Vote for the big gun

IF you are one of those who winces when you read that in all but two of Uttar Pradesh’s 403 constituencies, there are criminals in the fray; if you believe that using guns to settle an argument over the location of election posters as one Punjab assembly aspirant did last week is not a fair electoral practice; if you are of the persuasion that political activity is quite distinct from dealing in supari killings, then all I can say is that you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Because fighting an election today has come to mean just that — waging pitched battles with fists, lathis, bicycle chains, Rampur churis, country-made rifles, Kalashnikovs, hand grenades and the like. Who knows, some day in the future we may all go back to the past and have a full-scale Panipat-type war to decide who should rule us.

In this age of liberalisation, not only are we rapidly disinvesting ourselves of stuffy old impediments like morality and fair play, we are gradually acquiring two kinds of politicians — those who stand for office and those who sit before investigating officers once they have been elected to office. Prospective candidates must, therefore, be presumed guilty unless proved innocent and prospective voters will have to seriously consider whether they want their votes to go to a murderer, a mugger or a small-time mafiosi.

Since a criminal background is the latest qualification for political eligibility, the government — or so I have been told — is seriously considering coming up with a Special Criminal (Protection of Rights) Bill that will ensure 33 per cent reservation to blackguards of all persuasion, so that all those who have had to serve jail terms for having murdered and blackmailed to earn honest livelihoods for themselves, will not be unfairly deprived of their democratic right to participate in an election. Certainly such a Bill has a much better chance of being passed than that poor benighted document, popularly known as the Women’s Bill.

The government is also, I have heard from reasonably authentic sources, seriously considering approaching the Election Commission to reformat its eligibility criteria. No longer will having chargesheets as long as the Mahabharata disqualify people from pursuing their urge to serve the people and the country, nor will the fact that they have served a jail term, or will soon do so soon, come in their way.

According to these proposals, all candidates will have to honestly and scrupulously specify their current residence, listing down their cell numbers, ward numbers and jail addresses as well as the number of years they have spent enjoying free government hospitality.

Their reasons for contesting the election will also have to be neatly documented. Whether it is to settle a personal score, or escape the scrutiny of the state’s investigating officers, or whether indeed it is for the noble purpose of testing the efficacy of the laws of the land.

It may not be possible for the said candidates to provide information on such sensitive details as annual income, value of property owned, and so on and so forth, but it has been suggested that the Election Commission come up with its own version of a Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, which would seek such information in a candidate-friendly, non-threatening manner, and with the assurance that no action will be taken for an honest delineation of dishonesty.

Details on the candidates’ public service record will also be sought. Whether, for instance, the candidates contributed to India’s family planning programme and its commitment to reducing its population, by having eliminated half the residents of their native villages. Or whether they helped in the nation’s capital formation by manipulating the share markets through insider trading.

Also to be recorded are details on how prospective candidates wish to display their patriotism to this country. Whether this will be through running an old-style extortion racket and donating half its proceeds to a well-known charity or through the more public-spirited activity of distilling and retailing spurious liquor brewed out of rotten banana peels.

I would, however, insist on an additional clause to these proposals. The oath of office that is to be administered to winning candidates should, I believe, end with a staunch denial of all charges. This would strike the right ethical note and ensure that some modicum of decency is allowed to remain in the system.

So there you have it, here is the complete road map on how to cleanse our public life. If you can’t ensure crime free politics, we must at least do our very best to ensure crime free crime.

Earlier Columns