Goverment In India Page 7

  The politician loves to have his face recognised, and would do anything for this. In many street corners in cities, or in prominent locations in smaller towns, it is not unusual to see huge portraits of the local MP or the MLA, welcoming you to the place, as if he is the owner of the town or the city! One is used to seeing the faces of film stars on hoardings; at least this is often a pleasant diversion – sadly most of our legislators are not blessed with good looks. Indeed, I would not be surprised if some citizens complain that their children had nightmares, after seeing some of these politicians' hoardings!

  Face recognition is the basic principle why political parties seek popular actors and actresses, to stand for election. I have nothing against Govinda or Hema Malini becoming MPs – their performance may not be worse than any other MP, but it is beyond my imagination as to how they become qualified for public service, by acting in movies. 'Winnability' apparently is the sole criterion, whether the victory comes from good looks, face recognition, strong- arm methods, skullduggery or whatever – experience in public service is not apparently relevant. As Joseph Heller could have said, 'it requires no hard work, no talent, no experience, no ability, no intellect; all it requires is no morality, and face recognition!'

  Politicians are also happy to have streets or towns or even districts carry their names – this is elevation to a higher level. Even better is to have statues erected on all major road junctions; this is the identity of a supreme politician. In a country where the politician is given such irrationally reverential treatment, it is the citizen who is demeaned. I recall spending a night at Frankfurt one December in the early 1990s, when I was on transit from somewhere in the US, returning to India. My flight was only at about 3 pm and I had the morning free. Despite the light snowfall, I walked across to the fairly large public park not far from the hotel; the ground was blanketed with snow and it was white all over. Right in the middle of the park, I saw a statue on a large pedestal, commanding an important position. I walked up to the statue, wondering whether it was of Adenauer or Erhard or the local mayor; as I read the legend at the base, it became clear that the person who was the chief gardener of the park, and who had looked after the public facility for thirty years had been immortalised through the statue. Nothing further needs to be said about the yardsticks used to recognise public service. In India, apparently, only politicians are allowed to leave footprints in the sands of time.

  The Indispensable Politician – smug and arrogant…

  In the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai terror attack in November 2008, every TV channel was full of public rage against politicians. The public abuse and the charges levelled showed the depth of feelings, especially from those who had little to do with Indian politics. During one such session on live TV, when many speakers vented their frustration, placing politicians on the defensive, I heard Salman Khurshid say in a bitter tone but with finality: 'this is a democracy, we need politicians at the helm.' The message was simple, blunt and clear – 'we (politicians) will run India the way we would like to; like it or lump it!' The same sentiment has been expressed by a number of politicians since the Mumbai event, some with greater crudity than the tone used by Salman Khurshid, and many with much greater sophistication; but the final verdict from the political class has come in these terms: 'we will continue doing things the way we wish to.' There has not been one hint of introspection, or even a suggestion of admission of weakness. Has one heard of any emperor or king or a high courtier, admitting that anything is in a mess?

  In the run-up to the elections of spring 2009, it was quite dispiriting to hear the same theme repeated, by politicians of all hues, essentially saying that the country cannot run without them. In fact, one senior politician even said, 'don't criticise us; if you don't like the system, become a politician and reform politics!' This is a tall order. A new prescription for reform of politics is being made, which in other words means that the politicians will not reform themselves, but will expect the citizens to join politics en masse. There are a number of difficulties in this sage prescription. Firstly, most citizens are law abiding and would think many times before changing their nature, and dealing with riff-raff on a daily basis. Secondly, to become an MLA, the campaign cost may be a few crores; to fight an MP election, the candidate may have to find three or four times this amount – most law-abiding citizens in the country cannot raise these kinds of resources legitimately; they may not know or may not be willing to learn the methods, to raise such amounts illegitimately. Thirdly, this is a free country and citizens cannot be denied the right to validly criticise their rulers, when the ruling class is failing to discharge its functions. It is the height of arrogance or irresponsibility to challenge the general public, that reforms of governance can only take place when every citizen becomes a politician or a legislator.

  The country equally cannot do without prostitutes, bureaucrats, engineers, lawyers, doctors, film producers, actors, test cricketers and businessmen. . . . Can one legitimately argue that to criticise any of these classes or groups, the critic will have to join the group as the practitioner, and acquire the right to speak – till then he has to keep his mouth shut? This militates against the very spirit of democracy. To criticise the board of directors of Satyam, does the SEBI or the government, or the media or even the citizen have to become a director on Satyam's Board, to acquire the right?

  The critical difference between the political class, and the other groups or professions mentioned above is that all others 'abide the question' – the politician is recklessly free. Every other profession or economic/social group is controlled by codes of conduct, with appropriate sanction, to ensure that the concerned interest group functions as a contributor to the public weal – there are regulatory mechanisms to check aberrations. The political class is the only one which is not constrained by any checks or balances, follows no effective code of conduct and considers itself a king or an emperor, while extolling the virtues of democracy. The least we could expect from the political class is that they may not arrogantly lecture to the common man that he (the citizen) may become a politician in order to criticise the political class, while concurrently exploiting the citizen. If the political class sees the need for reform and does something about it, well and good; the last thing we want is to see the spectacle of the citizen being hectored.

  Checks & Balances – No, only cash please . . .

  It is unfortunate that our Constitution framers did not see the need for having checks and balances against the political class. Perhaps, it was Jawaharlal Nehru's influence; he imagined that all politicians would be as noble, self-less and pure as he himself was. He did not account for the need to create 'adequate checks'. Human nature being what it is, we are paying the price sixty years after Independence, for this one blunder. In most democracies, any slightest departure by a politician from accepted civilised behaviour norms will ensure that he leaves the political scene forthwith. Many instances can be quoted in recent years. However, in India, no minimum norms for public behaviour by politicians have been established – outrageous behaviour is seen regularly without any chastisement. After all, we have had no democratic traditions in India till the middle of the last century. Our politicians still consider themselves to be like Mughal rulers. Democratic temper has not been developed nor has public opinion been channelised to enforce changes. It is important that minimum norms for behaviour by politicians must get established. Again, who is to bell the cat!

  There is the joke about the young boy learning the English language from his father, thinking that 'damned-taxes' is one word. Many young children growing up now may fail to see the distinction between goondas and politicians. The regrettable episode in 2008 of the MLA who assaulted and injured the correspondent and camera crew of a television company, is a case in point. In the same year, the TV showed a West Bengal politician berating and abusing a police inspector in his own thana, using the foulest language that would put a fishmonger's bustee to shame. Again, in another inci
dent, a minister in another state was caught on camera abusing a lady election returning officer, using objectionable language and gestures, threatening her, 'I will see you are looked after!' This was at the District Election Office; imagine the scene in hundreds of polling booths in the districts. All the above samples were caught on camera; imagine how many thousands of such incidents of objectionable behaviour go unreported. Events like these have been happening with distressing regularity in nearly every state. Indeed there was a count at some time of 'history sheeters' in the UP Assembly a few years back; it turned out that over fifty percent had some kind of brush with the law and a very large number, cutting across all parties, were indeed history sheeters – 'goonda' to the common man. Just like having a bachelor's degree is a basic qualification for any Class I or Class II government job, can one facetiously say that being a goonda is a necessary condition for climbing the political ladder?

  Who is to blame for this sorry state of affairs? The fact is that of those in charge of managing the affairs of the country at the highest levels, many are alleged crooks and goondas and history sheeters? How can the welfare of the population be left in the hands of riff-raff ? Clearly there are many, indeed a large number (probably not too large a number), of peace loving, law abiding, rare noble souls who become our legislators; but a distressingly large number have used violence of one sort or the other to climb the political ladder. How is the nation tolerating it? Why is the judiciary watching silently? Why is there no outcry among the population at large at this distressing phenomenon?

  In recent years we have had some funny, though sad, situations. In the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha ( JMM) bribery case, the courts astonishingly held, in effect, that a legislator can be bribed for his vote. In recent years we have had the 'money for questions' exposé, where the concerned legislators were not effectively punished. Some other legislators who had mishandled MPLAD funds were let off with a warning, if my memory is correct. What does all this say? This means that the legislator can do exactly what he wants, and there are no checks on his behaviour, and indeed, he is 'above the law'. How can this coexist with a democratic framework?

  As is well known, the Transparency International Assessment and that of other similar institutions is that India is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. As we have seen, there is none to check the misdeeds of our rulers; how can we expect it to be otherwise? The political class is at the top of the totem pole, the 'leaders' have to take the main blame for the state of affairs; they represent the fountainhead of the stream of corruption.

  The Way Forward – may not suit the political class . . .

  The political class has now gained total undisputed control over every aspect of national life. They dictate the activities, views and advice given by bureaucrats with a heavy hand, allowing no deviation from the norms set by themselves – the bureaucrat either follows orders or he is out. The political class has also strong links with the business class. It is widely surmised that a large number of MPs are on the 'pay roll' of one large business house or the other. Business houses can now influence many policy decisions through their direct or indirect links with the political leader. Every aspect of national life now has a politician holding the puppet strings in his hand. This is all very good, so long as things are going well. But as we have seen elsewhere, there are huge problems of governance – poverty is still rampant, corruption endemic, police and other regulatory authority ineffective, public health levels are abysmally low and the education system is in shambles. Clearly, the 'enterprise' is not doing well – it is definitely sick – perhaps not terminally so even now. When any company is in trouble, the blame will have to be accepted by the board of directors – they have to reform, change policies dramatically or abdicate. The Legislature is the supreme body. The political class heads the country – they have to recognise that major reforms are required urgently; in the main starting with themselves. Sadly, at least till now, such a recognition does not appear to have emerged among the ruling class.

  As has been seen innumerable times in India, no system or institution or organisation has found it possible to reform from within. Reform has to be directed or ultimately forced from outside. If serious reforms are not brought about in the work methods, conduct, approach, and demeanour of the ruling class, change will come willy-nilly. If it is not orderly and planned change, the change will come with a huge thud, sucking the political class along with it. It would be recalled that in the immediate aftermath of 'Emergency' in mid-'70s the initial reaction of most of the country was of satisfaction at removal of the political class from the decision-making process. One cannot rule out other contingencies, which may lead in the same direction.

  In every aspect of our daily life, the politician is on top of the totem pole. He is the leader and the grand director in every field of activity. His visibility is very high at all levels. India is probably the only country in the world where the lead story of every daily newspaper and television news relate to what this or that politician 'said' – it may be the lightest comment, but becomes newsworthy. The politician gets even more space than the film actor or the cricket wizard!

  India is a young country in terms of age distribution. The politician is now the preferred hero in the aspirations of young men and women of India. While the upper middle class, the types who live in South Mumbai and some other select spots elsewhere may have contempt for the politician, there is grudging admiration for the politician among the youth of the country as a model to emulate. Thus when politicians commit crimes, say or do unacceptable things, when legislators break the spirit of the penal code and get away with it, when parliamentarians browbeat and bully airline staff or election officers, when legislators shower intemperate abuse at police personnel; when all these are displayed on TV, this is the stuff that our young men and women are forced to look up. Just like a young school boy cricketer follows the mannerism, style and action pattern of a Sachin Tendulkar, the average young man in India in middle-and-lower-class India looks up to the politician as his real-life hero. On the one hand, this leaves a high degree of responsibility on 'celebrities', to behave well in public, in view of the well-acknowledged 'imitation syndrome'; on the other hand, since there are no forces to check the politician, and bring balance in his demeanour and actions, and since the politician considers himself the legitimate de facto successor to the erstwhile zamindar or maharaja class, he is not conscious of the responsibility. Millions imitate his peccadilloes, with disastrous national consequences. This is a direct cause of the sharp increase in corruption levels, aggressive behaviour and generally, the 'boor' quotient.

  The ethics committee and the disciplinary committee of the legislatures are popularly seen to be ineffective, which almost certainly is correct. It will be wise for the political community to self-regulate itself; in addition to resorting to the equivalent of the 'Ombudsman', also by having independent umpires from other walks of life in their ethics and disciplinary committees. The Lok Pal Bill, providing for an independent umpire with wide-ranging powers, has been on the anvil for about two decades now – everyone and every party speaks in favour of it, while ensuring that it does not see the light of the day. After all, given the Indian psyche, institutions find themselves unable to punish their own members; outside committees or commissions need to be created with powers to enforce regulation. It is probably still not too late for reforms to kick in, through a conscious effort at this stage – it may be too late after some time. The political class is at a crossroads; they need to wake up immediately to reform their own affairs.

  3

  JUDICIARY

  he very first promise of the Constitution of India is to secure 'justice' for all its citizens. Presumably, all the instruments of the Constitution are to contribute towards this end; however, the designated agency to ensure that this be done is the Judiciary. Has our judiciary lived up to this grand expectation of our founders; indeed to the duty assigned to it? The Constitution also gives a wide d
efinition of the term Justice, including in its ambit social, economic and political justice. Thus, the mandate given to this pillar of government is a very large and critical one – the judiciary is the final jury and arbiter in this regard. It will be argued that our post-Independence judiciary has interpreted this duty cast on it in a narrow and strictly limited manner, has treated its mandate and responsibilities much the same as it was in the British days, prior to the new mandate assigned to it by the Constitution. In short, the judiciary has not comprehended the very large responsibility cast on it by the sovereign independent people of India over the past sixty years or so; it has continued to function in much the same way as it did since the times of Macaulay. In the same breath, it is also necessary to mention that the judiciary is one major institution in the country that still commands the respect of the common man, and has ensured the 'rule of law' in the post-Independence era to a large extent. This is no mean achievement.

  In the period after Independence, every major institution in India has seen the need for reform in some form or the other; either reform has been thrust on these institutions or some have tried to reform on their own. This is true of our election machinery, administrative apparatus, law and order apparatus, planning and development departments and nearly every other agency. It is another issue that the reforms have not been effective or deep enough, nor have the reforms delivered the objectives of the Constitution to the people – this is the theme in the other chapters of this book. In the present chapter, it is argued that the judiciary has not felt the need for any change at all; it has not seen the need for any reform. It has continued to be essentially cloistered and immune to all changes, has failed to adopt technological advances as part of its work method. It has remained unchanged over the past hundred years or more. During this period, the calls on the judiciary have multiplied manifold, but the judiciary has not seen the need to make any worthwhile changes to respond to the various challenges, and to gear itself to discharge the high trust placed on it by the Constitution.