If Lincoln had lived, if the newly elected House had investigated the circumstances of the passage of the thirteenth amendment, it is possible that a price would have been exacted to the detriment of Lincoln’s reputation. But this did not occur, simply because Lincoln was assassinated in March: which overshadowed everything, and sealed the emancipation of the slaves in a way Lincoln’s use of patronage could never have achieved.

I recalled this little bit of legislative history when I saw those noisy scenes on television on July 23, of currency notes being waved about in the House. Shekhar Gupta of the Express said at the time— please take the number of MPs and see how many cross-voted or abstained contrary to the party whip? Would you then say that all members of parliament are corrupt? Is there some hope then for the future of parliamentary democracy? I certainly think so.

Many of us have commented on “sting operations” — but it is time now to tear off the mask of hypocrisy with which public personalities have spoken, of their surprise and dismay at sordid disclosures. It always reminds me of that old R.K. Laxman cartoon where a minister, is shown raising his hands in feigned surprise at a large wad of notes offered to him — and the Common Man tells his friend, “He is merely acting! I think he suspects a hidden video camera somewhere around.”

Let us come down to brass tacks. We all know that the Supreme Court’s majority judgment in Narasimha Rao’s case leaves it to Parliament to adopt punitive action for bribe-taking MPs who accept bargains or cash for votes. And we know that Parliament simply does not have the will to take such action. Let us then move the court in an appropriate case to revisit its impunity decision of 1998. Let’s not wring our hands in despair and do nothing.

... contd.