Political Diary
New Delhi, 30 July 2011
Morality: Political
Untouchable
IT’S POLITICS YAAR,
WHY RESIGN?
By Poonam I Kaushish
In this tempestuous monsoon, political Delhi seems to resonate of a Mahabharata episode.
After losing their kingdom in a gambling match the Pandavas go into exile and
blame their cousins Kauravas and their uncle Shakuni for fraud and trickery. Never
once taking responsibility for the fact that they gambled away their kingdom.
Ditto, the case with our netagan
today. All willy nilly refuse to take responsibility for a situation, even
if they are to blame. Who shed their idealistic cloaks to become ‘Emperors with
no clothing’ typically externalising the problem wasting time and energy finding
people and processes to blame!
A classic example is the sordid drama being played out in Bangalore where an
indicted Chief Minister Yeddiyurappa desperately tried to hang on to power and
refused to resign for over four days.
First, by cocking a snook at Karnataka State Lokayukta’s report on the
illegal mining scam. “I am innocent, and will not resign,” he said. Then,
blackmailing the BJP’s top brass by threatening to break the Party in the
State. Later, bargaining for anointing “his” man as Chief Minister. Culminating
in him going out kicking and screaming.
But the issue is not whether Yeddiyurappa resigned or not.
It speaks volumes of our New Age polity’s brazen defiance and challenge to
accepted democratic norms. And, raises four serious moral questions with far
reaching ramifications for Indian democracy itself. One, assiduous cultivation
of low morality is essential today for a place in high political society. Two, preaching
morality is one thing, practicing it quite another. Three, politics has
everything to do with acceptability, little with credibility. Four, public life
is all compromises, not principles.
Undoubtedly, Yeddiyurappa’s resignation drama has turned Constitutional
norms on its head whereby history is being re-written and re-interpreted. Look
at the irony. Today all swear by Nehruvian principles but conveniently forget
to practice them. How many remember his distaste and abhorrence for sleaze.
Remember, the infamous Mudgal affair, wherein an MP was
expelled for taking Rs.2000 for canvassing support in Parliament for a business
house. Nehru burnt the midnight oil to establish healthy conventions and
stated: “The case, if I may say so, is as bad as it could well be. If we
consider even such a case as a marginal case or as one where perhaps a certain
amount of laxity might be shown, I think it will be unfortunate.
“If the House does not express its will in such matters in
clear, unambiguous and forceful terms, then doubts may very well arise in the public
mind as to whether the House is very definite about such mattes or not.
Therefore, it has become a duty for us and an obligation to be clear, precise
and definite. The facts are clear and precise and decision should also be clear
and precise and unambiguous. The decision of the House should be, after
accepting the finding of this report, to resolve that the member should be
expelled from the House.
Also, much to the chagrin of Nehru, his son-in-law Feroze
Gandhi told Parliament in 1958 that the Mundhra deals had caused a “mutiny in the
minds”. Haridas Mundhra had sold fraudulent shares worth 1.26 crores to the
LIC. Apart from punishing Mundhra, Nehru’s favourite T.T. Krishnamachari, the
then Finance Minister had to go for gross negligence by his Ministry.
Nehru adopted a formal approach in several other cases,
including the famous Jeep scandal which involved another of his favourites
Krishna Menon, one relating to K.D. Malaviya and the other to the son of a
senior Minister on a written complaint made by C.D. Deshmukh.
Also recall the Shastri-Nehru correspondence in November
1956. Shastri resigned on moral grounds owing responsibility for the train
disaster. Nehru accepted his resignation, stating, “The ultimate responsibility
for everything that happens in this country is certainly that of the Government
of India. We do not wish to shirk that responsibility. We fully accept that. We
would set an example in this matter and that no man should think that whatever
might happen we carry on in the same way without being affected by it. We are
affected by it.”
Tragically, today in sharp contrast new definitions of
political morality have become a daily staple diet post the Nehru era. Ministers
consider themselves indispensable to Government policy making whereby none is
willing to forsake his ministerial kursi on
any ground even a train accident. Proclaimed a Minister: “I cannot be held
guilty for any subordinate’s mistake. Otherwise, we will have a spate of
ministerial resignations landing on the Prime Minister’s table every day”.
What to speak of Lalu Yadav? Charge-sheeted over the chara ghotala, the former Bihar Chief
Minister and Union Railway Minister asserted, “Where does the Constitution say
that a Chief Minister duly elected by his people should resign merely on being
charge-sheeted by policemen?” Who is the CBI or the Central Government to tell
me to do so? I will rule from the jail if imprisoned --- and split the Janata
Dal. Kaunsi naitikta aur bhrastaachar ki
baat kar rahe hain. What has morality to do with politics”?
This is not the end. Consider how Shibu Soren returned as Union
Cabinet Minister after he got bail barely six months after being charged in a murder
case. Who can forget the two reigning Divas in the north and south? The UP
Chief Minister Mayawati is ruling the roost despite facing serious charges in a
disproportionate asset case and Tamil Nadu’s Purthathaliave Jayalalitha is facing
trial in a corruption case.
Arguably, in this milieu, Yeddiyurappa, Raja and Dayanidhi Maran
are entitled to ask: “Why should we be hanged”? Clearly, in our netagans ‘moral’ vocabulary prima facie
evidence of culpability is not good enough reason for them to resign. He or she
will only do so when convicted by a court of law. Even then they will try to
buy time and continue in office given our never ending legal procedures of law
taking its own course. Sic.
Bringing things to such a pass that an increasingly agitated
aam aadmi fed up of the rampant
corruption is no longer willing to stay quite. The success of the Anna Hazare
campaign says it all. Whereby, a moribund polity fails to realize that the
battle has moved to the peoples’ court. With all willy-nilly shouting “sab neta chor hain.”
Some old-fashioned nationalists with a sense of honour would
be rightly appalled by the state of things today. The answer is simple. All
those perceived as corrupt and ugly should be thrown out or at best sidelined.
Parties should present new clean and credible faces. No neta is indispensable. Remember that Gandhi said: “In matters of
conscience, the law of majority has no place. Like Caesar’s wife our leaders should
be above suspicion.” Not above proven guilt!
Indeed, if the Government is seized of the urgency to purge
the malaise that has set into the body politic, this is the most propitious
time to introduce probity --- and not the low cholesterol code of conduct. Certainly,
Manmohan Singh cannot roll back the years, but doubtlessly he can roll in the
Nehruvian values.
One can only recall Prof. Galbraith who said years ago:
“There is nothing wrong with Indian laws, nothing wrong with its (socialist)
economy, or with its political and judicial institutions, what ails India is
the moral poverty”. Can a nation continue to be without clothes, bereft of all
sense of shame and morality --- and for how long? ---- INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|