People's Democracy

Prakash Karat

PARLIAMENT has expelled eleven of its members – ten from the Lok Sabha and one from the Rajya Sabha – for taking money for asking questions. The public perception is that corruption is widespread in politics and those guilty are never held to account, or, punished. That is why the strict action taken to remove the eleven MPs has been widely appreciated. Parliament, in this instance, has moved in step with the people’s opinion.

When the television exposure of the MPs taking bribes took place, all the political parties responded immediately and wanted firm action taken. The BJP, whose six MPs were caught on camera, came out immediately condemning the action of the MPs. L K Advani, the BJP president and leader of the opposition, suspended the six MPs from the parliamentary party. He assured the Lok Sabha Speaker his party’s full cooperation in whatever action the House may contemplate. The Congress, the BSP and the RJD whose members were involved also followed suit.

The Speaker of the Lok Sabha appointed a Special Committee consisting of five members to inquire into the affair and recommend the steps to be taken. In the Rajya Sabha, the Ethics Committee was entrusted with the job. Within ten days, both committees submitted their reports. However, the BJP began to backtrack from the stand it had taken at the outset. In both the House Committees, the BJP members, Vijay Kumar Malhotra and Sushma Swaraj respectively, submitted dissenting notes. They argued that further inquiries are required. Malhotra suggested that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee, while Sushma Swaraj opined that a reference to the Supreme Court be made. Both were not for the committees recommending the disciplinary action of removal and argued for further inquiries and legal procedures to be undertaken.

In the Lok Sabha, L K Advani came out with a startling defence of the accused MPs. He stated that. "It is right that it is a case of corruption. But more than corruption, it is stupidity. It is stupidity that they fell for the lure, of the sting operation". According to him, the MPs naively believed the sting journalists to be NGO representatives and fell into the trap. Considering the punishment disproportionate to the offence committed, Advani led a walkout of the BJP and some of the NDA allies. This volte face took some of the NDA allies by surprise too. The JD (U), for instance, voted for the resolution expelling the MPs.

What accounts for the stand taken by Advani and the BJP? It may be argued that the BJP was loath to lose six of its MPs from Parliament. Given the low tide in the party’s fortunes, this could be a heavy loss to bear. This is a rather simplistic view. The malaise goes deeper. The six year stint in office at the centre has corroded the party’s fibre and made a big section susceptible to corruption. This corrosion did not affect only the BJP but also the RSS functionaries. While in office, its elected representatives and functionaries had numerous opportunities to make money. It is not just the backbench MPs who have accepted money; out of the six, two were ministers in the Vajpayee government. It is the apprehension that a firm stand against corruption would further affect the party and widen the circle of those involved that led the BJP leadership to try and put brakes on the gathering momentum to take strict action to cleanse the system.

Parliament has taken the right course of action. The Supreme Court, in the JMM MPs bribery case, had held under Article 105 (2) of the Constitution that an MP shall not be liable to prosecution and court proceedings "in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in parliament". By this retrograde interpretation, the Court held that MPs taking bribes cannot be prosecuted but the bribe-givers can be proceeded against.

Given this judgement, the quickest way to take action was by parliament itself setting up an enquiry mechanism and acting on its recommendations. Instead of appreciating the prompt and decisive action taken by parliament, the major opposition party, the BJP, has put itself against firm action against corruption. The stand taken by L K Advani and the BJP in the Lok Sabha has demolished the party’s claim that it is committed to ‘su raj’.

After this brazen attempt at sheltering the MPs caught indulging in corrupt practices, L K Advani sought to divert the issue. On reaching Mumbai to attend the BJP’s national council meeting, Advani declared, "Corruption will not be eradicated from the country till the Congress is defeated, as it is the prime source of corruption". He cited the Volcker panel report and the exit of Natwar Singh from the central government as evidence of widespread corruption of the Congress. While it is true that corruption was institutiona-lised by the Congress, particularly during the period of the Narasimha Rao government, Advani seems to have forgotten that the BJP has overtaken the Congress in this sphere too. The record of the six years of the BJP rule from 1998 to 2004 is replete with instances of high level corruption. The tehelka tapes, the allotment of petrol pumps and gas agencies to BJP/RSS functionaries, the defence deals now being probed and various other scams made it amply evident to the people the hollowness of the claim that the BJP is `a party with a difference’.

Soon after the questions-for-money scandal, six MPs have been exposed in the MPLADS corruption scandal. Three of them belong to the BJP. It is an open secret that in many states, the MPLAD funds are siphoned off through the corrupt practices of a politician-bureaucrat-contractor nexus. It is only in the states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura that such loot of public funds does not take place. There are also a number of members of parliament outside these three states who are conscientious and ensure that the funds are properly utilised. But, overall, the scheme which allows MPs to decide how two crore rupees per annum are to be utilised has proved to be a source of corruption and a system which bypasses the three-tier panch-ayat system and the local bodies.

The CPI(M) was the sole national political party which opposed the introduction of this scheme in 1993. It had argued that these funds should go directly to the zilla parishads and elected bodies. However, when the scheme was put into place, despite the Party’s objections, we have ensured that the funds are allotted not by the MP but by the Party in consultation with the district committees.

The exposure on television of the widespread misuse of the MPLAD scheme has underlined the correct stand of the CPI(M). We have reiterated that the MPLAD scheme should be abolished and the funds allotted to the zilla parishads/panchayats and local bodies through the state governments. Here again, neither the BJP nor the Congress are willing to abolish the scheme.

The BJP’s softness for corrupt practices extends to patronage of criminal elements in politics too. Recently there was the spectacle of the top BJP leadership joining the campaign launched after the murder of its MLA, Krishanand Rai, in Ghazipur district in Uttar Pradesh. The dharna by Rajnath Singh in Varanasi was addressed by both Advani and Vajpayee. A nyaya yatra was taken out in districts of eastern UP. Mukhtar Ansari, a mafia don and the independent MLA from Mau and Krishanand Rai with his criminal links were locked in an inter-gang war. The BJP has cynically used this murder to give it a communal twist. Efforts were made to target the muslim community and foment violence. In Ghazipur, some muslim houses were attacked and a lawyer died from injuries sustained in the attack. The dharna at Varanasi and the yatra were used for communal propaganda. Coming in the wake of the riots in Mau in November, these activities show the cynical manner in which the BJP uses communalism and criminalisation in politics. Such politics inevitably breeds corruption and contempt for ethical values.

It has been noted that no communist MPs are involved in the scandals exposed so far. This is not accidental. The CPI(M) is constantly vigilant to ensure that its elected representatives and leading cadres are immune to the corrupt influences which are so pervasive in our society. It is by continuous political and ideological education and organisational measures that the Party maintains its rectitude and ethical standards. In the states where the Party has a big mass base and a large number of elected representatives, guidelines for those holding public office and a code of conduct for elected represen-tatives, at all levels, have been formulated and enforced. In the 18th congress held in April 2005, the Party has asked all states to formulate such guidelines and codes of conduct. The CPI(M) has a proud record of its elected representatives acting and living by the principle of public service. Those holding public office are conscious of how they deal with public funds. Keeping up such standards requires ceaseless efforts and struggles to rectify individual lapses and wrong trends.