MLAs jumping ship and resort politics are condemnable. There’s a lot that our elected representatives need to learn from what Gandhi had expected of them
One can easily recall umpteen instances of MLAs changing their ideological and political loyalties for reasons best known to them. Leaders who defect justify it as “the wish of the people.” When the floor-crossing happened for the first time in Haryana, when an MLA switched party thrice in a day, the term, Aaya Ram Gaya Ram (party-switching) gained prominence in the political discourse — right from the chaupals to the Central Hall of Parliament — but was brushed aside as an “aberration.” Slowly but steadily, the practice gained ground. Who can forget Bhajan Lal, the former Chief Minister of Haryana, who migrated to the then newly-elected ruling party at the Centre, lock, stock and barrel and retained his position?
The practice was subsequently polished and upgraded by leaders of all hues. One could go on counting the number of luxury hotels that have been used by parties to house their MLAs on numerous occasions. What happened in Rajasthan says it all. The MLAs, who enjoyed a comfortable stay in hotels at different locations in Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, were convinced that if they went to their home State and their constituencies, they would not be able to resist the temptation of lucrative offers that would be waiting outside to change hands.
What normally should be considered as a humiliating slur by any dignified individual is now taking shape as an “unwritten” but “acceptable” code across the board and has become a parliamentary practice in Indian democracy. Every major political party has tried this on several occasions. One wonders how these MLAs would react if Mahatma Gandhi walked into their room and asked them, “kaise hain aap? (How are you?)” The Rajasthan episode is almost over and nobody condemned the happenings, not even those who have risen on several occasions to express their concern regarding the attack on constitutional values. I find their silence amazing.
What’s even more surprising is that those, who usually come up with joint statements expressing concerns about what they consider “Constitutional impropriety, an attack on secular values and ethical lapses”, never come up to denigrate this unethical and immoral practice that makes fun of democracy and lowers the esteem of the elected representatives themselves. It is a shameless strategy that should not find a place in a vibrant, functional democracy.
Why isn’t there all-round condemnation of the Rajasthan drama of MLAs being herded from one hotel to the other — under strict State security — as unconstitutional, unethical and immoral? Even known groups of retired bureaucrats — who suddenly appear on the scene to showcase their concerns about the erosion of social cohesion, religious amity and constitutional propriety — never thought it fit to condemn this derogatory practice of herding of elected representatives. Do they find this practice to be in sync with the Constitutional framework and in consonance with moral and ethical considerations?
In 1922, Gandhiji had written in a letter that Swaraj would not bring happiness to his people. He had said that four things would weigh heavily against it. Three of them were injustice, burden of administration and treachery of the rich. The fourth, that surprised me the most when I came to know about it, related to “defects of elections.” How could he write about defections in 1922? I was told the Mahatma had studied the British election system very thoroughly. Gifted with a prophetic futuristic vision, he could anticipate the shape of things so accurately.
I often wonder whether the MLAs in Rajasthan, who enjoyed a comfortable all-expenses-paid stay in luxury hotels, even remember that they are inheritors of the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Rajendra Prasad and other stalwarts of the freedom struggle. These worthy elected representatives are, in fact, panch parmeshwars of democracy. They are occupying a seat, the incumbent of which is bound to the Constitution by an oath of affirmation.
One wonders how many of them are aware of that eternal eye-opener sentence by Mahatma Gandhi: “If, instead of insisting on rights, everyone does his duty, there will immediately be the rule of order established among mankind.” Are such herded stays part of the duty of the elected representatives? Do they not realise that they are being presented in public as weaklings, who would not be able to resist monetary temptations if allowed to move out of the hotel?
If these worthies could sit together with their family members, including their children, and seek their opinion on being made a part of the “pliable group”, one is confident they would get the right advice. No child would like his parent to be treated as a saleable commodity. Many of them may have read or attended speeches where references were made to a query put before Mahatma Gandhi: What is your message to the people? He replied, “My life is my message.” Would our MLAs be in a position to tell their children that they could derive strength from their experiences? It appears that everyone — right from the Chief Minister to the Speakers; the party in power to those in the Opposition; and all others who matter — have their interpretations of the Constitution and Constitutional propriety. It is worthwhile to recall that under the Government of India Act of 1935, elections were held in 1936-37 in various provinces and provincial Governments were formed. All Ministers of the then Congress Government had resigned in November 1939. Gandhiji was ever vigilant, he consistently expressed his opinion on how legislators and Ministers should be performing their new duties and they should always think about the welfare of the people. He was, in a way, educating the legislators and Ministers in those days when his overarching presence on the scene itself was a deterrent against anyone breaking the norms: “The holding of any office in the Congress Government must be in the spirit of service, without the slightest expectation of personal gains.”
Our distinguished legislators can ponder over Gandhian thoughts: “There is a beauty and an art in simplicity which he who runs may see. It does not require money to be neat, clean and dignified. Pomp and pageantry are often synonymous with vulgarity.” It is indeed a pity that our young ones are witnessing a political world in which — exceptions apart — elected representatives, Ministers and legislators have forsaken the Gandhian philosophy, ideas and dreams. They are doing all this knowing it fully well that it would hurt the Mahatma’s memory.
When reports emerge of legislators’ assets multiplying by a factor of say 500, the common man’s reaction is obvious — it would definitely be devoid of respect, confidence or a connect. In 1937-39, those who became legislators and Ministers were men and women who had entered the freedom struggle — not a political party but a national movement that offered only sacrifice, toil, sufferings and jail terms. Elections and legislative positions came just by chance. But allurements were still there and senior leaders were alert to guide and to “examine the utility value of the legislators.”
And for the Ministers, the guidelines were: “The Ministers are [the people’s] servants. They can do nothing against the express wishes of the people. They will not stay in office a day longer than the people wish.” There is much more for the Chief Ministers, Ministers and the legislators to ponder over. Are the Gandhian ideas totally out of bounds for those who still swear to be the inheritors of his legacy? If not, how could they ignore Gandhiji’s words and deeds? “This office-holding is a step towards either greater prestige or its total loss. If it is not to be a total loss, the Ministers and the legislators have to be watchful of their own personal and public conduct. They have to be, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion in everything. They may not make private gains for themselves or their relatives or friends.”
The least people expect from their legislators is that they do not surrender courage of conviction that a citizen can be proud of, particularly those who are in public life and are expected to enjoy the trust and confidence of their electors. They must ultimately be true to the people. They must not subjugate themselves to the whims and fancies of those who wish to retain power or gain power at any cost.
There is a lot for the elected representatives to whom Gandhiji advised not to “arrogate to themselves greater knowledge than those experienced men who do not happen to occupy the ministerial chairs.” Obviously, this applies equally to every elected person.
(The writer works in education and social cohesion)
