REWIND
New Delhi, 24 March
2022
POLITICAL HARLOTRY
UNBRIDLED
By Inder Jit
(Released on 16 June
1981)
Prostitution is
legally banned in India. But political harlotry continues to flourish brazenly.
What is worse, it is coming to be accepted as a way of life. Time was when the
people at large were shocked. Many reacted strongly and violently. Now even
eyebrows are not raised. Those who defect are beginning to see themselves as
smart Alecs and are at times welcomed and lauded as heroes. Mahatma Gandhi once
warned those singing the praises of British rule that the worst kind of a slave
was one who did not know that he was a slave. He was only varying a popular
saying according to which no shamelessness was worse than one in which there
was no sense of shame. Those who attended Mr. Y.B. Chavan’s press conference
last week tell me that the atmosphere there had to be seen to be believed.
There was no manifestation of an uneasy conscience or a consciousness of
something not done. Instead, Mr. Chavan, who had conducted himself with dignity
and poise in the past, almost seemed to feel as if he had been awarded Bharat
Ratna.
Harsh words no doubt. But these have been
provoked by all the abominable goings on of the past fortnight. Mr. Chavan has
come a long, long way from the day in late 1962 when I joined a crowed at Palam
airport to welcome him as India’s new Defence Minister in the wake of the
Chinese aggression. Mr. Chavan, who had stepped down as Maharashtra’s first
Chief Minister to come to the Centre, then raised great hopes both about
himself and for the country as he feelingly said: “We shall drive the Chinese out from our
sacred motherland. I shall set foot in Maharashtra again only after this is
done.” All that he and others said thereafter was soon conveniently forgotten.
No one reminded him of his Palam speech when he made his first visit to Bombay
after moving to New Delhi. But few are ever likely to forget all that he has
ventured to say on record and informally about his decision to quit the
Congress (U) and seek admission to the Congress (I). Never before has a
political statement attracted greater sarcasm and ridicule.
Mr. Chavan has denied that he is guilty of
defection. He has chosen to describe his return to the Congress (I) as
“homecoming” and said that his decision to come back to the “real Congress” is
a matter between him and his constituency. The argument is an amazing exercise
in casuistry, especially as it comes from one who coined the expression Ayaram
and Gayaram. The argument also ignores the recommendations of the Union
Home Ministry’s Committee on Defections. Ironically, this Committee was headed
by none other than Mr. Chavan, then Home Minister. It was set up in response to
a resolution moved by Mr. P. Venkatasubbiah, now Union Minister of State for
Home, in the Lok Sabha and adopted unanimously on December 8, 1967. Mr. Chavan,
who announced the formation of the Committee on March 21, 1968, described
defections as “a national malady which is eating into the very vitals of our
democracy”. The Committee included Jaya Prakash Narayan, M.C. Setalvad and
Mohan Kumaramanglam and representatives of eight political parties and three
independent groups.
The committee made several recommendations:
ethical, political, constitutional and legislative. Opinion on some matters was
divided. Significantly, however, the Committee was agreed on the definition of
a defector, which was as follows: “An elected member of a legislature who has
been allotted the reserved symbol of any political party can be said to have
defected, if, after being elected as a member of either House of Parliament or
of the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly of a State or Union
Territory, he voluntarily renounces allegiance to, or association with such
political party, provided his action is not in consequence of a decision of the
party concerned.” It was also agreed that “a defector should be debarred for a
period of one year or till such time as he resigned his seat and got himself
re-elected, from appointment to the office of a Minister (including a Deputy
Minister or Parliamentary Secretary) or Speaker or Deputy Speaker or any post
carrying salaries or allowances to be paid from the Consolidated Fund of
India….”
The Chavan Committee held that a lasting
solution to the problem could only come from the adherence by the political
parties to a code of conduct or a set of conventions that “took into account
the fundamental proprieties and decencies that ought to govern the functioning
of democratic institutions”. At the same time, it was clear that such a code
would serve little purpose without a machinery or sanctions to ensure its
observance. The Committee considered a “sound” suggestion that this could be
achieved by having a Standing Committee or Board comprising leaders of
political parties and eminent men of objectivity and integrity. Any political
party could take a grievance before the Board which could convey its censure or
disapproval. When the Board censured any particular member for violating
political propriety, the political parties could be asked to ensure that he was
kept out of public life for a prescribed period. But the Committee left it to
the Home Minister to get in touch with all the political parties and give the
proposal concrete shape from the political and practical viewpoints.
Politics has alas become unbridled pursuit of
power in India. Mr. Chavan is, therefore, entitled to choose the best way of
serving himself and the country. Nothing must ever bar him or anyone else from
admitting that he had gone wrong or, to use a Gandhian phrase, that he had
committed a Himalayan blunder in joining or not joining a party or in opting
for the wrong group following a split. Our democracy is still young and,
understandably, we should not interfere with the natural process of
polarization of political forces. Mr. Chavan is also entitled to say today that
Mr. Charan Singh or his Lok Dal is “not his cup of tea” anymore even if in 1979
he ignored the fervent pleadings of the younger Congress (U) members, to
enthusiastically join hands with the Choudhury and become his Deputy Prime
Minister. However, one question arises: should a person of Mr. Chavan’s
seniority make a mockery of the recommendations of the very Committee which he
had the privilege to chair? Should he at least not act in accordance with the
Committee’s agreed views --- and the overall spirit of its report?
Clearly, there are things which Mr. Chavan
could do even now and things which Mrs Gandhi could do as the nation’s
unrivalled leader. As a man of honour, Mr. Chavan himself should seek a fresh
mandate from his constituency. (So also should Mr. B.R. Bhagat, who was also
elected on the Congress (I) ticket and once held the privileged office of the
Speaker of the Lok Sabha.) Mr. Chavan won his seat despite strong opposition
from the Congress (I). He should, therefore, have no difficulty in getting re-elected
once he is on Mrs. Gandhi’s bandwagon. No one should be misled by Churchill,
who was elected as a conservative in 1990, did switch over to the Liberal Party
in 1904. However, he announced in the Commons that his constituents were
entitled to be consulted on the change of allegiance and, if they so desired,
he would resign and submit himself for re-election. This was, however, not
pressed as the next general election was barely a few months ahead.
Mrs. Gandhi has, time and again, expressed
herself in favour of ending defections. She has repeatedly blamed the
Opposition for the delay in bringing forward agreed legislation. Her Government
once again reaffirmed its position when the Lok Sabha debated early last year
the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, introduced by Prof. Madhu Dandwate, leader
of the Janata Party, to stem the rot of defections. The Union Minister of Law
and Justice, Mr. Shiv Shankar, then urged Prof Dandwate to withdraw the bill
and assured the House that the Government would bring forward some concrete
measures to end defections as part of “a comprehensive bill on electoral
reform”. That there is no sign of the promised bill even after a year is
undoubtedly a matter of regret. Nevertheless, nothing prevents Mrs. Gandhi (and
her Parliamentary Board) from taking a principled stand against defections. She
should accede to Mr. Chavan’s request for admission to the Congress (I) only if
he first agrees to resign his seat in the Lok Sabha. The same should apply to
others.
The Government should have no difficult in
enacting legislation to stop defections. The Janata Party and all its erstwhile
constituents favoured the ban and, in fact, its Government even came forward with
a bill on the subject. (said Mr. L.K. Advani the other day: “Had we known that
our Government would fall in mid-1979, we would have pushed ahead with the
legislation much earlier.”) The Lawyers Group of the Committee on Defections
was clearly of the view that defections could be banned by law. The Group,which
was headed by P. Govinda Menon, then Union Law Minister, even suggested
amendments to the Representation of the People Act for banning defections.
These are given as annexures to the Committee’s report. It is now up to Mr.
Shiv Shankar to take advantage of the Committee’s formulations. However, he
appears to be avoiding the issue. The Lok Sevak Sangh, a non-party and
non-power seeking organization of the Servants of People Society, has written
three letters to the Minister on the subject since June 18 last year. But these
have remained not only unanswered but even unacknowledged.
Perhaps Mr. Shiv Shankar is waiting for a
green signal from Mrs. Gandhi. This should be given in the interest of
preventing the scourge from playing greater havoc. Mrs. Gandhi already enjoys a
two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha and addition of Mr. Chavan and Mr. Bhagat
and others to her party will not make any difference. (Mrs. Gandhi,I am told,
is mainly interested in getting back Mr. A.K. Antony from Kerala,Mr. Priya
Ranjan Das Munshi from West Bengal and Mr. Sharad Pawar from Maharashtra.). As
I wrote last week, even Bangladesh is one up on India. Its Constitution bans
defections. Mrs. Gandhi should see this as a healthy provision and not as seen
by one of her close advisers who remarked: “It must have suited Zia”. Things
may not be really bad at the Centre yet. But defections have made matters
pretty rotten in many States Mrs. Gandhi must decide what kind of a democracy
she wishes to help build. Grave damage has been caused already to the quality
of public life. This must stop if our people are not to lose faith in
democratic institutions --- and in democracy itself. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|