Through The Mirror Darkly

Patel died two years ago. But the forces of corruption live on, multiplying at a furious pace, till almost all those at the helm of the country stand accused of the biggest national scandal in recent times—the hawala scam. Unfortunately, unlike in the '70s, there seems to be no protest movement in the offing. Even the convention on national unity and communalism in the capital last week avoided a direct mention of the haw-ala issue except for former prime minister Chandra Shekhar's warning that the way it was being handled would only serve to discredit the entire political system. That the galaxy of politicians present there did not even refer to the scandal, despite the fact that the convention was held under the shadow of the scam, was in itself revealing.

But in the absence of public initiative, the Supreme Court's current interventionist role promises to act as some sort of a deterrent. Although generally welcomed, the judicial activism has raised serious doubts, bordering on cynicism, that its failure at some stage will lead to a state of anarchy.

"The judiciary has its own limitation. It will continue to get public support till it raises some hope. But once the trend slows down and the end does not match public expectation, it (the judiciary) might meet with the same hostile public response as the executive gets today," says Janar-dan Dwivedi, a former Congress joint secretary. More importantly, the conflict between hope and doubt regarding judicial activism fades before the fact that the hawala scandal has discredited the political system as well as top politicians on a scale like never before. And intriguingly enough, the response of the various political parties towards the burning issue of corruption has been one of diminished resistance.

Take the Ramaswami controversy of 1990-92. A demand to impeach Supreme Court justice Ramaswami had been placed before the Ninth Lok Sabha Speaker Rabi Ray, following audit reports confirming corruption charges against the judge. P.V. Narasimha Rao met Ray at his chambers and suggested that the speaker take a lenient view of the whole matter "as the judge was a nationalist". To his credit, Ray did allow a full investigation. But a couple of years later, when the Congress returned to power with Rao as Prime Minister, the ruling party abstained from voting on the impeachment motion in defence of corruption. Ramaswami emerged the winner. The biggest casualties were the will and effectiveness of Parliament in dealing with corruption—and the corrupt.

By virtue of its being the ruling party for almost 40 of the 44 years since the first general election, the Congress, no doubt, is perceived as The Establishment and hence held guilty of perpetrating the inherent corruption within the system. The hawala scandal stands testimony to this—more than 80 per cent of the alleged recipients belong to it. With Rao himself at the centre of the controversy, it only confirms the continuity ofthis unhealthy trend. The collusion of stalwarts from the BJP, Samata Party and the Janata Dal in the racket also deflates the moral authority of the Opposition parties to launch a crusade against corruption. In a way, corruption now is the common thread binding politicians of all hues and beliefs.

Nothing explains thissituation better than Janata Dal President Laloo Prasad Yadav's assertion that the hawala controversy was not going to be an issue during the coming election as no one except the Left was free from its stigma. Yadav, ironically, had come into the political fore as a member of the steering committee of the JP movement, essentially against corruption and unemployment, and later became the chief minister of Bihar riding on the crest of another anti-corruption wave in 1990 when the Congress and its leadership had been tain -ted by the Bofors brush. And now, because of this conciliatory approach on the part of the Opposition, Rao stands safe.

"Corruption might be omnipresent. But if politicians have accepted money from haw-ala operators who are also funding Kashmir terrorists, it only indicates the depth of decline in our character. Something needs to be done if this nation is to survive," says Jabir Hussain, presiding officer of the Bihar Legislative Council and a former leader of the JP movement. But Hussain belongs to a fast-disappearing breed.

Most agree that this malaise is deeply rooted in the system. But very few have a remedial prescription. In a recent interview to the BBC, veteran Gandhian and former parliamentarian B.N. Pande held the acceptance of industrial donation by politicians as a factor largely responsible for corruption. He noted that when he contested the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elec-tions in the '50s, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had sent him several reminders to furnish details of expenses of Rs 500—his total election fund from the party. Then, the politicians' dependence gradually drifted towards industries and black marketeers. A ban on industrial donation might be an answer to the mess.

The recent CBI chargesheets and selective approach in the hawala case, therefore, do not inspire confidence. "After all, this case was known for years. By merely charge-sheeting some people on the eve of the elections is not going to solve the problem. We have to find a credible alternative. Maybe government funding of elections might be a good idea," says Farooq Abdullah, leader of the National Conference.

BUT there are others who believe the present mess is a byproduct of the "surrender of the national interest totransnationals". The new economic policy has largely encouraged such a trend whereby the TNCs gain by discrediting the Indian Parliament, its political system and politicians. "The way the Government has been handling the hawala case only serves that purpose," feels former prime minister Chandra Shekhar. "By discrediting possible political alternatives—both inside and outside the Congress—Rao is fast emerging as another Gorbachev. He has put his own interest above the Congress and the country," says a senior Congress leader.

Judicial intervention therefore might not be of much consequence in such a scenario. Given the delay in the disposal of cases, justice in hawalagate may not be delivered any faster. A speedy trial depends on the efficiency and will of the executive, especially since a majority of the suspects hold key positions in the Government and will therefore have vested interest in delaying justice. And those chargesheeted—from BJP chief Advani to Congress leader Madhavrao Scindia—accuse the Prime Minister of "conspiring" against them in order to sideline any major contenders for prime ministership.

Apart from the likelihood of a delayed verdict by the Supreme Court, says a former judge of the Patna high court, what is worrying is that, of late, public figures have taken to adopting a defiant attitude towards court rulings. Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency instead of resigning after the Allahabad High Court indicted her for corrupt electoral practices. Rajiv Gandhi nulli-fied the court ruling in the Shahbano case by using brute majority in Parliament.

Even when judicial activism was a rare instance, the executive had resorted to nullifying or defying its verdict. With its frequency on the rise, it is unlikely that it will be able to change the executive's attitude. And despite increasing censure of the executive by the court, the executive is also shirking its responsibility and passing on the bulk of its commitments to thejudiciary, even on routine administrative measures like in the telecom tender case, Ayodhya and now, hawala.

Does the court have to step in where the executive fails? Can there be an overstepping by the court into the sphere of the executive? Or is it that the court needs to interpret the law and punish the guilty? After all, it is the basis for a just society. But AICC General Secretary B.P. Maurya's public criticism of the Supreme Court for having "usurped the role of the executive" only reinforces the fear of a confrontation. After all, the BJP had already questioned the court's jurisdiction in the case to decide where Lord Rama was born. Its recent exoneration of Maharashtra Chief Minister Manohar Joshi, by ruling that his (Joshi's) election plank of Maharashtra becoming the first Hindu state in the country if the Shiv Sena came to power was, at best, a mere wish and as such did not constitute corrupt electoral practices, has also come in for sharp attack. "How is the court competent to define what Hindutva is?" asks M.O. Farooqui, veteran CPI leader, adding "if this call does not constitute corrupt electoral practice, then what does"?

And though these are disjointed threats and grievances at the moment, the going for the judiciary looks tough in the days to come. In the event of the court's failure to deliver speedy justice in the hawala case the judiciary's current hour of activist glory may be shortlived.