REWIND
New
Delhi, 9 March 2023
A DANGEROUS DOCTRINE
By Inder Jit
(Released on August 12, 1980)
Horror of horros.
Corruption, already widespread and rampant, is now sought to be made
respectable, even legal. This is the upshot of the Lok Sabha debate last
Thursday on the censure motio against the controversial Union Energy Minister,
Mr. A.B. Ghani Khan Choudhuri, which has not yet received the attention it
merits. Expectedly, the motion, brought forward by Mr. Jyotirmoy Bosu, an
indefatigable crusader, was defeated. But there was much else that was
unexpected --- and depressing. Mr. Choudhuri, attired in a champagne pink
bushirt, refused to speak even one word in self defene, ignoring the popular
adage: silence is half confession. Mrs. Gandhi was conspicuous by her absence,
notwithstanding democratic conventions. Worse. While Mr. C.M. Stephen, who put
up the principal defence from the Treasury benches, justified as “bona fide”
all that Mr. Chaudhuri had done, Mr. Shiv Shankar, Law Minister, went many
steps further to propound the amazing theory that there was “absolutely nothing
wrong” for a Minister to “nurse his constituency.”
First the acts, as put
forward by Mr. Bosu and Mr. Indrajit Gupta but not controverted. In February
and March last, the Energy Minister issued 133 coal permits to persons in West
Bengal. Of these, 119 permits, totaling 38,218 tonnes of coal, were allotted to
parties in his own district: Malda in north Bengal. Further, 111 of these 119
persons were from Shujapur and Kalichak, which constitute the heart of Mr.
Choudhuri’s Parliamentary constituency. (Mr. Chaudhuri earlier represented
Shujapur in the State Assembly.) West Bengal has 15 other districts and
allotment to these totaled only 5,500 tonnes. None of the other four districts
in north Bengal was allotted even an ounce of coal. Most of the “allotees” were
non-existence or untraceable and some were minors, including one aged ten
years. Malda, an agricultural district, hs no thermal power station, contrary
to a point made by Mr Shiv Shankar. It has some silk industry, which requires
warm water for extracting silk from cocoons. But for this the industry uses
firewood and charcoal.
Now the allegations. All
the permits were issued under the direction of the Minister, notwithstanding
the fact that coal licensing comes within the jurisdiction of the State
Government. Mr. Chaudhuri’s magnamity towards Mala was not accidental,
according to Mr. Bosu. Almost the entire quantity of over 38,000 tonnes found
its way into the black market and much of it was smuggled into Bangladesh.
“Cross the river by boat and you get 3,000 takkas per tonne in Bangladesh”,
according to Mr. Bosu. (A takka is equal to about Rs.1.88 ) Controlled coal is
priced in India at Rs.250 per tonne. But
it is sold in the open at about Rs.1,000 per tone. Permits along are sold at a
premium of Rs.100 per tone in Calcutta. Malda, which is West Bengal’s smallest
district, was once a part of Rajshahi district, now in Bangladesh, and the two
are now divided mainly by an easy land border. English Bazar, the district
headquarter of Malda, is connected by a straight road to the Rajashahi border,
about eight kilometers away. The coal permits issued by Mr. Chaudhuri were only
“a trip of the iceberg.”
Mr. Shiv Shankar, a
new entrant to Parliament, was understandably anxious to prove his utility as a
judge-turned-politician to his supreme leader, Mrs Gandh. But in doing so he
should not have allowed his enthusiasm to run away with his better judgement
and put across the dangerous doctrine that a Minister is free to nurse his
constituency as he likes --- a view which in one stroke destroys all that Mahatma
Gandhi, Nehru and other great democrats like Winston Churchill advocated and
stood for. Carried to it logical conclusion the doctrine could, in effect, mean
that every Minister at the Centre and in the States would be entitled to nurse
their respective constituencies by distributing favours and largesses to their
relations, friends, business associates and loyal supporters. Collectively,
they would be free to raise funds for the party (and, of course, for
themselves) through all means fair or foul. It could eventually promote a new
class of privileged citizens and convert India into a country ruled by an
all-powerful Congress (I) oligarchy.
Not a few veteran
parliamentarians are shocked and horrified by what Mr. Shiv Shankar has
advocated. AS it should be, they feel that the Law Minister’s view goes totally
against the spirit of parliamentary democracy and the healthy norms and
conventions according to which it is expected to function. These norms and
conventions were succinctly put forward by none other than Churchill. The great
British leader and parliamentarian was clear that a member of Parliament was
not a delegate of the constituency but its representative in the nation’s
highest forum: Parliament. In other words, he was not elected merely to secure
the well-being and progress of his electors and the constituency. According to
Churchill, an MP’s first duty was to his conscience, next to his country and
last of all to his constituency. He was expected, therefore, to act in all
conscience and not to forget the best interest of his country. What has been
advocated now is not only certain to introduce grave distortions into our
system but will tend to encourage the Ministers and, in due course, the
ordinary MPs to virtually say: to hell with the conscience and the country.
Not only that. What
came to pass in the Lok Sabha on Thursday afternoon undermined the concept of
parliamentary accountability --- apart from leaving old ringside viewers like
myself intrigued and dumbfounded. Contrary to expectations and practice, Ghani
Khan Sahib, as he is popularly called, sat stoically silent in the second row
of the Treasury benches and refused to exercise his right to defend himself.
The charge leveled by Mr. Bosu was against Mr. Choudhuri personally and not against
the Government as a whole. It was thus for Mr. Choudhuri to stand up boldly and
face the House. However, he refused to do anything of the kind even when he was
accused by Mr. Bosu at the outset of having gone to Malda recently to secure
“false affidavits in an attempt to absolve himself.” Mr. Stephen and Mr. Shiv
Shankar, too, could have spoken and justified additionally whatever MR.
Choudhuri did. But they could not, in all conscience, be a substitute or proxy
for Mr. Choudhuri, raising an interesting side issue: Are we hereafter going to have lawyers to defend
Ministers in Parliament?
Parliamentary experts
are also astounded at Mr. Choudhuri’s failure to exercise his Constitutional
right. (I have known of persons over the past three decades who were willing to
give their left arm to clear themselves in Parliament.) Some even feel that the
Congress (I) benches got away with “murder”, so to say, on the plea that Mr.
Charan Singh had also chosen not to speak two years ago when faced with a
censure motion and the charges leveled against him were answered by Mr. Morarji
Desai. The two issues are not on all fours. Mr. Desai spoke as Priem Minister
who is expected to oversee the functioning of his Cabinet. He was within his
right to tell Parliament that he was satisfied with a colleague’s conduct. In
the present case, however, even if Mrs. Gandhi had intervened, it would still
not have been the same thing. There is a qualitative difference between the
charges leveled against Mr. Charan Singh (atrocities against the Harijans) and
those against Mr. Choudhuri. The latter was accused of corruption and misuse of
office. It was clearly not for the PM or the other Ministers to explain what he
had said or what he had meant.
The Speaker would have
been within his right to ask Mr. Choudhuri himself to clarify matters before
permitting other Ministers to speak. In fact, one parliamentary expert
confidently asserts that had the incident taken place during the time of
Speaker Mavalankar, the latter would have forced the Minister to speak for
himself even if the Prime Minister had good reasons to fear that his colleague
might again put his foot into his mouth” If Mrs Gandhi was troubled by any such
fear, she should have intervened, even briefly. She could have in addition got
MR. Stephen and Mr. Shiv Shankar to speak. Alas, Mr. Gandhi herself faulted
when she chose to stay away, ignoring her own responsibility as Prime Minister
and leader of the House. As a veteran parliamentarian remarked: “Nehru would
have cancelled all engagements to be present. He would have patiently sat
through the debate and not stopped at that. If not immediately, he would have
thereafter acted according to his conscience overriding petty party
considerations. He stood for healthy traditions and a good, clean government.
Remember Shanmukhan Chetty, K.D. Melaviya…”
Thursday, discussion
in which many unparliamentary invectives were exchanged and later expunged also
threw up many other points. But today I shall deal with only one: Mr. Stephen’s
plea that Mr. Choudhuri had not really accused the West Bengal Government of
smuggling. He had merely stated what he had been told. )Significantly, no one
cared to answer a question put by an Opposition MP, Mr. Bapusaheb Parulekar:
“Why did Mr. Choudhuri not clarify for a whole month the point now made by Mr
Stephen?”) This raises a basic issue: Is
it right and proper for a Central Minister to level charges against a State
Government in Parliament merely on hearsay, even if he personally felt like
throwing that Government into the Bay of Bengal? Mr. Choudhuri clearly acted
recklessly in the matter. He should have taken the earliest opportunity to
verify the facts from the Government in Calcutta even if he was personally Convinced
in the matter. No Central Minister should undermine the federal structure on
the basis of personal feelings, however strong. Certain ground rules need to be
followed on all sides --- and observed scrupulously.
Ultimately the sinews
of our democracy lie in the strength of our institutions and not merely the
charisma or popularity of an individual leader. Strong and healthy institutions
alone can take the country forward on the road to progress and ensure that the
flame of liberty is not extinguished. We have undoubtedly to guard against
external threats and dangers. Equally we have to guard against internal
disorder and introducing a spoils system. Corruption has become a way of life
for many today and may not for the present rouse our people to great anger. It
may even temporarily appear to have become a
non-issue. But then corruption is like cancer. It may not in its initial
stages create any problems or cause any pain. However, it kills eventually.
Corruption must be fought by the people on all fronts if we are not to
jeopardize our independence whose anniversary we shall soon be celebrating.
---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|