|
POLITICAL DIARY
Rajya Sabha Hits New Low
SLEAZE & SURROGATE GALORE
By Poonam I Kaushish
New Delhi, April 01, 2008
Now a 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 members 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)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com |
