July 08, 2011 07:39 PM
Karan Kharb
Suddenly many politicians are accusing public-spirited citizens of being a threat to democracy—like a thief who, chased by the victim, cries for help. In fact, these citizens are a threat to these reckless political leaders who have trampled all democratic norms under their feet
The idea of 'democracy' has gone awry in modern India. The spontaneity and universality of the people's war cry against corruption in the higher echelons of government has scared not only those in the UPA government which is in power, but even those in the opposition smarting to return to power sooner than later. They are all set to unite and will flock together whenever any Lokpal shot is fired. The recent conclave of all political parties called by the government to discuss the draft Lokpal Bill, has given us enough insight into the mindset of India's political class.
Earlier, Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari had called civil society activists like Anna Hazare 'un-elected tyrants', thereby suggesting that tyranny is a function and prerogative of the 'elected'. It is like a thief who, chased by the victim, cries for help and expects onlookers to save him and punish the victim. His mentors in the government, Pranab Mukherjee, Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram and many more, readily lent their voices to this anti-civil society chorus.
Later, after the all-party meet in New Delhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav, in his idiosyncratic style, ridiculed peaceful mass movements by civil society activists and called them "a threat to democracy". Almost all political parties seem to empathise with this notion of citizens being a threat to democracy-in fact a threat to these political leaders! If peaceful mass movements are a threat to democracy, what better democratic method would they suggest, so the voice of the people is heard and is heeded by the government?
Are they really worried about 'democracy'? Or is their very notion of democracy different from what people hold it to be-a government of the people, for the people, by the people? The fears and concerns expressed by our politicians, however, betray their skewed conceptual interpretation of the great idea of democracy. They now assume themselves to be embodiments of 'democracy'. This essentially connotes a privileged group of parties and individuals, who are off the people, force the people and buy the people to perpetuate their exploitation.
An election manifesto is a written undertaking that each political party elaborately publicises, committing themselves in the service of the people, assuring them with specific plans and projects to be undertaken during the tenure of the democratically elected government. One would wish these manifestos served as reference points and constant reminders for the ruling party, with a periodic performance audit posted in the public domain. Sadly though, these undertakings are dumped as garbage soon after the election, as all leaders and parties go off the people, to force the good people and to buy stooges to pursue their undeclared aims.
Selectively employing the Chanakya stratagems of 'saam' (persuasion), 'daam' (bribe), 'danda' (coercion), and 'bhed' (divide), our leaders have mastered the art of ruling by creating safe zones and sanctuaries for unhindered exploitation of public resources. Our politicians are highly innovative in crafting and selling dreams to the people, hungry and eager to alleviate their suffering. They deftly entice and win over the poorest of the poor by doling out subsidies, caste-based reservations and occasional freebies that serve to perpetuate their dependence on the political masters. It is from poverty that our politicians earn their fortune in the form of votes and even notes that are easily siphoned from the subsidies and quotas. "Long live poverty; we will keep you alive" could well be the political slogan-if truth were harmless.
This is best explained by the government's stubborn stand to keep the most powerful people out of the ambit of the Lokpal-the prime minister, judges of the high courts and the supreme court, and members of parliament (MPs). This is in spite of the fact that there are more than 160 sitting MPs in the current Lok Sabha against whom there are cases registered in the court of law, many of them facing multiple charges for even such serious crimes like murder. MPs and at least one minister are already in jail, and more could be headed there soon.
The immunity provided to MPs for their conduct within parliament was intended to protect and encourage people's representatives to serve people's causes without fear or worry, and not to get away with misdeeds, like in the JMM bribery case, or 'questions for payments', or the murky moves to save the Manmohan Singh government in the vote on the confidence motion during UPA-1 when MPs waved bundles of notes in the well of the House. The presiding officers (the speaker in the Lok Sabha, and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha), they say, are empowered to deal with delinquent members. There have been innumerable cases of gross misconduct by MPs, but no member has ever been dismissed from membership, even though some should have been convicted and jailed. Yet, they do not want them to be within the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Why?
Today, as ministers, MPs and some senior bureaucrats await trial on the serious charge of embezzlement, there appears no end to the deluge of scams that continues unabated. With Maran also now almost set on his way to Tihar, the UPA government appears to be held by sand walls which threaten to crumble and wither in the clammy humid monsoon of scams. In such a vivid scenario how can you think of 'corruption' in high places without ministers, MPs, bureaucrats and judges? Willing accomplices and patrons in positions of power are handy for bureaucrats and corporate entrepreneurs to manoeuvre government decisions in their favour by circumventing rules and procedures.
To build and foster a conducive system, it is necessary for ministers and bureaucrats to retain control, direct or indirect, over the investigating agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and, as far as possible, over the so-called autonomous bodies like the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Central Information Commission (CIC), Election Commission (EC), other national commissions and even the judiciary through a convergence of common interests, where everyone gains-materially or otherwise-on a reciprocal basis, except the state and its people. And the nexus flourishes and proliferates. Of course, there have been individuals of great character and verve who, as heads of such bodies, meant business and refused to give in to political or bureaucratic pressures and restored public faith in institutions like the offices of the CEC and CAG. These are rare examples though.
An analysis of how some key posts are filled in the top echelons further clears doubts, if there remain any. The first defect lies in the selection procedure for autonomous bodies. For example, a selection panel comprising the prime minister, home minister and leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha selected PJ Thomas to be the chief vigilance commissioner. Even though Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the opposition, opposed Thomas' appointment due to his tainted past record, no legal impropriety was committed in this appointment because it was upheld by a majority of 2:1. Now, in a selection panel where the prime minister and his own home minister are members, the third member becomes redundant because it is highly improbable that the two will ever vote against each other.
Dr Ketan Desai, the former head of the Medical Council of India, was caught in April 2010 for taking a bribe of Rs2 crore to grant government recognition to a private medical college. Much earlier, he had been convicted by the Delhi High Court. Yet, on the strength of hefty cash packets, he rose to hold this top position in the medical profession. A former chief justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, has been in the news for some time for all the wrong reasons, most unbecoming of an honourable man in that position. Yet, he was appointed chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.
The process of dealing with a corrupt judge of the high court or the supreme court is so complex that there has been only one impeachment in India till date and that too in 1949, before the Constitution became effective. The second impeachment motion against judge V Ramaswami failed in 1993 because the then ruling Congress (205 MPs) abstained. Naturally, shamelessly unfazed by all the allegations and indictments, judges like PB Dinakaran (chief justice, Sikkim High Court), Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court) and many more, arrogantly go on dispensing 'justice' in their high positions.
Even as the crime graph in general moves upwards, it is still feasible to put petty criminals behind bars. But it is the big fish that has proved too slippery for the law, all through. From Bofors to fodder to hawala and the series of scams today-only preliminaries are played. No powerful politician, bureaucrat or judge has been finally convicted (having exhausted appeals at the supreme court).
The system has proved power-friendly and at a time when the talk of an effective Lokpal is gaining momentum, fears of those in power are quite understandable. Political parties have moved away from nationalistic orientation and metamorphosed into cliques of vested interests, like promoting dynastic power centres. Coteries of henchmen have mushroomed in almost all parties. These henchmen are mostly local goons who have embedded themselves between the leader and the people, insulating the former from the latter. Soon after the elections, leaders are quick to snap their public contact and interact with the people through their henchmen whose swagger signals when and whether you will have the Netaji's darshan.
Gimmicks like Rahul Gandhi, the prince charming of Indian politics, dining at a Dalit's home or stage-managed padyatras and public display of a pseudo-frugal lifestyle are carefully orchestrated to create a mass impact even as his oratory skills and leadership prowess still remain hidden. Even if he fails to leave behind any lasting impact, his style leaves people largely amused. Organisations and parties bereft of ideas and ideologues will be likewise forced to innovate, borrow and stage-perform to entertain people. But how long will this drama go on? The political environment in India has become highly polluted and all parties need to reorient and readjust to ground realities.
Institutionalising a powerful, independent Lokpal will help the country to prosper faster, making development people-friendly. The ruling clique has drifted far away from the people and a course correction is urgently needed. The sooner they change their bearings and perception, the better it will be for them as well as the country.
(The writer is a military veteran who commanded an Infantry battalion with many successes in counter-terrorist operations. He was also actively involved in numerous high-risk operations as second-in-command of the elite 51 Special Action Group of the National Security Guard (NSG). He conducts leadership training and is the author of two bestsellers on leadership development that have also been translated into foreign languages).
The idea of 'democracy' has gone awry in modern India. The spontaneity and universality of the people's war cry against corruption in the higher echelons of government has scared not only those in the UPA government which is in power, but even those in the opposition smarting to return to power sooner than later. They are all set to unite and will flock together whenever any Lokpal shot is fired. The recent conclave of all political parties called by the government to discuss the draft Lokpal Bill, has given us enough insight into the mindset of India's political class.
Earlier, Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari had called civil society activists like Anna Hazare 'un-elected tyrants', thereby suggesting that tyranny is a function and prerogative of the 'elected'. It is like a thief who, chased by the victim, cries for help and expects onlookers to save him and punish the victim. His mentors in the government, Pranab Mukherjee, Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram and many more, readily lent their voices to this anti-civil society chorus.
Later, after the all-party meet in New Delhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav, in his idiosyncratic style, ridiculed peaceful mass movements by civil society activists and called them "a threat to democracy". Almost all political parties seem to empathise with this notion of citizens being a threat to democracy-in fact a threat to these political leaders! If peaceful mass movements are a threat to democracy, what better democratic method would they suggest, so the voice of the people is heard and is heeded by the government?
Are they really worried about 'democracy'? Or is their very notion of democracy different from what people hold it to be-a government of the people, for the people, by the people? The fears and concerns expressed by our politicians, however, betray their skewed conceptual interpretation of the great idea of democracy. They now assume themselves to be embodiments of 'democracy'. This essentially connotes a privileged group of parties and individuals, who are off the people, force the people and buy the people to perpetuate their exploitation.
An election manifesto is a written undertaking that each political party elaborately publicises, committing themselves in the service of the people, assuring them with specific plans and projects to be undertaken during the tenure of the democratically elected government. One would wish these manifestos served as reference points and constant reminders for the ruling party, with a periodic performance audit posted in the public domain. Sadly though, these undertakings are dumped as garbage soon after the election, as all leaders and parties go off the people, to force the good people and to buy stooges to pursue their undeclared aims.
Selectively employing the Chanakya stratagems of 'saam' (persuasion), 'daam' (bribe), 'danda' (coercion), and 'bhed' (divide), our leaders have mastered the art of ruling by creating safe zones and sanctuaries for unhindered exploitation of public resources. Our politicians are highly innovative in crafting and selling dreams to the people, hungry and eager to alleviate their suffering. They deftly entice and win over the poorest of the poor by doling out subsidies, caste-based reservations and occasional freebies that serve to perpetuate their dependence on the political masters. It is from poverty that our politicians earn their fortune in the form of votes and even notes that are easily siphoned from the subsidies and quotas. "Long live poverty; we will keep you alive" could well be the political slogan-if truth were harmless.
This is best explained by the government's stubborn stand to keep the most powerful people out of the ambit of the Lokpal-the prime minister, judges of the high courts and the supreme court, and members of parliament (MPs). This is in spite of the fact that there are more than 160 sitting MPs in the current Lok Sabha against whom there are cases registered in the court of law, many of them facing multiple charges for even such serious crimes like murder. MPs and at least one minister are already in jail, and more could be headed there soon.
The immunity provided to MPs for their conduct within parliament was intended to protect and encourage people's representatives to serve people's causes without fear or worry, and not to get away with misdeeds, like in the JMM bribery case, or 'questions for payments', or the murky moves to save the Manmohan Singh government in the vote on the confidence motion during UPA-1 when MPs waved bundles of notes in the well of the House. The presiding officers (the speaker in the Lok Sabha, and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha), they say, are empowered to deal with delinquent members. There have been innumerable cases of gross misconduct by MPs, but no member has ever been dismissed from membership, even though some should have been convicted and jailed. Yet, they do not want them to be within the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Why?
Today, as ministers, MPs and some senior bureaucrats await trial on the serious charge of embezzlement, there appears no end to the deluge of scams that continues unabated. With Maran also now almost set on his way to Tihar, the UPA government appears to be held by sand walls which threaten to crumble and wither in the clammy humid monsoon of scams. In such a vivid scenario how can you think of 'corruption' in high places without ministers, MPs, bureaucrats and judges? Willing accomplices and patrons in positions of power are handy for bureaucrats and corporate entrepreneurs to manoeuvre government decisions in their favour by circumventing rules and procedures.
To build and foster a conducive system, it is necessary for ministers and bureaucrats to retain control, direct or indirect, over the investigating agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and, as far as possible, over the so-called autonomous bodies like the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Central Information Commission (CIC), Election Commission (EC), other national commissions and even the judiciary through a convergence of common interests, where everyone gains-materially or otherwise-on a reciprocal basis, except the state and its people. And the nexus flourishes and proliferates. Of course, there have been individuals of great character and verve who, as heads of such bodies, meant business and refused to give in to political or bureaucratic pressures and restored public faith in institutions like the offices of the CEC and CAG. These are rare examples though.
An analysis of how some key posts are filled in the top echelons further clears doubts, if there remain any. The first defect lies in the selection procedure for autonomous bodies. For example, a selection panel comprising the prime minister, home minister and leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha selected PJ Thomas to be the chief vigilance commissioner. Even though Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the opposition, opposed Thomas' appointment due to his tainted past record, no legal impropriety was committed in this appointment because it was upheld by a majority of 2:1. Now, in a selection panel where the prime minister and his own home minister are members, the third member becomes redundant because it is highly improbable that the two will ever vote against each other.
Dr Ketan Desai, the former head of the Medical Council of India, was caught in April 2010 for taking a bribe of Rs2 crore to grant government recognition to a private medical college. Much earlier, he had been convicted by the Delhi High Court. Yet, on the strength of hefty cash packets, he rose to hold this top position in the medical profession. A former chief justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, has been in the news for some time for all the wrong reasons, most unbecoming of an honourable man in that position. Yet, he was appointed chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.
The process of dealing with a corrupt judge of the high court or the supreme court is so complex that there has been only one impeachment in India till date and that too in 1949, before the Constitution became effective. The second impeachment motion against judge V Ramaswami failed in 1993 because the then ruling Congress (205 MPs) abstained. Naturally, shamelessly unfazed by all the allegations and indictments, judges like PB Dinakaran (chief justice, Sikkim High Court), Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court) and many more, arrogantly go on dispensing 'justice' in their high positions.
Even as the crime graph in general moves upwards, it is still feasible to put petty criminals behind bars. But it is the big fish that has proved too slippery for the law, all through. From Bofors to fodder to hawala and the series of scams today-only preliminaries are played. No powerful politician, bureaucrat or judge has been finally convicted (having exhausted appeals at the supreme court).
The system has proved power-friendly and at a time when the talk of an effective Lokpal is gaining momentum, fears of those in power are quite understandable. Political parties have moved away from nationalistic orientation and metamorphosed into cliques of vested interests, like promoting dynastic power centres. Coteries of henchmen have mushroomed in almost all parties. These henchmen are mostly local goons who have embedded themselves between the leader and the people, insulating the former from the latter. Soon after the elections, leaders are quick to snap their public contact and interact with the people through their henchmen whose swagger signals when and whether you will have the Netaji's darshan.
Gimmicks like Rahul Gandhi, the prince charming of Indian politics, dining at a Dalit's home or stage-managed padyatras and public display of a pseudo-frugal lifestyle are carefully orchestrated to create a mass impact even as his oratory skills and leadership prowess still remain hidden. Even if he fails to leave behind any lasting impact, his style leaves people largely amused. Organisations and parties bereft of ideas and ideologues will be likewise forced to innovate, borrow and stage-perform to entertain people. But how long will this drama go on? The political environment in India has become highly polluted and all parties need to reorient and readjust to ground realities.
Institutionalising a powerful, independent Lokpal will help the country to prosper faster, making development people-friendly. The ruling clique has drifted far away from the people and a course correction is urgently needed. The sooner they change their bearings and perception, the better it will be for them as well as the country.
(The writer is a military veteran who commanded an Infantry battalion with many successes in counter-terrorist operations. He was also actively involved in numerous high-risk operations as second-in-command of the elite 51 Special Action Group of the National Security Guard (NSG). He conducts leadership training and is the author of two bestsellers on leadership development that have also been translated into foreign languages).
