07-23-2008, 06:43 AM
<b>Remains of the day </b>
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Posted online: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 0049 hrs IST
The UPA has won a reprieve, by a significant margin. But today's proceedings have confirmed our worst fears. Parliamentary democracy is in deep disarray. Bags of money have become more than a shadowy presence in our politics. The truth of the charges that have been levelled by three BJP MPs will be sorted out in due course. But what has already been established, beyond doubt, is that the bags of money have become not just a metaphor for the character of our politics, they have become its means and its essence. It would be prudent not to prejudge the allegations. But it has to be said that either way this episode reflects abominable depths in our politics. If true, the charges are serious enough; if false and stage-managed, they represent a heinous attempt to subvert democracy. <b>Either way, we have a politics without scruples, without principles, without common decency and without common prudence. </b>
Defenders of Indian democracy will hearken back to history. What is new about this? We survived the JMM. We shall survive this too. If only we had punished the powerful in the JMM, this would not have happened. But that is simply restating the problem. Look at the brighter side: at least the scoundrels are now trapping each other. Perhaps this will lead to a new dawn. But this polity has long deluded itself on this vain hope. In fact, quite the opposite is likely to happen. Democracy functions not simply by forms of adversarial contestation. It functions through conventions of social interchange and minimal networks of trust. As Orwell wrote in another context, "The sword is still in the scabbard, and while it stays there corruption cannot go beyond a certain point." <b>But with this episode, the swords are out of the scabbard: corruption of one form or the other has crossed certain limits, and no relations of trust between parties, or between parties and the people, will be possible for some time to come.</b> One way or the other MPs will now resort to any trick possible, and the politics of revenge and conspiracy will overshadow any credible political discourse. We too easily forget that we paid a heavy price for the last JMM episode. The moral vacuum created by that episode haunted Indian politics for a long time. But at that point you still had figures who could act, if not as exemplars of moral probity, at least as agents of a credible reconciliation.<b> Now that moral vacuum will be matched by a leadership vacuum of unprecedented propositions. </b>
Big relief has been expressed in the fact that, in the final analysis, only a handful of MPs, under a variety of contingent circumstances, were actually susceptible to inducement. But behind this valid numerical point is a deeper malaise. <b>We had a prime minister whose trump card was his integrity. But in order to retain political control rather than face elections, he lost his own moral identity</b>. In dealing with Amar Singh something of the unsavoury side of Amar Singh was bound to rub off on the government. <b>Independently of the cash charges, the Congress legitimised the idea that the end justifies the means; one can do business with anyone on any terms. </b>
Once legitimised, this principle corrodes everything. Is there a politician left who can now look the people straight in the eye and say with any degree of credibility, "I will restore integrity to the basic functioning of the state?" <b>The Congress has temporarily won, but in doing so it has stooped; and that stooping will have long-term corrosive consequences. </b>
On the other hand, there is motley of tricksters, who have no principles at all, who create alignments out of thin air based on nothing other than short-term instrumentalism. Mayawati certainly has political momentum behind her. Her electoral advance is more likely to come at the expense of the Congress. <b>But she also has elements of political ruthlessness; her own statements and those of her MPs give a sense that her party can say anything. It has no principles, only fighting words and that does not portend well for the future of Indian institutions. For it acquiring power will itself be such an emblem of social justice, that it will set aside all other reasonable considerations. </b>
It is a pity that the Congress let an unbridled political instrumentalism taint the substantive issues. Its parliamentary performance was substantive, it at least projected an aura of minimal competence, <b>and the BJP managed to make Rahul Gandhi's unsure earnestness, political naivety and attempt to reach out at least look decent. Lalu was characteristically brilliant; a wonderful example of cutting down opponents while sneaking in the big picture issues. But it only reminded us of the wasted potential he still represents</b>.
For all the bluster that this debate was about India's place in the world, the flavour and concerns were largely parochial. The Left's line of attack was on predictable lines, but it concentrated too much on its relations with the Congress than staking out an alternative ideological space. <b>Advani's speech was itself disappointing. What should have been a moment for him to convince the nation that he is something of a statesman only served to confirm that he is none too clear about the direction in which the BJP should head.</b> He talked about not being a junior partner of the United States, but left the impression that for him there is no foreign policy question apart from seeking recognition from the US. Given the current scandal, this question may now be moot.
We have a fragile interregnum, but the potential of an impossibly fractious polity still haunts us. The debate provided a snapshot of what each party was, what it has become and where it might be headed. But this picture portends a gathering storm; the ceremony cannot mask the sense of foreboding about the future of our politics. When a politics falls to such depths, there are two outcomes: either a self-conscious regeneration, or the unleashing of forces in no one's control. We can rehearse platitudes about what should be done now: an impartial investigation into allegations, the need to attend to inflation, etc. The fact also remains that we will be pursuing a major foreign policy initiative with a tenuous mandate. <b>But with a morally self-deluded Congress, a ruthless BSP, a militant Left, an amoral SP, a divisive BJP, small blackmailers with unprecedented political power, an instrumental political culture, and tough economic times ahead, the stench of disintegration is in the air. </b>
<i>The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi </i>
express@expressindia.com
http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFrie...39087.html
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Posted online: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 0049 hrs IST
The UPA has won a reprieve, by a significant margin. But today's proceedings have confirmed our worst fears. Parliamentary democracy is in deep disarray. Bags of money have become more than a shadowy presence in our politics. The truth of the charges that have been levelled by three BJP MPs will be sorted out in due course. But what has already been established, beyond doubt, is that the bags of money have become not just a metaphor for the character of our politics, they have become its means and its essence. It would be prudent not to prejudge the allegations. But it has to be said that either way this episode reflects abominable depths in our politics. If true, the charges are serious enough; if false and stage-managed, they represent a heinous attempt to subvert democracy. <b>Either way, we have a politics without scruples, without principles, without common decency and without common prudence. </b>
Defenders of Indian democracy will hearken back to history. What is new about this? We survived the JMM. We shall survive this too. If only we had punished the powerful in the JMM, this would not have happened. But that is simply restating the problem. Look at the brighter side: at least the scoundrels are now trapping each other. Perhaps this will lead to a new dawn. But this polity has long deluded itself on this vain hope. In fact, quite the opposite is likely to happen. Democracy functions not simply by forms of adversarial contestation. It functions through conventions of social interchange and minimal networks of trust. As Orwell wrote in another context, "The sword is still in the scabbard, and while it stays there corruption cannot go beyond a certain point." <b>But with this episode, the swords are out of the scabbard: corruption of one form or the other has crossed certain limits, and no relations of trust between parties, or between parties and the people, will be possible for some time to come.</b> One way or the other MPs will now resort to any trick possible, and the politics of revenge and conspiracy will overshadow any credible political discourse. We too easily forget that we paid a heavy price for the last JMM episode. The moral vacuum created by that episode haunted Indian politics for a long time. But at that point you still had figures who could act, if not as exemplars of moral probity, at least as agents of a credible reconciliation.<b> Now that moral vacuum will be matched by a leadership vacuum of unprecedented propositions. </b>
Big relief has been expressed in the fact that, in the final analysis, only a handful of MPs, under a variety of contingent circumstances, were actually susceptible to inducement. But behind this valid numerical point is a deeper malaise. <b>We had a prime minister whose trump card was his integrity. But in order to retain political control rather than face elections, he lost his own moral identity</b>. In dealing with Amar Singh something of the unsavoury side of Amar Singh was bound to rub off on the government. <b>Independently of the cash charges, the Congress legitimised the idea that the end justifies the means; one can do business with anyone on any terms. </b>
Once legitimised, this principle corrodes everything. Is there a politician left who can now look the people straight in the eye and say with any degree of credibility, "I will restore integrity to the basic functioning of the state?" <b>The Congress has temporarily won, but in doing so it has stooped; and that stooping will have long-term corrosive consequences. </b>
On the other hand, there is motley of tricksters, who have no principles at all, who create alignments out of thin air based on nothing other than short-term instrumentalism. Mayawati certainly has political momentum behind her. Her electoral advance is more likely to come at the expense of the Congress. <b>But she also has elements of political ruthlessness; her own statements and those of her MPs give a sense that her party can say anything. It has no principles, only fighting words and that does not portend well for the future of Indian institutions. For it acquiring power will itself be such an emblem of social justice, that it will set aside all other reasonable considerations. </b>
It is a pity that the Congress let an unbridled political instrumentalism taint the substantive issues. Its parliamentary performance was substantive, it at least projected an aura of minimal competence, <b>and the BJP managed to make Rahul Gandhi's unsure earnestness, political naivety and attempt to reach out at least look decent. Lalu was characteristically brilliant; a wonderful example of cutting down opponents while sneaking in the big picture issues. But it only reminded us of the wasted potential he still represents</b>.
For all the bluster that this debate was about India's place in the world, the flavour and concerns were largely parochial. The Left's line of attack was on predictable lines, but it concentrated too much on its relations with the Congress than staking out an alternative ideological space. <b>Advani's speech was itself disappointing. What should have been a moment for him to convince the nation that he is something of a statesman only served to confirm that he is none too clear about the direction in which the BJP should head.</b> He talked about not being a junior partner of the United States, but left the impression that for him there is no foreign policy question apart from seeking recognition from the US. Given the current scandal, this question may now be moot.
We have a fragile interregnum, but the potential of an impossibly fractious polity still haunts us. The debate provided a snapshot of what each party was, what it has become and where it might be headed. But this picture portends a gathering storm; the ceremony cannot mask the sense of foreboding about the future of our politics. When a politics falls to such depths, there are two outcomes: either a self-conscious regeneration, or the unleashing of forces in no one's control. We can rehearse platitudes about what should be done now: an impartial investigation into allegations, the need to attend to inflation, etc. The fact also remains that we will be pursuing a major foreign policy initiative with a tenuous mandate. <b>But with a morally self-deluded Congress, a ruthless BSP, a militant Left, an amoral SP, a divisive BJP, small blackmailers with unprecedented political power, an instrumental political culture, and tough economic times ahead, the stench of disintegration is in the air. </b>
<i>The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi </i>
express@expressindia.com
http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFrie...39087.html