Lalu takes public morals to new low
- Dr P.C.
Alexander
Certain developments of the last few weeks show the low levels to which standards of public conduct can sink in our country. I have in view three instances in particular. They are (l) the onslaught on two members of the Election Commission (EC) by Mr Saptarishi, a senior bureaucrat who was observer for the 2004 elections in Chapra in Bihar, (2) the strident demand publicly made by Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav for the resignation of these two members, and (3) Ms Mayawati’s sharp rebuke of the Central government for not stopping the investigation by the CBI into certain allegations of corruption levelled against her.
These events had hit the headlines in the media for a couple of days, but people seem to have treated the statements of the two politicians as part of their normal style and therefore not a matter to be worried about. As regards the serious allegations made by Mr Saptarishi against the EC, most people appear to have taken them only as the fulminations of a frustrated bureaucrat who has been overlooked for promotion to the grade of secretary in the Central government. However, these developments of the last one month have caused serious concern to all those interested in seeing that proper standards of conduct are maintained by those holding responsible positions in public life.
Take the case of Mr Saptarishi. He is experienced enough to have known that under Section 58 (a) of the Representation of the People Act the only authority competent to decide whether an election should be countermanded or not, is the EC. The EC takes into account not only the recommendations of the observer but several other relevant inputs and then takes a decision according to its best judgment.
This is a routine procedure followed everywhere, and nobody, least of all a government servant, makes any fuss or controversy about such decisions. However, Saptarishi waits for a whole year after the Chapra election and just two months before he is to retire from service, goes public making grave allegations of caste bias and lack of impartiality and integrity against the two members of the EC.
The explanation that he would have acted under political pressure makes his conduct more indefensible. The machinery of government for taking disciplinary action against erring bureaucrats moves very slowly and, therefore, it may take some more time to know the nature of the punishment he may receive for his most unusual behaviour. This is a case of a calculated assault on the integrity of a highly respected constitutional authority in the country and, therefore, the action taken in this case has to be of such a nature as would serve as a serious message to the whole class of government servants in the country.
Let us now examine the implications of Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav’s demand for the resignation of the two members of the EC based on Saptarishi’s allegations. There are certain things which a member of the Cabinet in any democracy should not even think of doing. One of them is that a minister should not criticise publicly constitutional functionaries like judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, members of the Election Commission, Vigilance Commission etc.
Lalu Prasad Yadav’s justification for demanding the resignation of the two members of the EC is that serious allegations of partiality and caste bias have been made by a senior IAS officer and, therefore, they cannot be ignored. But he overlooks the fact that such allegations have been made by an IAS officer against two functionaries who are themselves senior to him in the service to which he belongs.
This is not an issue which can be dismissed on the ground that it is the minister’s usual style of speaking and therefore need not be taken serious note of. The issue involved is one of propriety which everyone holding high public office should observe. The least which the Prime Minister can do now is to lay down a code of conduct for the ministers so that proper norms will be observed by all concerned in future. A common code of conduct has now become as important as the Common Minimum Programme. If Lalu Prasad Yadav’s action would lead to the introduction of such a code, it would be considered as a good result of an otherwise bad episode.
Ms Mayawati’s angry statement protesting about the investigations by the CBI into certain allegations of corruption against her has come in for criticism in the media mainly for the sharpness of her language (“cobras” “snakes” etc.), but those who stop with the criticism of her language, seem to have not adequately understood the seriousness of the contents of her statement. Two issues raised in her statement deserve serious notice.
The first is her stand that since she had been supporting the government from outside, it was incumbent on the government to shield her from the harassment and humiliation of investigation by the CBI. Even though she does not expressly says so, the statement conveys the impression that this has to be the quid pro quo for her support.
Another important point to be noted in Ms Mayawati’s statement is that the CBI investigation into the allegations of corruption against her is an act of discrimination based on caste bias. She goes to the extent of saying that such investigations are not merely an insult to her but are an insult to the entire dalit community. In order to prove her charge of discrimination, she cites the example of the government’s decision not to prosecute Mr Satish Sharma former Congress minister for petroleum on allegations of corruption against him and accuses the government of double standards in dealing with her and Sharma.
The government, of course, would claim that the two cases are not comparable, but Ms Mayawati insists that the CBI investigations against her are discriminatory and influenced by caste considerations.
Both her contentions show the extent to which even a very senior political leader like her can go in expressing her protest and anger against the government for not preventing the CBI from carrying out the duty expected of it. Such statements bring the investigating agencies into disrepute and cause serious erosion in people’s faith in its impartiality and fairness.
Statements like these by senior political leaders cannot be taken as of no special significance merely because those who make them have generally been in the habit of doing so. Mr Lalu Prasad is quick to describe any investigation against him as “conspiracy” and Ms Mayawati has been equally quick in bringing in the argument of caste bias against her in such circumstances.
But what creates genuine worry about such statements, either by politicians or by bureaucrats, is the damage they cause to the development of healthy norms of public conduct by people in public life. To ignore them as of very little consequence is to ignore the harm they do to the fair name of our democracy itself.
(P.C. Alexander, a former governor of
Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, is presently a member of the Rajya Sabha)
(Courtesy: Deccan Chronicle, May 26, 2005)