|
|
| August 07, 2000 | ||
METRO TODAY | DAILY NEWS | ASTROLOGY | ARCHIVES | INDIA TODAY | HOME |
|
|
| POLITICALLY CORRECT Full-Time Freeload Term limits and asset disclosure are needed to make our politicians behave By P.Chidambaram
There was a time when, in every walk of life, there were men and women who rose to dizzying heights of professional excellence, yet led austere lives. Politics was a blessed vocation. Between 1909 and 1947, some of the best minds were drawn to politics. They had no goal except freedom and reaped no reward save imprisonment. In 1962, Rajendra Prasad stepped down after serving 10 years as President of India. He retired to Sadaqat Ashram in Patna where, as the story goes, he shared a common toilet with other inmates. Because he did not own a house anywhere in India. When the legendary Kamaraj died, he left behind a dozen shirts and dhotis, a few hundred rupees and his personal effects. The house in which he lived had been taken on rent by the Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) and the car he used also belonged to the PCC. He left no will. Such examples were legion. In every part of India one could point to a freedom fighter, a trade-union leader, a communist or a Gandhian constructive worker who lived frugally and died penniless. Many of them belonged to political parties and were regarded as politicians. Because they devoted their entire life to the cause of the people they were icons, and their pictures adorned homes alongside pictures of gods and goddesses. Consider the sea-change that has taken place in both cricket and politics in a matter of about 30 years. We not only have full-time politicians, we also have full-time student leaders who are not students and full-time youth wing leaders who are no longer young. Apparently -- and I repeat, apparently -- they do nothing else. They do not hold full or part-time jobs or own businesses or practise professions. They eat, drink and sleep politics. Being full-time in politics breeds an attitude. An attitude towards money, power, the law and fellow humans. Take money. A full-timer, with no known source of income, expects others to give him money, and devises ways and means to make others feel obliged to give him money. There are hundreds who live off money provided by far-sighted businessmen. There is an unwritten code that no one asks questions like: How does this person live in Delhi? Who pays for his house, car or Mont Blanc? Examine the politician's attitude towards the law. It is one of contempt, and a fine illustration is the ridiculous drama over the case of Bal Thackeray. Would Chhagan Bhujbal have directed the arrest of any other writer for an inflammatory editorial published nine years ago? And would any other editorial writer have threatened that Mumbai would go up in flames if he were arrested? It is the full-time politician's attitude that encourages a Jaya Jaitly to give a clean chit to Ajay Jadeja minutes after the Income-Tax Department has conducted a well-directed raid. It is that attitude which emboldens a neta to stop a train to allow his ticketless supporters to board it. It is that attitude which prompts a minister to boast that he spent Rs 5 lakh "out of my own pocket" to re-decorate the government bungalow allotted to him. We do not have the rule of law. We have rule by law. There are laws, but the State and the minders of the State are above the law. Among full-time politicians, there are honourable exceptions such as A.K. Antony, Indrajit Gupta and Nanaji Deshmukh. But by and large, people regard a full-time politician as a menace to civil society. But no democratic polity, as we understand it, can do without political parties or politicians. So, what do we do? I have some unpopular prescriptions:
Who knows, after 20 or 30 years, we may have more gentlemen in politics. The
author is a former Indian finance minister and a TMC
leader. |
|
||||||||||
| Top |
 BUSINESS TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | COMPUTERS TODAY | CARE TODAY Write to us | Subscriptions | Advertise
with us |
Vinoo Mankad and Pankaj Roy hold
the record for the highest first-wicket partnership in
Test cricket. They held mid-level jobs, belonged to the
middle-class and were allowed, by the Board of Control
for Cricket in India, benefit matches. Mankad, Roy and
many others were cricketers and gentlemen. None -- not
even the players -- thought that they deserved more for
playing cricket for the country.