliant and bending backward. This has to be placed in the context of India's administrative culture and its increasing politicisation. As the bureaucracy is India's permanent power structure with or without and irrespective of any Ministry, how it could be made really professional, independent, impeccable, free from political thraldom, and so on, is a larger issue entailing the overhaul of its Augean Stables.

Four, whether the police are brutal, boorish, irresponsible and irrational on their own volition, more so when they have also been victims of political and public wrath; whether they are victims of a vicious nexus and a vicious circle that make up and control the police establishment; and so on. If the bureaucracy requires overhauling its Augean Stables, the police require it even more. The boorishness of the police is not unique to Tamil Nadu. It is pervasive. If the police are lesser humans (and more brutal), it is for reasons such as the persisting colonial image of the police as the establishment among both the police and the public; the proximity of the police and also the lack of it with the high and mighty, the powers that be and their hangers-on, causing both good and harm to the police personally and mostly harm to their policing performance socially; lack of interaction of the police with the public in general other than as ``police'', and ``complainant'' or ``accused'' at their mercy; the lathi-culture of ``roughing up'' as witnessed on the TV when Mr. Karunanidhi was arrested, which has to be shed at the earliest, preferably with the rough Khakhi uniform; lack of democratic ethos and democratic culture which can be imparted only through regular well-organised training programmes, which alone will make the police realise that they are like any other public servant, paid to serve society and not to exploit, extort, and terrorise its victims and shield its criminals; and most important of all, lack of accountability mainly because of political interference. As these issues were recently debated at length on some of the web sites in India, the Union Government may do well to have a close at the widely varying public perception of the police.

To conclude, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, now that Ms. Fathima Beevi is no more the Governor, in one sense her swearing- in of Ms. Jayalalithaa was a blessing in disguise. For, if she had sworn-in any other leader from the AIADMK, like Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar, Ms. Jayalalithaa would have ruled by proxy, though it is unlikely that even at her behest the proxy would have stooped to any act of vendetta of any severity against a person like Mr. Karunanidhi. Seen against this, if President's Rule is imposed on Tamil Nadu, as it ought to happen, it would mean re-election inasmuch as the AIADMK is the only party with majority and that party will be rid of power. Will that mean more or less of the present governance by witch-hunt, more or less of the present witches' brew, and more or less of witches' Sabbath. Wait and watch; wait and hope.

(The writer is Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Investing in the future
Next     : Crowding out, courtesy APHC