POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 29 March 2008

Rajya Sabha Hits New Low

SLEAZE & SURROGATE GALORE

By Poonam I Kaushish

Now days when you see someone holding his nose you don’t know whether it’s pollution or politics. Either way the net result is the same. Increasing political pollution. Replete with contaminated smog, toxic waste and sleazy fumes. The latest in an ever-growing series of political skullduggery was on full public display in the just-concluded Rajya Sabha biennial elections. A gory account of money and more money. Epitomising as never before that polls are all about sleaze and surrogate galore baby!

The ‘cash-and-carry’ Madhu Koda UPA Government in Jharkhand last week set a new record in smutty politics when its MLAs cocked a snook at the Anti-Defection Law and indulged in a three-way voting for candidates who entered the fray as UPA nominees for the lone seat it could win. One UPA nominee backed by Shibhu Soren’s JMM was Delhi-based Kishori Lal who got the least number of votes (8), no matter that 11 MLAs had signed his nomination papers. The second UPA candidate, RK Anand backed by the Congress and RJD won 17 votes. The third UPA candidate backed by a section of JMM MLAs and independents was Ahmedabad-based Parimal Nathwani, Group President, Corporate Affairs Reliance Industries who got 16 votes.

Who won? No guesses, it was the Reliance man Nathwani who got five second preference votes from the Marandi group while his rivals got none. Never mind that till two months ago he had never set foot in Jharkhand and no MLA knew him. But paisa pakro vote becho politics is not all.  Another new dimension made its political debut in the Rajya Sabha: surrogate MPs.

True, we are accustomed to high-profile industrial tycoons like UB breweries and Kingfisher Airline’s Vijay Mallya, Bajaj Scooter’s Rahul Bajaj, Videocon’s Venugopal Dhoot and BPL’s Chandreshekhar who might sneak in their respective corporate agendas.

However for the first time these corporate czars have got political parties to nominate their "delegated trusted lieutenants” for the Rajya Sabha. While the JD (U) nominated N K Singh, chairperson of the Bihar Planning Board and a fellow at the Reliance-backed Observer Research Foundation, Sharad Pawar’s NCP backed YP Trivedi, an independent director on Mukesh Ambani’s RIL board and the JMM Nathwani

Throwing light on the issue, asserted a senior CPM MP, "The nomination of these three persons is an indication how business interests are now operating in a new way in Parliament.” Plainly they have been hand-picked to take care of the boss’s corporate interests. Added another MP, “During Nehru’s time corporate houses would get individual MPs to get their work done and later pay them for it.

What is happening now is that they directly get their nominees in through parties to serve their interests, both overtly and covertly in Parliament. One way is by getting themselves attached to Standing Committees and Parliamentary Consultative Committees which serve their business interests. This enables them to work directly with the Minister or the ministry thus they are in an advantageous position to influence decisions. Not a few of the 'surrogate' MPs also succeed in dodging public scrutiny about their links with business houses as they do not occupy corporate positions but are firmly ensconced with such groups to promote their interests,” he added.

Worse, this trend of surrogate MPs in the Council of States has become more pronounced because of the Office of Profit Bill. The Bill bars a MP from occupying any Government position but does not restrict him from holding a position in a corporate. Clearly, there is a need to plug this lacuna and include the private sector as well in the Office of Profit Bill.

Needless to say, over the years the Rajya Sabha polls, like elections to the Lok Sabha have become big business. The figures for ‘buying’ the required number of votes range from Rs.10 crores to as much as Rs.25 crores. The going rate per vote was said to be Rs. 10 lakh to Rs.20 lakh. Not a few consider this as a good investment as once elected the MP has a sum of Rs 2 crore annually (Rs 12 crore for 6 years), to spend under the MP Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). But unlike his Lok Sabha counterpart he can spend it any way he wants as he has no particular constituency per se. Recall, the controversy wherein BSP Chief Mayawati reportedly openly extolled her MP’s to “donate” their MPLADS if they wanted her to nominate them to the Rajya Sabha.

Unfortunately, the Rajya Sabha is not what it was intended to be. The quality of the members and the complexion of the House has undergone a sea change --- for the worse. Personal loyalty to the leader, monetary considerations and political connections have largely got precedence over competence and experience. Often enough shouting has replaced serious debate.

True, every Party is entitled to choose its candidates for the House, according to its long-term interests. But the powers-that-be in doing so have not cared much for the basic character of the House and its purpose. Recall, our Constitution-makers wanted the Rajya Sabha to consist of persons of greater experience and eminence than those in the Lok Sabha. They therefore, deliberately opted for three things. First, indirect elections from the State legislatures. Second, a minimum age for membership at 30 years as against 25 for the Lok Sabha. Third, nomination by the President of 12 persons “having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of literatures, science, art and social service.”

The original concept was spelt out by Sir Gopalaswamy Ayangar on July 28, 1947. The second chamber, he said, was intended to “give an opportunity, perhaps, to seasoned people, who may not be in the thickest of political fray, but who might be willing to participate in the debate with an amount of learning and importance which we do not ordinarily associate with the House of the People”. What Sir Gopalaswamy advocated was sought to be implemented by Nehru and Maulana Azad, both in letter and in spirit. Politicians defeated at the polls were firmly kept out and efforts made to bring in “seasoned” persons.

Indirect election to the Rajya Sabha was intended to help induct experienced and seasoned persons from different walks of life in the House --- Stalwarts who would normally be disinclined to face the rough and tumble of a poll battle.

Sadly, however, the House is today functioning more and more as a parallel (and competing) political chamber to the Lok Sabha. To this day it has not cared to discuss in detail and at length the Sarkaria Commission’s report on Centre-State relations. In fact, the Rajya Sabha as the Council of States should have by now held a special session to discuss the Report in all its various aspects.

Tragically, today the Rajya Sabha has failed to evolve a distinct role for itself as the Council of States. The States’ voice over the years has got lost in the din of the power brokers who strut about like peacocks in the Rajya Sabha kaleidoscope. A situation has clearly arisen over the past five decades which was largely unforeseen. Even though records show that a Communist MP, Sadhan Gupta, prophetically expressed the fear in the Lok Sabha on April 2, 1954 that the Rajya Sabha would one day “stunt the voice of the representatives of the people.”

Where do we go from here? One way out could be to abolish the chamber, as advocated by leading MPs at different times. Significantly, Dr. Ambedkar himself went on record in 1949 to say that the Rajya Sabha was being introduced “purely as an experimental measure” and there was provision for “getting rid” of it. Morarji Desai, for his part, was one with Harold Laski’s view that “a single chamber best answers the needs of modern states.” But such an extreme step is not necessary yet.

The Rajya Sabha could still be made to play a more useful role as the Council of States instead of a parallel, competing chamber. Jayaprakash Narayan strongly favoured a partyless Council. The Rajya Sabha members should be those who have put in at least one stint in the State Assembly or in the Lok Sabha and no more than two terms should be given to anybody. Interestingly, we have had persons happily enjoying three to four terms of six yeas each in the Rajya Sabha without ever fighting an elections to either State Assembly or the Lok Sabha.

It’s time the Elders set their House in order, or else the coming months will decide whether the Rajya Sabha will make Indian politics more messy and unworkable. --- INFA

 (Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)