Grim arc of Indian politics

“The question arises whether in the present case this should be done or something else. I do submit that it is perfectly clear that this case is not even a case which might be called a marginal case, where people may have two opinions about it, where one may have doubts if a certain course suggested is much too severe. The case, if I may say so, is as bad as it could well be. If we consider even such a case as a marginal case, or as one as where perhaps some laxity might be shown, I think it will be unfortunate for a variety of points of view, more especially because, this being the first case of its kind coming up before this House, if the House does not express its will in such matters in clear, unambiguous and forceful terms, then doubts may very well arise in the public mind as to whether the House is very definite in such matters or not. Therefore I do submit that it has become a duty for us and an obligation to be clear, precise and definite. The facts are clear and precise, and the decision should also be clear, precise and unambiguous. And I submit the decision of the House should be, after accepting the finding of this report, to resolve that the member should be expelled from the House.”

Thus spake Jawaharlal Nehru, the leader of the House, in the provisional Parliament on September 24, 1951, while moving a motion to expel a Member of Parliament, HD Mudgal. It is worth noting that this was even before polling for the first general election was held between October 25, 1951, and March 27, 1952.

What was Mudgal guilty of? Asking questions in Parliament in order to help, canvass support, and making propaganda in Parliament for the Bombay Bullion Association in return for alleged financial and other business advantages.

As the enquiry against him proceeded, Mudgal wanted to resign his membership of Parliament but Nehru insisted that he be expelled so that he could never contest elections again.

Compare this to what happened on July 28, 1993, when four MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha voted to support the then party in power in a no-confidence motion. It was clear that the four JMM MPs had been paid money by the Congress Party because Rs 1.02 crore were found in the bank accounts of the four MPs by the tax authorities and the MPs claimed that this was a voluntary donation by the Congress “for the cause espoused by the party and for the welfare of the people of Jharkhand”. The MPs were of course acquitted of any wrongdoing by the Supreme Court on April 17, 1998, in a 3-2 majority judgment, because Article 105(2) of the Constitution says that “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything, said or any vote given by him in Parliament…”

And then who can forget the drama of an MP displaying wads of currency notes in the Lok Sabha claiming that the notes were the bribe given to him by another party to cast his vote according to their choice? The date was July 28, 2008.

There are of course the cash seizures by the Election Commission of India during elections which have now become a regular feature.

The last example is the celebrated case of an MP saying on June 27, 2013, just before the 2014 Lok Sabha election, in a public meeting where a serving Chief Minister and a former president of his party were present, “I spent Rs 29,000 when I contested my first Assembly poll in 1980. But had to spend Rs 8 crore for my last (2009 Lok Sabha) election.” He also added, “I hope no Election Commission official is present among the audience. Even if an Election Commission authority is present six more months are to go for the Lok Sabha polls. Even if a case is filed, so be it.” The sworn election expenditure affidavit that he submitted to the Election Commission said that he had spent only Rs 17 lakh! The limit on election expenditure was Rs 25 lakh.

When Election Commission issued a notice to this MP asking why his election should not be set aside for spending more than the limit, and for the wrong declaration of the election expenditure, he responded by saying “My exclamation that Rs 8 crore was spent in the last election has to be read and heard, as a figure of speech a rhetoric and nothing more.”

Add to this the debates every time Parliament votes to increase the salaries and perks of MPs. One of the stock arguments is that these people sacrifice their careers for ‘serving the nation’ and should be appropriately compensated. Comparisons are made with senior government officials and corporate sector executives. The perks, of course, are kept out of the discussion.

To put it in context, analysis of assets self-declared by candidates contesting elections to Parliament and State Assembly shows that on average, 50-60 per cent of the candidates declare assets of over one crore, and about 60-70 per cent of those elected are crorepatis. And here is some hard data: In the last Himachal Pradesh elections, 76 per cent, and in the Gujarat elections 77 per cent of the elected MLAs, were crorepatis.

The author is a former Professor, Dean, and Director In-charge of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Views are personal