A bold beginning

The expulsion from Parliament of 11 members exposed as bribe-takers in a sting operation does indeed point towards the possibility of enforcing corrective measures even in the face of opposition.

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN in New Delhi

"AREN'T you all ashamed of yourselves today?"Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee asked, responding to the second sting expose in two weeks on the corrupt practices of Members of Parliament.

His pained and impassioned query echoed across the Lower House on December 20, three days before Parliament took the historic step of expelling 11 of its members (10 belonging to the Lok Sabha and one to the Rajya Sabha) for accepting money for raising questions in the House. The Speaker underlined the need to preserve the dignity of the House through intense introspection and corrective actions. The broad response at that time from the MPs present was that all efforts should be made to ensure that the sanctity of the country's foremost legislative body was not tarnished any further.

But this sense of unanimity disappeared on December 23, when the members actually got around to formalising the punishment to their erring colleagues. Parliamentarians employed diverse methods somehow to protect their colleagues or at least minimise the punishment, when the report of the two committees that went into the "cash for questions" issue was discussed in both Houses on that day, the last day of the winter session. Some argued that the expose was a "political conspiracy", others called it "anti-Adivasi conspiracy" and some others suggested that a lynch mentality was at work as bigger culprits had "gone scot-free" while the smaller ones were caught. (Organiser, the mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, the controlling power in the Sangh Parivar of which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the political arm, had the following comments in its editorial on the issue: "Is it that only the naive and less connected get caught? As a commentator noted, it is always the daily wage earner who gets trapped, while the big sharks go scot-free. It is easy to join the crowd that crucifies the sinner, but tough to take a Christ-like stand apart and search one's own conscience.") There were also repeated demands elsewhere that the members should be given more time to "explain their conduct".

This alternately pathetic and ridiculous show culminated in a walkout by members of the BJP, six of whose MPs were among those charged with corruption and misconduct, and some of its allies in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) walked out from the Lok Sabha questioning the procedure adopted to expel the members. The crux of the BJP's argument, put forward by none less than party president L.K. Advani in the Lok Sabha and senior leader Jaswant Singh in the Rajya Sabha, was that the members should be given more time to explain their conduct before a parliamentary forum like the Privileges Committee. Advani went to the extent of saying that the conduct of the members was more a reflection of their stupidity (that is, falling prey to the sting operation) than corruption. He described the expulsion as the parliamentary equivalent of capital punishment and contended that the House should think whether such extreme precedents should be created. It was also argued that the special committee that went into the conduct of the 10 Lok Sabha members did not have the time to look at all the aspects of the issue and had acted in "undue haste".

Interestingly, the BJP did not argue the case quite forcefully in the Rajya Sabha or take recourse to antagonistic moves such as staging a walkout. Although the party repeated the demand that more time for explanation should be given to the lone Rajya Sabha member charged with misconduct, it ultimately supported the motion for the member's expulsion.

So what made the BJP adopt such blatantly contradictory postures? Was it motivated by immediate political considerations and the unsavoury prospect of losing five of its members from the Lower House? The BJP leadership continues to talk about the special committee's impropriety in taking a decision within 10 days of the scandal coming to light.

If the perception that the BJP is purely motivated by political considerations is - and this perception is clearly gaining ground - then the party's stand militates against the commitment of the "party with a difference" to probity in public life and parliamentary etiquette. As pointed out by Basudeb Acharya, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), it was the BJP that highlighted circumstantial evidence against Congress Ministers as adequate proof of guilt when the Hawala scandal erupted in 1995-96. "And here we have more than circumstantial evidence in the form of video documentation of MPs accepting bribes," Basudeb Acharya pointed out.

The BJP's argument against the procedure of inquiry does not hold ground. The five-member committee that conducted the inquiry was headed by veteran member Pawan Kumar Bansal of the Congress and comprised Vijay Kumar Malhotra (BJP), Mohammed Salim (CPI (M)), Ram Gopal Yadav (Samajwadi Party) and C. Kuppusami (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam). The committee was formed in consultation with the Leader of the Lok Sabha, Pranab Kumar Mukherjee, and Advani and was authorised to create and follow its own procedure. It was on the basis of this that the committee conducted its week-long inquiry and presented its report in the Lok Sabha on December 22. The BJP had no problems with this projected schedule of the committee until it got close to completing its work. It was at this point that Malhotra expressed his dissenting note and demanded the involvement of the Privileges Committee to cross-examine the members and the mediapersons who carried out the sting operation.

According to Fali S. Nariman, noted jurist and Rajya Sabha member, the course adopted by the Lok Sabha was the best possible one in the given context. Nariman says the charge of undue haste against the committee does not hold in view of the fact that the erring MPs were given a choice to look at the video footage and comment on it. More important, Nariman pointed out, the sequence of events should be seen in the context of the Jharkhand Mukthi Morcha (JMM) bribery scandal, one of the biggest corruption scandals involving MPs.

Ten MPs were charge-sheeted in 1996 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the JMM case for taking money to vote in favour of the Congress government led by P.V. Narasimha Rao. Yet the Supreme Court did not take any action, citing the protection that MPs enjoy under Article 105(2) of the Constitution, which stipulates that no Member of Parliament can be made liable to any proceeding in any court in respect of any vote given in Parliament. The court stated that it would leave it to Parliament to take appropriate action against the MPs. Seven years have passed since the Supreme Court's verdict in the case but there has been no action from Parliament. Nariman feels that the procedure adopted by the House this time under the guidance of the Speaker is particularly redeeming.

Interestingly, the BJP rolled out a big campaign against the Congress regime then on the basis of the JMM bribery scandal. But now it wants to condone members who were captured on video camera taking money. The BJP's flip-flop on the methods and procedure of inquiry as well as its contradictory parliamentary manoeuvres have certainly had a negative impact on its image. This adverse impact has significantly shaken the unity among the NDA constituents.

The BJP's biggest ally in the NDA, the Janata Dal (United), not only refused to join the party in its walkout from the Lok Sabha but forcefully supported the special committee's finding that the conduct of the members was "unethical" and "unbecoming" for MPs and that their continuance in the House was "untenable". A number of political observers see the signs of a new division in the NDA.

By all indications, this division is bound to widen when the case against seven other members, who were exposed in another television sting operation taking commissions for giving out contracts under the Member of Parliament Land and Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), is taken up. In this scam too, the BJP leads in terms of numbers. Three of its MPs, two belonging to the S.P and one each of the Congress and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) are involved in the commission scam.

Given the precedent of the cash-for-questions case, members caught in the MPLADS scheme would also be expelled. These moves should certainly help re-establish legislative probity. It is also redeeming that the majority of the political parties supported the "decisive step" of expulsion. But this cannot resolve the larger problem of corruption that exists and seems to be increasing in parliamentary practice. The exposes have clearly indicated that barring the Left parties, members of all other major parties have succumbed to corruption. There are already indications of another scam coming to light with some members pointing out that their colleagues are letting out their government accommodation for rent.

The manner in which some of the members, and indeed a large segment of the political establishment, have responded to allegations against them is a cause for concern. Two of the expelled members - Pradeep Gandhi of the BJP and Rajaram Pal of the BSP - have decided to challenge the decision in court. Parasnath Yadav, the S.P. member caught in the MPLADS scam, has refused to resign from the membership of the Lok Sabha despite the party leadership's specific instruction to this effect.

Clearly, the situation demands a concerted effort from the leaderships of all political parties to curb corruption. Nitish Kumar, Janata Dal (U) leader and Bihar Chief Minister, who was inParliament when the December 23 proceedings were on and who virtually dictated the party's stand on the issue, told Frontline that the approach should be one of taking stringent corrective action on a case-by-case basis. "We cannot condone somebody who has committed dacoity just because rapists and murderers are roaming scot-free."

Whatever the approach, the beginning made by Parliament does indeed point towards the possibility of enforcing corrective measures, notwithstanding any opposition.