House Of Horrors

So, they sat and reshuffled. You might well have been in Las Vegas. The likelihood of the Indian people winning in this game is as low as hitting the jackpot in the mafia-run gaming tables or slot machines. The reshuffled cards they dealt had at least two jokers, one King, two Jacks and did I miss a Queen, or is she still in the closet? Did the reshuffle mean anything would change for us, the people? Would it mean better governance? Would it mean that all the flowery promises in the manifesto for an India with education, water, electricity, medical care for all, including rural India, actually happen? Hell, even the average Delhiite can't get these necessities without a petitionary prayer to God up there and the grease of a palm to the local God down here. What this reshuffle really showed up was that getting the country on track is low on the priority list, getting re-elected is on top. This displayed institutionalised cynicism, where politicians do not even have to appear that they have the best interests of the nation in mind but can flaunt party and self-interest above all. Why should lack of merit ever come in the way of taking over a ministry a man knows nothing about?

When all political parties are coming together to sneeze at the Election Commission for asking electoral candidates to disclose their criminal antecedents and assets, what does it tell you? Obviously, they are infringing on the right of the people to know. Hey, most of us already know. Many are quite happy that the local criminal who made everybody's life miserable will perhaps be more taken up with his life in Delhi. In fact, probably the best thing that happened to India is that so many of the corrupt and incompetent are in Parliament. All that some of them do there is take money to ask questions and scream at each other, if they go there at all. (Yet, they can be terribly attentive and shrewd sometimes—like when the chewing police actually caught someone committing the sin of chewing what they thought was gum). At least they are out of the way. Think of the havoc this corrupt and incompetent lot could create if they were let loose in the private sector. Now, that would be real damage.

Philosopher John Locke argued that the state of nature is a pre-political, yet moral society where humans are bound by divinely-commanded natural law. A social contract is made between citizens who institute a government to prevent people from occasionally violating natural law. This contract between citizens establishes an absolute democracy which is ruled by the general will or what is best for the people. So when the authors of our Constitution sat down to create it, it was written responsive to those times, by people emerging from a freedom struggle, with ideals as yet not jaded by realpolitik. How could they have possibly imagined that our Parliament would be populated by those who would have reason to hide their criminal records from the people? In those days, all those who had gone to jail in the freedom struggle wore that record as a badge of honour. The record of past elections is now screaming for a re-negotiation of this social contract, between the government and the people. The Election Commission has asked for five points to be disclosed: any records of past conviction, details of sentence, details of pending cases six months prior to date of nomination, assets and liabilities of candidates, spouses and dependents, and, finally, educational qualifications. Now, political parties who cannot agree on anything have come together to fight this. Why don't they spell it out clearly? All these politicians should give public speeches to thousands of people (even if they have been paid to attend the rally, as they normally are) and clearly announce, "We do not want to disclose our criminal records, or assets, or educational qualifications.We want your support in our fight against the Election Commission." Do I not recall speeches laden with "transparent government" both by Congress and BJP politicians? As the Constitution exists today, there is enough confusing legalese and lacunae to wriggle out of it, even if it is passed. Why, for example, did our learned elders write, in The Representation of People Act, 1951, that "nominations that are not substantially defective shall not be rejected." Who decides what is 'substantial'? The Union government. Are we crediting the authors with a little too much innocence? Or, are we going to be irreverent and call them intellectually-challenged? Well, it's got to be one or the other. Either a horrendous protectionism or utter stupidity. But, I wouldn't have the guts to do such a terrible thing.

India has pretty much run the gamut of all Political Schools of Thought: Monarchy, Colonialism, Socialism, Anarchism (all the time), Dictatorship (Indira's Emergency), Capitalism, Fundamentalism, Environmentalism (just barely), and now we have a new one, Bamboozlism. The political parties have united to bamboozle the public. We are forced to become a passive, disgruntled majority. But, what can you do? You can create signature campaigns where you work and where you live, write letters to your local mla, to newspapers and magazines, join the rallies being organised. Naive to expect impact? Beats whining and doing nothing.

It makes you wonder: what if one party had decided to take the moral high ground and actually support the reforms suggested by the Election Commission? How would they have been viewed by the people, I mean, the voters? If you compare the manifesto of each party issued before the elections, you can't tell one from the other. The only cards these reshuffled packs deal are either the Hindu or the Muslim card. And, when elections roll around, we will have a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. So are you going to be a part of the passive majority or are you going to do something?

(The author can be contacted at madhutee@yahoo.com.)