Anti-social workers

By nominating nine of the least worthy men in Bihar to the legislature, Laloo Prasad Yadav's fly-by-wire government has conclusively proved ...

By nominating nine of the least worthy men in Bihar to the legislature, Laloo Prasad Yadav8217;s fly-by-wire government has conclusively proved that anti-social work pays. Besides, it has brought forth a compelling argument for doing away with nominations to the Upper House in state legislatures 8212; and, perhaps, of the Upper House itself. None of the nine MLA8217;s who were brought in have shown the slightest inclination towards social work, the category under which they were admitted to the House. Quite the opposite, in fact. The day after he was inducted one of the nominees, Anwar Ahmed, allegedly tried to attack a television journalist with a spear.

Rabri Devi8217;s proxy government, which has displayed admirable restraint in the face of criticism, is not likely to be moved by the public response to its new MLC8217;s behaviour. Neither is Sadhu Yadav, Rabri Devi8217;s brother, who will be in the legislature as a social worker without credentials for the second time. His first nomination is being challenged in court, on theground that he was a non-working social worker. The other appointments are clearly rewards to faithful retainers for good service. Ravindra Kumar Tati, for instance, had vacated his seat so that Rabri Devi could get in. Udai Narain Rai had similarly vacated his Assembly seat for Laloo Prasad Yadav in 1991.

Nominations to the Upper House in state Assemblies were intended to bring into political debate apolitical persons who were either intellectually superior or had shown a consistent commitment to society at large. They were expected to be the conscience-keepers of the House, helping to reorient policy-making towards the common good whenever it was threatened by excessive party interest. By inducting nine full-time political workers, Rabri Devi8217;s government has gone against the very spirit of the Constitution.

Going by their track record, some of them are far more likely to call for spears in the House than to call for reason. It is amazing that the Governor approved their nominations immediately. Hemight have considered consulting the President, given the rather unusual forms of social work for which the nominations were handed out.

There is a larger question than mere nominations at stake here: are bicameral legislatures at all necessary for the states? The overwhelming majority of states, in fact, have done away with the Upper House, which largely caters to special constituencies which have outlived their usefulness graduates, for instance. Are such states, like Tamil Nadu, worse off than like Bihar in terms of the efficiency of governance? Clearly, an Upper House does not contribute significantly to the welfare of the people. On the contrary, it tends to exercise a considerable drain on the exchequer.

There is a case, therefore, for doing away with the Upper House altogether. Only the Rajya Sabha serves a patent need, in that it brings representation from the states to the Union. However, it might also require some protection from manipulation. Sonia Gandhi has wisely decided against fieldingcandidates who lost the Lok Sabha polls for the Rajya Sabha elections. In the future, however, the option may well be exercised.