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.
Now 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 Elders set their House in order,
or else the coming months will decide whether the Rajya Sabha
will make Indian politics more messy and unworkable.
Poonam I Kaushish, INFA
Print This Page
Terms
and Conditions