Parliament's
shastipoorti passed with no more than token celebrations – daylong
sessions, a commemorative stamp and coin, some classical music, and
that was it. It is no small achievement that democracy has survived
in reasonable strength in our feudal and fractured society. But the
threats we face are not small either which perhaps made muted
celebrations more appropriate. After all, how exuberant can we get
when honourable members of Parliament have to compete with
dishonourable ones in both houses.
In their
ceremonial speeches, MPs expressed pride in the legacy of 60 years.
This was of course fully justified. But that pride was earned almost
exclusively during the first quarter century of independence. That
was when great parliamentarians like H. V. Kamath and Nath Pai,
Inderjit Gupta and A. K. Gopalan graced the benches, not to mention
senior leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, G. B. Pant and Shyama Prasad
Mukherjee. The standards of debate and dignity they maintained made
India something of a marvel. Wit, too, reigned supreme. Piloo Modi
would send a note across to “I.G.” and Indira Gandhi would send
her reply addressed to “P.M.”.
Ironically,
it was during the Indira years that pride began giving way to shame.
Sanjay Gandhi, pampered as a son and feared as a politician, changed
the goal posts with immunity. For the first time, India saw a public
figure doing what he jolly well pleased in public life, with neither
the Constitution, nor Parliament, nor the courts able to check him.
He brought street culture into Parliament by introducing the tactic
of shouting down opponents. That set a trend which continues to this
day.
Perhaps our
early mentors saw the possibility of rowdy elements capturing the
system. Ambedkar had warned: However good a constitution, it was
sure to turn out to be bad if those who were called to work it
happened to be a bad lot. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was sharper when
he said: Our opportunities are great, but let me warn you that when
power outstrips ability, we will fall on evil days.
What
actually happened was worse. Not only did power outstrip ability;
money outstripped power, and criminality outstripped money. The
catastrophic impact of this fall in standards was there for the whole
world to see. In 2005 eleven MPs were caught accepting cash for
raising questions in Parliament. In 2008 three MPs displayed bundles
of currency notes in the Lok Sabha claiming an attempt to bribe them.
A Parliament
that has been reduced to this amoral level can have no claim on the
legacy of the 1950s and 1960s. All that today's Parliament can claim
is credit for forefeiting its heritage. Criticism of Parliament has
become loud and widespread in recent years. MPs repeatedly proclaim
that they are elected representatives of the people, but as a class
they hardly command the respect of the people. This is because the
“elected representatives” are less concerned with issues
affecting the people and more with their own salary and allowances,
their vast local area development funds, their travel privileges, red
beacons on their cars and other ways of squeezing and browbeating the
people.
And there is
a serious issue of conflict of interests, too. The real work of
Parliament is done at committee level. Parliamentary committees are
powerful entities because their decisions often translate into
policies. So what happens when Vijay Kingfisher Mallya is on the
Parliamentary Committee on Civil Aviation? Will such committees
protect citizens' interests as they are supposed to do, or end up
protecting vested interests?
Some 128
members of the Lok Sabha are from the business class. Several
high-end business leaders get into the Rajya Sabha. The problem
inherent in this reality has been highlighted in a private member's
bill seeking to stop the conflict of interests in the work of MPs.
The bill “looks at the very root of corruption”, but will it have
half a chance of getting passed? That question raises another, more
vexing one: How do we get out of the evil days that Dr Radhakrishnan
warned us about?