Home arrow Archives arrow Political Diary arrow Political Diary 2014 arrow Trophy Rajya Sabha MPs: SACHIN’S BAT, REKHA’S MUJRA=ZERO, By Poonam I Kaushish, 9 August, 2014
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trophy Rajya Sabha MPs: SACHIN’S BAT, REKHA’S MUJRA=ZERO, By Poonam I Kaushish, 9 August, 2014 Print E-mail

Political Diary

New Delhi, 9 August 2014

Trophy Rajya Sabha MPs

SACHIN’S BAT, REKHA’S  MUJRA=ZERO

By Poonam I Kaushish

 

A storm in a tea cup? Or is there a sting in the tail? Two questions arising over the raging controversy over our two Rajya Sabha nominations, Bharat Ratna ace cricketer Sachin Tendulkar and Bollywood erstwhile sultry actress mujra jaan Rekha. Either way it’s an ongoing silsala!

 

Scandalously since their nomination to the Rajya Sabha two years ago, both have attended the House only for three and seven sittings respectively of the 230 held in the last 27 months. Worse, they have never asked a single question.

 

Undeniably, they are neither the first nor the last sportsman and film actor to enter Parliament. Besides, going by the track record of other nominated MPs like Lata Mangeshkar, Pandit Ravi Shankar or late M F Hussain who were barely seen or heard in Parliament why blame Tendulkar and Rekha? Certainly, like others from diverse fields both have every right to be nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Yes, it is an honour.

 

Also true, the ace cricketer has made plain that cricket is his life. Neither did he lobby for a Rajya Sabha seat and it is quite possible the Congress chose him to either divert public attention from the ills that plagued UPA or deny the first mover’s advantage to rivals.

 

Perhaps, Tendulkar and Rekha who lives a recluse’s life only seen at filmi award functions, might have received brickbats in equal measure if they had turned down the nomination, of being disrespectful to India’s temple of democracy.

 

However, either which way once nominated, One expected Sachin to make significant contribution in the field of sports by giving his input on how to develop sports in the country, making suggestions and asking searching questions on the Government’s sports policy to help lift it from its current morass. Specially post his retirement from active cricket. Rekha, to amplify the travails of small artistes, spot boys etc.

 

Raising a moot point: Were Sachin and Rekha nominated as ‘trophy MPs’ to be paraded at election time given their fan following? Is a nomination the only way to decorate India’s Umrao Jaan? Has either of them shown any interest in public affairs and national issues? Apart from cricket and films what is there stand on governance, corruption, public sleazes etc? Have the ‘permanent absentees’ insulted Parliament?

 

Sachin reply to his serial truancy from the House and subsequent uproar in Parliament is even curiouser. Asserts he, “There was a medical emergency in my family. My elder brother had to undergo a bypass surgery and I had to be by his side.” So far so good. Certainly, the emergency did not last over two years as his brother was discharged last month?

 

How come he had the time to attend Wimbledon, honour his commercial commitments, attend compatriot Yuvraj Singh's charity dinner in England and be the guest of honour at various award functions? Why did he accept the prestigious nomination, he could have declined the honour?

 

Amidst the rising clamour for the duo’s membership being revoked, stands a technicality. Article 101(4) of the Constitution states that if a member of either House remains absent for 60 days without permission, their seat may be declared vacant. As per Rajya Sabha records, Tendulkar has been absent around 40 days, he attended the House on 13 December last and Rekha in January. Notwithstanding, that neither sought permission for leave.

 

Tragically, this is not the first time that the Government has misused or, shall we say, abused its powers to nominate members to the Rajya Sabha. Clause 3 of Article 80 stipulates: “The members to be nominated by the President under sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely: literature, science, art and social service”.

 

This provision was meant to enable the Government to make available to Parliament the services of distinguished persons, unwilling to get involved in the rough and tumble of electoral politics. In fact, the inclusion of this clause was hotly debated in the Constituent Assembly. Some members feared that “if we authorize the President to nominate 12 members, bitter allegations of favouritism and nepotism will be leveled against him and that would not be desirable”. Sadly, this apprehension has come true.

 

Nehru bent overbackwards to be upright and correct in these matters. As free India’s first Prime Minister, he followed the Constitution not only in its letter but also in its spirit. During his tenure, only those truly distinguished were honoured with a nomination by the President. Party, personal or petty partisan considerations were scrupulously eschewed.

 

Interestingly, Nehru’s first four nominations were Dr. Zakir Hussain (who later became President), Aladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, Prof Satyandranath Bose and Rukmini Devi Arundale. Equally impressive nominations followed. These included educationist P.V. Kane, an authority on Dharmashastras, historians like Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee and Dr. Tarun Chand, poets like Maithilisaharan Gupta and Harivansh Rai Bachchan and artistes like Prithvi Raj Kapoor.

 

Indira Gandhi and Rajiv both brazenly misused the provision by nominating close political associates, National Herald’s Mohanlal Saksena, S.P. Mittal (of Harshad Mehta fame), Syeda Anwara Taimur (Assam’s former Chief Minister) and “Mama” Mohd Yunus. BJP’s ‘star couple’ Hema Malani and Dharmendra. Today Sonia too has followed in their footsteps by nominating family friend Mani Shankar Aiyar after he lost the Lok Sabha election.

 

Alas, there is a growing tendency to patronise those who are considered partial to the ruling dispensation. With each passing year the character and quality of the Rajya Sabha is sharply deteriorating. Personal loyalty to the leader, monetary considerations and political connections get precedence over competence and experience.

 

Whereby, the House has failed to evolve a distinct role for itself as the torch bearer of the State’s concerns and is functioning more and more as a parallel (and competing) political chamber to the Lok Sabha. Often enough shouting has replaced serious debate.

 

Clearly, the Rajya Sabha is seeing diminishing returns role. The States’ voice has got lost in the din of the power brokers who strut about like peacocks in the Rajya Sabha kaleidoscope. Today, we have MPs enjoying four-six terms of six years each in the Rajya Sabha without ever fighting an elections to either State Assembly or the Lok Sabha.

 

The time has come to debate and re-write rules that govern membership to Parliament. One, should one discontinue the practice of nominating members? Recall, this tradition was started so that stellar achievers who might not be able to survive the vagaries of power politics could serve the country. Obversely, nominations only help the nominating Party, why should the tax payer be financially burdened with unelected MPs whose only contribution is a pretty face and a mighty sixer! 

 

The Rajya Sabha could still be made to play a more useful role. JP strongly favoured a Partyless Council whereby only those who had served one stint in the State Assembly or Lok Sabha and no more than two terms should be made MP.  All in all, if this ‘trophyism’ and scoring brownie points continues be prepared to shed tears for the Rajya Sabha. ------ INFA

 

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT