A crime is a crime

Not because Advani could not prevail upon the NDA, but because he was party to the decision the NDA had taken before the session not to allow parliament transact any business at its first sitting after the general election. The same message came through clearly during the discussions at the business committee of either house when the Congress leaders met the BJP. 'Let this session be like this' or 'do not press us this time' was the refrain of comments by the BJP leaders. What vicarious satisfaction the BJP or, for that matter, the NDA wanted to have by stalling the parliament is difficult to comprehend. It might be a feeling of anger for defeat at the polls or sheer disappointment for not being in office. Whatever the reason, the BJP set new precedents for disturbing the two houses.

For the first time in India's parliamentary history, the opposition did not allow a debate on the president's address. Again, for the first time, the prime minister was stopped from introducing his council of ministers to the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members. And, significantly, for the first time, the accommodative Atal Behari Vajpayee was not the opposition leader.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

When it comes to halting parliament's sessions, the Congress is not without blame. The party has disturbed both the houses repeatedly when it has been out of power. It has picked up some issue or the other to hold up the proceedings. I got so fed up with the disturbances -- I was then the Rajya Sabha member -- that I wrote the following letter to the chairman: "…

The non-transaction of business in the house is the order of the day. Despite your efforts, the house has to accept what one party or the other decides on a particular day. As a nominated member, I have practically no say in the matter. But I can at least do one thing: not to draw the sitting allowance for the days the house is adjourned because of the disturbance within. Kindly issue instructions not to give me the daily allowance for the days the house was forced not to work..."

The chairman accepted my plea and ordered the deduction of daily allowance from my emoluments. I have written this week to the speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman, citing my example and requesting them not to pay members their daily allowance so as to discourage them from stalling parliament. If 'no work, no pay' can be a dictum for workers, why not for MPs?

The NDA supporters argue that it is their right to ventilate their protest. I do not think anyone is in favour of imposing restrictions on MPs. The question is: should the protest be expressed by disturbing the proceedings in the house? On the 50th anniversary of parliament members themselves swore not to disturb parliament on any count. Still they do the opposite. MPs should realise that their protest is getting uglier, session by session. Initially, it was confined to raising points of order. Then there were walkouts. And now, it is free for all. Even when the practice of coming into the well of the house began, members respected the sanctity of the Question Hour. They have gone back on that as well. The NDA crossed all limits when it did not allow discussion on the president's address. It violated what was considered unthinkable at one time.

The disconcerting aspect is that neither the BJP, which is guilty now, nor the Congress, which was guilty in the past, has a sense of guilt. Both of them do not consider it unethical to hit below the belt. They do not seem to realise the harm they are causing to the system. The real problem is that for most of political parties and leaders, the dividing line between right and wrong, moral and immoral, has ceased to exist.

India may take pride in having a democratic structure that ensures free voting and peaceful change of government. But if parliament does not function and if one political party or the other intentionally disturbs its proceedings, democracy would cease to have any meaning. People's faith in parliament has already lessened because of MPs' conduct. The BJP leaders should have learnt a lesson from strong public annoyance over the stalling. But they have already announced that they will not allow parliament function even in the budget session, if there is no 'settlement' by then. The word 'settlement' has not been defined. Probably, the reference is to the 'tainted ministers'.

The Election Commission has a list of some 100 MPs who have criminal proceedings going on against them. They are from all parties, 26 from the BJP, 15 from the Congress, 5 from the CPI(M) and 54 from other groups. An intrepid weekly has culled out information from the affidavits which candidates had submitted to the returning officer at the time of filing their nomination paper. It is obligatory for a candidate to give a list of criminal cases against him.

Long before the polls, some human rights activists persuaded the Election Commission to make candidates disclose their police record. Political parties joined hands to make government issue an ordinance to negate the commission's ruling. The Supreme Court struck it down, making it mandatory for all candidates to declare their criminal antecedents. The NDA wanted to introduce a bill to exclude persons charge-sheeted in two or more heinous offences from contesting elections. The Congress did not agree to it.

The BJP has unnecessarily tried to differentiate between what it considers 'political crime' and 'regular crime'. A crime is a crime, whether motivated by political considerations or others. One is no less heinous than the other. The point at issue is not the type of crime, but the crime itself. Parties should not politicise the problem but try to find a solution.

To begin with, those MPs against whom the court has framed charges should not be eligible for election. Apparently this will not be acceptable to the BJP because at one stage the court had framed charges against Advani in the Babri-masjid demolition case. Still, a 'settlement' to reignite the functioning of parliament cannot be at the expense of justice.

Tainted ministers or MPs should have no place in parliament, the highest court in a democratic country. Had the institution of Ombudsman been in position -- what the successive governments had promised -- the cases of tainted ministers and MPs could have been referred to it. But what do we do in the meanwhile? Maybe, once a 'tainted' person is elected to the legislature or parliament or appointed minister, the hearing of cases against him should take place daily for an early verdict. Special courts can be established for this purpose. It may not be an ideal solution but it will be a 'settlement' of sorts.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.