I am ashamed to call myself a member ofParliament in a House which features D.P. Yadav and others of his ilk,"observes Gangacharan Rajput, MP from Hamirpur. Noble sentiments, no doubt. Butit comes from a man who himself faces at least eight criminal cases. Rajput isone among the 39 sitting Lok Sabha members who have a past that should havediscredited them. But they have all been elected and are alarming examples ofthe growing nexus between crime and politics.
The problem seems to be endemic to the system. There is asense of helplessness. While all shades of politicians are quick to point outhow politics has to be cleansed of crime, no tangible remedies to the malaiseare forthcoming. Indeed, more than ever, politics appears to be dependent oncrime as much as crime is dependent on politics. This alone can explain thebrazen manner in which political parties field candidates who are charged withmurder, rape and abduction. There seems to be no stigma attached to a personwith a criminal record, once he or she is inducted into mainstream politics.
Even the Electoral Reforms Bill, introduced by the Deve GowdaGovernment this fortnight, does not touch upon banning those with casesregistered against them from contesting elections. The Bill, in the main, merelyattempts to discourage non-serious candidates who treat elections far toofrivolously. But the new Bill runs out of ideas when it comes to preventing thecriminalisation of politics which has become a rather sensitive issue for mostpolitical parties since they harbour undesirable elements.
For those with an 'undesirable past', the name of the gameis to attribute cases against them to political vendettas, while criticisingthose from rival parties named in FIRs. So Rajput dismisses the charges againsthim as "political cases". D.P. Yadav and "others of his ilk"make the same plea; they are, they all claim, victims of "mischief" bypolitical opponents. Others like Azamgarh MP Ramakant Yadav, who has a yard-longhistorysheet, doesn't even attempt a defence: "Why should I bother tocomment? I have been an MLA four times and have now been elected MP. Isn't itobvious that the people are with me? Why should I care for anything else?"
Surprisingly, it is people with a criminal record who are the most vocal aboutpreventing criminals from entering politics. Declares Ashok Singh, BJP MP fromRae Bareilly, who has at least six cases—including a murder charge—againsthim: "People with historysheets should not be given tickets," but, hehastens to add, "political cases" do not a historysheeter make.
Likewise, D.P. Yadav, often referred to as the don of westernUttar Pradesh, insists that people with an "apradhik itihas" (criminalpast)—he cites two MPs from Bihar—should not be allowed to contest elections. As far as his own record is concerned, hedeclares: "I don't care if there are 500 cases against me. I willcontinue to fight for my self-respect." He calls for a national debate onthe subject. "First we should establish 'apradhi kaun hai?' Who is thereal mafia? I am making a film on the subject called Mafia Kaun? Thepolice and the administration will be exposed," says the 'don'.
So far so good. But how can the complex problem of criminalisat-ionof politics be solved? The cross-section of MPs contacted by Outlook feelsit is up to political parties to clean the system by cleansing themselves. This,some of them felt, is not likely to happen and therefore it will eventually beleft to the electorate to vote against the criminals. The logic is that ifcandidates of dubious character fail to win elections they will not be fieldedby political parties. Points out Rajput: "The answer ultimately lies withthe people. Only they can force political parties to weed out the criminalelements."
For those looking for a quick solution, Jaipal Reddy, seniorJanata Dal leader and United Front spokesman, paints a gloomy picture. He pointsout that all the purely legal remedies to prevent criminals from entering thepolitical system have been exhausted. Going by the law, only those convicted ofserious crime are forbidden to contest. But what about those who have seriouscharges against them? Should they be denied the immunity afforded to othercitizens—that a person is presumed innocent till proven guilty? ObservesReddy: "I do not believe that we should deny them this. Quite apart fromthe unfairness of it, the fact remains that the conviction rate for even thosecharged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) isabout four per cent."
He suggests a day-to-day emergency trial ofall those elected to Parliament or state legislatures who have cases relating toheinous crimes pending against them. "But while this may prove to be adeterrent for criminals, the guilty will surely try and exploit the same legalloopholes that have got them this far—witnesses will still be intimidated andevidence tampered with because the social conditions remain the same," headds.
Professor C.P. Bhambri of New Delhi'sJawaharlal Nehru University agrees that emergency trials for electedrepresentatives is an avenue worth exploring but points out that politicalparties—with their own organisation in a shambles—are eventually to blamefor giving tickets to criminals. "It is not as if politicians have suddenlydiscovered a propensity for crime; this phenomenon can be directly attributed tothe fact that criminals whose money and muscle power was used by politicians tofight elections have taken over from their erstwhile mentors."
THE trend of criminals rising to prominencein parties seems to be linked to the breakdown of party organisations at thelower rungs. Political parties are taking the shortcut by choosing candidates who are certain winners. And often the 'winner' isdependent on the 'dada' in the constituency for resources. Points out V.B.Singh of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi: "Partyorganisations have been ignored at the lower rungs where normal recruitment isnot taking place. In the absence of a party base, the victory of a candidatecontesting is dependent on personnel and resources. And in a majority of cases,it is only the local goonda who can muster these up, especially at shortnotice."
Also, criminals have found a safe haven in politics. Not only dothey enjoy the immunity and privileges of being elected representatives but alsobuild up a do-gooder Robin Hood image. This new avatar, according to Vyalar Ravi,Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee chief and Rajya Sabha MP, serves as a"convenient shield to further caste, religious or regional interests".
He sees criminalisation of politics as a failure of thepolitical system and, more specifically, of political parties. "Otherparties, especially cadre-based parties such as the BJP and the CPI(M), are muchworse because, emboldened by a willing cadre, they are encouraged to usestrong-arm tactics. And the caste-based parties of north India are the pits. Butlook at the Congress. Even we have become a nominated party of sycophants. Insuch a scenario, the criminal elements will gain ascendancy," he admits.
A viable solution, it is agreed, will require legislative andexecutive initiative. According to police officials, besides electoral reforms,the Police Act, 1861, needs to be amended to give more teeth to probes againstpoliticians. Legal reforms are required to stop the misuse of law enforcementagencies by politicians and bureaucrats.
The existing legal safeguards against infiltrating the systemseem rather inadequate. Points out N.K. Singh, former CBI joint director:"What is a criminal record, after all? Someone who has been convicted? Ordo you debar a person who is facing trial, or investigation? All these thingsneed to be debated." He cites the case of Sanjay Gandhi and V.C. Shukla, who, despite being convictedin the Kissa Kursi Ka caseby the lower court, were permitted to fight general elections because theirappeal was pending in a higher court.
But should political parties not be more selective whiledistributing tickets? Senior leaders such as D. Raja of the CPI and K.L. Sharmaof the BJP assert that it is the primary responsibility of the parties to ensurethat those with criminal antecedents are refused tickets. Says Raja: "Ourparty believes that politics is about ethics and upholding certain values inpublic service. How can somebody charged with rape or murder do that? This is aproblem that can be nipped in the bud if parties do not give tickets to suchelements." K.L. Sharma, while admitting that some undesirable elements havebeen allowed to join the BJP, agrees that "even a cloud of suspicion"over a potential candidate should be enough for the party to deny him a ticket.
It is one thing for individual politicians to issuestatements. But it is left to sociologists like Ashis Nandy to drag the issueaway from platitudes. Says he: "On the premise that it is the criminals whohave turned politicians, the only hope of preventing this process is to ensure transparent, free and fair intra-party elections sothat noncriminals at least stand a chance." These elections, he points out,will have to be conducted under strict vigil and those parties which don'tcomply should be derecognised by the Election Commission.
However, the Election Commission is not at the momentproposing any measure to check the entry of criminals into politics. Accordingto Election Commissioner M. S. Gill, there are enough laws to check the trend. Hesays it is for the courts to expedite cases pending against any MLA or MP.
While politicians of all hues maintain they are not pleadinghelplessness, they do say that the people are the final arbitrators. But then,as Singh puts it, "it is easy to blame the electorate. The fact is thatthere is not much to choose from between the candidates put up by variouspolitical parties." So is there any light at the end of the tunnel? At themoment it looks like a bleak scenario. Only public pressure and the politicalwill and courage to cleanse the system can save Indian polity from the rot thathas set in.
Tags