





|
Act Your
Age Decorum is a prerequisite for
democracy. Try telling the MPs that.
Each time a parliamentary session begins, India hopes the
repositories of its democratic trust will work hard, legislate after informed debate and
take part in collective and constructive governance. Each time a parliamentary session
ends, India's hopes lie dashed, its MPs having set new standards in infamy. The recent
winter session is a case in point. Aside from the usual filibustering, there was the shame
of members agitating while the national song, Vande Mataram, was being sung. The
razor-thin divide between the treasury and opposition benches in the Lok Sabha should be a
symbol of India's keenly contested elections. Instead, it has become the excuse to scupper
the legislature. Bills can be discussed and defeated, if the proposing MP's case is not
persuasive enough. This standard parliamentary practice is in tatters today. So ludicrous
is the situation that while introducing bills ministers stand in the third or fourth row
rather than the first, guarded as it were by fellow cabinet members. The reason: to
prevent the papers from being snatched and destroyed. In mid-1998 an MP was even accused
of carrying a pistol into the Lok Sabha. The allegation may have been untrue; the tragedy
is it was so believable.
In the very week in which the legislation on patents and on
the formation of new states created such a tumult, the House of Representatives impeached
President Bill Clinton in a process which was marked by copious quantities of sleaze and
tension -- but was conducted with clockwork precision. India adopted the Westminster model
of governance without assimilating the Westminster model of parliamentary values. The
snide remarks, the ideological schism, the ferocious rivalry: Conservative and Labour
hardliners can be as fiercely opposed to each other as, say, the Samajwadi Party and the
BJP. Yet, in London the rules of the game remain sacrosanct. In Delhi they are eminently
negotiable. Today it's the rules; some day the game itself may be deemed dispensable.
Dishonouring JP
Why posthumous awards amount to rewriting history.
Even his political opponents -- and he had plenty -- would
acknowledge that Jayaprakash Narayan was extremely deserving of the Bharat Ratna. Yet it
does no credit to "JP", as the great man was known, to award him India's supreme
civilian honour 20 years after his death. There is always something suspicious about
posthumous awards. In the early '90s, P.V. Narasimha Rao's government gave Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose the Bharat Ratna at the height of the
then prime minister's attempt to insulate the Congress from the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. The
problem was the recognition came a good four decades after Patel and Bose had departed
from public life. Now the BJP-led coalition's rivals are reading meanings into the
conferment of the Ratna on JP. It is being seen in the context of a larger attempt to
reinvoke the anti-Emergency, anti-Congress spirit which JP embodied and which spurred so
many in the current ruling alliance as well as in the nebulous "third front".
The manipulation of national symbols is not unique to the
BJP. Nevertheless only an unwholesome polity can revel in the post-facto political
appropriation of what should be a shared legacy. In the short run, these measures serve a
political purpose and even make for electoral gains. Thus it is not inconceivable that a
backward caste leader from Bihar will now demand the Param Vir Chakra for Chandragupta
Maurya or a party seeking to cultivate a Muslim vote bank will promise to give Emperor
Akbar the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding. This may sound
ridiculous but it is entirely in keeping with a mindset which doesn't think twice before
making a plaything of history. Rather than pointing to the glory of those long gone, the
BJP regime would do well to unearth the talent which lies unsung in contemporary India. |