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)
|