Another emergency

EVERYONE had suspected that former Tamil Nadu chief minister M. Karunanidhi and his family would be hauled over the coals once Jayalalitha came to power. But even her most ardent supporters could not have imagined that she would go berserk. Although settling personal scores is nothing new in the country and the Haryana culture is spreading dangerously, it has never been done as crudely as it was this weekend in Tamil Nadu. Even Bihar, which is considered the worst example, looks civilised in comparison.

The manner in which 78-year-old Karunanidhi was arrested and dragged away by the police a little after midnight was appalling. Union minister Murasoli Maran, a heart patient, was roughed up so badly that he had to be rushed to hospital. Some other relatives of Karunanidhi faced more or less the same treatment. And poor former chief secretary Nambiar was also whisked away.

Jayalalitha’s action is indicative of the dubious methods politicians use to perpetuate their rule. It would be a mockery of democracy if she got away with it

All this has been done at the specific instructions of the chief minister who, mind you, has been convicted on charges of corruption and who has been debarred by the Election Commission from contesting elections because of that. There is no doubt about her vendetta and the deliberate misuse of official machinery. This is not governance, it is a mafia operation.

What does all this add up to? Is Tamil Nadu a personal fiefdom of Jayalalitha? Can a chief minister break any law, violate any norm and cross any limits to take revenge on a political opponent? Has the Centre, which is supposed to safeguard the letter and spirit of the Constitution, no duty towards guarding a system which upholds the individual’s rights and guarantees the rule of law. What is the remedy when even Union Law Minister Arun Jaitley says that Maran and the other minister, T.R. Baalu, have been detained illegally? Does it mean that a Union minister can be arraigned by the state at its whims and fancies? How can the country function if states overstep their power and arrogate to themselves the authority which they do not possess? Just because a state government has the police under it, it does not mean that its chief minister can run amuck. The Centre, which represents the nation, cannot look powerless or helpless.

The state governor, a former Supreme Court judge, had neither enhanced the dignity of her office, nor of the law, when she appointed Jayalalitha as chief minister. It was incumbent upon her to upbraid Jayalalitha for taking the law into her own hands. But she did little and sent a report to cover up Jayalalitha’s dictatorial acts. The governor’s explanation that the arrest of 23,000 DMK workers worked out to only 1 per cent of the state’s population is too ludicrous to be even funny. Her recall was the minimum that the Centre could have recommended.

Whether Karunanidhi is guilty or not, it is for the court to decide. The state has to follow certain norms. The entire process cannot be completed, from the levelling of charges to the actual arrest, within a few hours. When Jayalalitha was arrested on charges of corruption, the set procedure was gone through. The entire exercise took more than a year. There was no midnight knock and the police did not push her into a car. Nor was there use of force. Mediapersons were not arrested on false charges.

I can understand, if not appreciate, that Jayalalitha’s action is a silly kind of catharsis of anger welling up within her from the time the Karunanidhi government booked her for corruption. But I cannot make out why the police, under Karunanidhi till yesterday, behaved as if they were Nadir Shah’s force. The explanation that they did it in self-defence does not wash. The Centre should have the gumption to take action against IPS officers supervising the force.

Yet the larger question remains: why do public functionaries, particularly the police, behave in the manner in which they did? Are they only an instrument of tyranny in the hands of a ruler? IAS and IPS officers can at best be transferred from their positions. Why have the personnel of the two services become errand boys of chief ministers?

It is a question that was asked during and after the Emergency. Not that it has irked their conscience. The Shah Commission, which went into the excesses during the Emergency, came to the conclusion that ethical considerations inherent in public behaviour became generally dim and in many cases beyond the mental grasp of many of the public functionaries. The desire for self-preservation became the sole motivation for their official actions and behaviour. The anxiety to survive at any cost was so pervasive that most public servants acted as willing tools of tyranny.

True, some chief ministers are so autocratic that they brook no opposition. Officers taking exception to defective orders are transferred or punished through false allegations against them. But if the civil service, which is the country’s sheet anchor, becomes malleable, what happens to the system they are supposed to run? Their desire for survival or to go up the ladder by any method comes in handy to rulers like Jayalalitha. No rule or regulation to strengthen the hands of public servants can be of any use if they themselves do not harbour a commitment to fairplay and justice.

Political behaviour is also important. Jayalalitha’s allies, the Congress, the communists, the TMC and the PMK, are embarrassed. They are also critical of the treatment meted out to Karunanidhi. But their criticism lacks the sharpness and the persistence it should have. In fact, Jayalalitha’s do-not-care attitude should make them and other political parties think of ways to put an end to political vendetta. It is not only a question of changing political culture but also of a belief that wrong means will not lead to right results.
Jayalalitha’s action is indicative of the dubious methods political leaders are using to perpetuate their rule. Article 356 is no remedy because the ruling parties at the Centre are no angels and have never been so. They have wrongly used the right to dismiss state governments in the name of defending the Constitution. Yet it would be a mockery of democracy if Jayalalitha got away with this.

Perhaps the Centre should seriously think of the ombudsman institution to take up cases where chief ministers or Central ministers have violated values or norms in their governance. What hurts me is the contempt rulers like Jayalalitha have for morality. Such an attitude not only ignores something that is basic in man but also deprives human behaviour of standards and values.

Earlier Columns