We will tell no evil

To elucidate my point, I give the example of what happened in the joint committee on the Central Vigilance Commission Bill 1999, giving statutory powers to the Central Vigilance Commission. Sharad Pawar was its chairman. I wrote to him that all the committee members, 20 from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha, should declare their assets and those of their spouses so as to send a message to the people against corruption. To my horror, not a single member supported me. Some said that this was a matter for political parties to decide. I wonder how something that concerns a member’s personal assets can become a party matter.

The reported decision by all parties that the members should disclose their assets will compel them to do something the code of ethics has not made them do. But why shouldn’t this be applicable to all candidates who want to contest? This way people will come to know the wealth public men have accumulated. There is also the danger that the candidate, after election, may declare his or her assets in such a way that the disclosure does not raise any eyebrow. This problem can be eliminated if the disclosure is made mandatory at the time of filing nominations for contesting the elections.

The ticklish problem is that of involvement in criminal cases. This is where the parties really differ though they constantly talk about the criminalisation of politics. The reasons are obvious. If you have a criminal record or if you were ever arrested on criminal charges, it can create problems for you as a candidate. No voter would like to vote for a person with a criminal record. Since many of our legislators are known criminals or people with criminal records, this particular clause in the Election Commission’s directive has caused great resentment among political parties. Everybody knows today that no political party can do without the help of criminals. The Vohra committee has shown how politicians and criminals are hand in glove with one another.

Except for punishment relating to trade union activity, every other offence is a crime. There can be no leeway on this front. The sentence awarded for sitting on dharna, participation in demonstrations or violating prohibitory orders should not count. But acts like the demolition of the Babri masjid or the dargahs in Gujarat are a heinous offence. Those who have committed it are criminals and they cannot be allowed to contest in any election.

The only point which political parties have got right is about educational qualifications. No candidate should be disqualified because he or she is illiterate. Lakhs of people in India are too poor to afford schooling. It would be elitist to declare them ineligible because they have no educational qualifications. Lack of literacy is due to the failure of successive governments to implement the constitutional guarantee of free education for all children up to the age of 14 which is in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 45) in the Constitution. In the last session of Parliament, it was finally made a fundamental right.

The matter of literacy came up before the Constituent Assembly. Rajendra Prasad, then the chairman, said the Constitution would be interpreted by the best of men, meaning judges, and debated by equally able persons, meaning lawyers. But those who would frame laws required no education. Jawaharlal Nehru, then prime minister, replied that he appreciated the point but that illiterates were the backbone of the independence movement. They sacrificed everything while those who boasted of educational qualifications were toadies on the side of the British. The Indian Constitution laid down no educational qualification for candidates to contest polls. Political parties have unnecessarily panicked over the Supreme Court’s judgment that the voters have the right to know about the antecedents of candidates. The court has not laid down any condition for disqualification. Parliament would be doing so if it passed legislation in this regard. But this is only the beginning. Much more is required in the field of electoral reforms.

Political parties tend to wrongly pick on the Supreme Court or the Election Commission. The Supreme Court has only enunciated the people’s right to know under article 19 (1). The Election Commission has not prescribed any qualifications. Only Parliament can do that. But the EC has the responsibility of superintendence, direction and controlling elections. It has, therefore, prescribed affidavits, seeking information and making disclosures mandatory.

The real problem is political parties suspect — rightly too — that the returning officers may reject the nomination papers on flimsy grounds. It has happened very rarely since independence. But it is possible that the Laloos, the Mulayams or the Mayawatis will influence pliable returning officers. But the blame lies on the shoulders of parties that have brought politics down from the pedestal of values to vulgarity. Surely, safeguards can be prescribed by executive order to eliminate the chances of arbitrary rejection.

Ultimately, political parties must provide leadership, strengthen democracy and defend the people’s sovereignty.