Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is widely admired for his transparent personal honesty, his impatience with the trappings of power and his intense commitment to the public good. But more than him, we owe it to the cause of healthy public life and good governance to put the record straight on issues having a direct bearing on them. One such controversy relates to the induction into the central council of ministers of individuals facing grave corruption and criminal charges in court.
While replying to a question in Bangkok last month, the PM is reported to have said that they had to be included because of the compulsions of coalition politics. He added that the support of the RJD and JMM was needed for forming the government at the Centre and preventing the BJP-led NDA from assuming office again. From the limited perspective of coalition dharma, the answer was straightforward and honest. But there is a greater dharma, raj dharma, which means a statecraft based on ethics and morality.
Manmohan Singh must remember he is the prime minister of the largest democracy in the world and belongs to the party of Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. Are the compromises of the type which Singh talked of acceptable? Can they be justified? The answer surely should be “no”.
But even a straight and honest answer was spoilt when Singh added that there should be a debate on who is a criminal and what is meant by “tainted” and that the NDA also had ministers facing criminal charges in courts and that he saw no distinction between charges against, say, L.K. Advani and others, and those faced by ministers in his government. At Bangkok, the prime minister also added that the Chief Election Commissioner had sent him a set of proposals to prevent persons with criminal records from contesting elections which he had sent to the law ministry for comments.
Going by past experience, we do not have much hope from the Law Ministry. In 2002, an all-party meeting was held twice on the subject. In the first meeting, they rejected out of hand the EC’s rather mild proposal to make it mandatory for the candidates seeking election to file an affidavit regarding their past criminal record (or lack of it) and the assets they possessed along with the nomination papers. In the second meeting, they rejected a proposed amendment to the Representation of People Act to disqualify from contesting elections those against whom charges had been framed in courts in more than two cases of heinous crime. The present law minister, who attended that meeting as the representative of the Congress, had reportedly justified the rejection by saying that a Bill for a “civilised society” was needed.
Meanwhile, the gist of the proposals sent by the EC to the PM has become public knowledge. Central is the proposal to debar from contesting elections those against whom charges have been framed in courts more than six months prior to elections. Let us see what fate these proposals meet.
It may be that preventing persons facing criminal charges of a serious nature from contesting elections will strike at the root of the problem. But let it be not confused with the prerogative of the PM in choosing his ministers. “Coalition politics” should not be reduced to a level when a PM has to take persons into his cabinet who are chased with non-bailable warrants or need to go into hiding to avoid execution of such a warrant; or who must stand trial in courts on charges of corruption or murder or attempt to murder. The PM should have the authority and the courage to put his foot down and not allow the whole country and the world to watch unsavoury drama of the kind that happened in the case of a JMM cabinet minister recently.
There is no ambiguity about what is meant by a “criminal”. A criminal is one who has been convicted by the court of law. One who has a blemished record is ‘‘tainted’’. A criminal has his place in jail, if the sentence awarded to him says so. Being short of reaching that stage does not entitle one to become a minister in the government. If charges have been already framed against him in a court for serious offences of corruption or heinous crimes, he or she should fall in a category worse then “tainted”.
Let there be an end to this blame-game politics — “since you did it, what is wrong if we do it” — be it in the appointment and removal of governors or the inclusion of ministers with criminal records. The basic question is this: do these issues concern only the governing parties and parties of the opposition? These are important, no doubt. But more important than them are the people of the country, norms of democracy and parliamentary form of government. The government and PM are ultimately accountable to the people.
(The writer is a former joint director,
CBI)