Monday, March 23, 2009

CRIMINAL OUT OF THE POLITICS CAN IT BE DONE

journalists constantly wring their hands over the growing criminalisation of politics, and call on political parties to choose better candidates. such moral lecturing is vacuous. criminals are not entering politics because of some inexplicable moral lapse by candidate selection committees, but because they have huge incentives to get in. to get them out, we must change the incentive system. many laws need changing, but one single change can have a huge impact. let the law provide that criminal cases against legislators will be heard before all others on a day-by-day basis to ensure a quick verdict. in one stroke, that will create a huge disincentive for criminals to contest elections. many will resign from the legislatures to escape the consequences. today, criminals join politics to gain influence and ensure that cases against them are dropped or not proceeded with. the law disqualifies convicted criminals from fighting elections. but this does not keep criminals out of politics because legal delays, often abetted by political pressures, make convictions of resourceful crooks rather rare. criminals threaten witnesses with death, and the feeble state cannot protect them. so we need a radical change. i wonder why public pressure for such change is not greater. our standards have dropped so far that we no longer realise how outrageous our situation is by international standards. when i tell foreigners that our legislatures are full of bandits, they smile incredulously. surely you mean, they say, that bandits assist your legislators? no, i insist, the bandits are the legislators. at which point the foreigners look appalled and foxed: they cannot understand how this can be so in what claims to be the world’s biggest democracy. a casual look at last week’s events shows how commonplace is the mixing of crime and politics. exhibit 1: the gujarat police say the man behind the godhra massacre was a local muslim politician, a feared don. exhibit 2: mansoor ahmed, samajwadi party mla, was shot at a public meeting. his family says the killing was staged by a political rival, tanveer ahmed, who was denied the samajwadi ticket and so contested, unsuccessfully, on the bsp ticket. gang killings and political killings are becoming indistinguishable. exhibit 3: ram sewak gautam, a policeman who had the temerity to raid the premises of don-cum-politician dp yadav and track down his son vikas—who is accused of murder—was transferred in the middle of the murder case. most newspapers ignored this. it is no longer news that officials seeking to catch political criminals get sidelined. look further beyond last week to the up assembly elections. according to india today, 965 of the 5,539 candidates who contested the up elections had criminal records. that is a whopping 17 per cent of all candidates. why are political parties so happy to adopt criminals as candidates? to understand the answer, recall max weber’s definition of the state as the only entity that can use force with impunity. the rule of law is supposed to ensure that anybody else who uses force is jailed. but in india, a weak police and legal system ensures that mafia dons get away with murder. they can use force with impunity. so, a la weber, the mafia have as much legitimacy, in practice if not in theory, as the state. a criminal who can collect protection money is as powerful as an official tax-collector. a don who can use force to settle disputes is actually superior to the state, which is unable to settle disputes because of legal delays. a criminal candidate who can capture and stuff ballot boxes is, in our twisted democracy, on par with a popular politician who wins every vote. normally officials will report booth capturing, but not if the capturing don can credibly threaten them with death. besides, dons have lots of money, which is very useful for fighting expensive election campaigns. india has no system of public funding to enable honest people to meet election costs. black money is needed in hoards, and here criminals have a huge comparative advantage. in the up election, mayawati auctioned several candidatures to the highest bidder. so, according to reports, did the samajwadi party. obviously, criminals will get the better of honest folk in such auctions. why do dons invest large sums in getting tickets? because a ticket to the assembly is a ticket to kickbacks and extortion using political power. since the legal system no longer penalises theft, politicians who steal have a comparative advantage over others. returns on political investments are so high that criminals are disinclined to invest in tax-free rbi bonds. politics is so much more profitable, and just as tax-free. so, our system has unwittingly created huge incentives for criminals to enter politics. in the long run, we must clean up the legal and police system. meanwhile, we need quick steps to change the incentive structure. one is to provide public funding for elections. that will reduce the comparative advantage of criminals, and increase that of honest candidates. the second is to have a blanket ban on defections, a major source of political profit. any legislator who defects or disobeys the party whip in a vote of confidence should be forced to go back to voters for election on a new election symbol. those who split a party should go back to voters too. that will restore some meaning to representative government. but the most far-reaching measure, surely, will be to give automatic seniority to cases against legislators, which should be heard on a day-by-day basis. atal behari vajpayee, you need to find a new way of reviving the sagging fortunes of your party. why not try to seize the high moral ground by introducing a bill to prosecute criminal legislators quickly? your law minister, arun jaitley, will surely comply. true, such a law will be dismaying for mafia dons in your own party. but other parties have even more of them, and will suffer even more. what are you waiting for?

At last some leading public personalities are attempting to clean up India’s crime-ridden political system. For years people have metaphorically wrung their hands in horror and frustration as criminals have tightened their grip on politics, especially in the poorest and roughest states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

These criminals enter parliament and state assemblies and work closely with other corrupt politicians, the police, judiciary and bureaucracy who all help them run their gangs and fix government decisions and contracts.

This trend is now being attacked by a campaign called the Forum for Clean Politics, which is being run by the Public Interest Foundation, which in turn is headed by Bimal Jalan, a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India and a top finance ministry bureaucrat, who is now a member of the Rajya Sabha (upper house of parliament).

Bimal Jalan

Bimal Jalan

Figures on the forum’s www.nocriminals.org website show that one in five Members of Parliament elected in India’s 2004 general election had pending criminal cases against them, either awaiting trial or on appeal after conviction. About half the cases are for murder, violent robbery or rape.

Those involved include 19 (40%) of 48 Maharashtra’s MPs, 13 (35%) of Bihar’s 37, and 23 of UP’s 80. Bihar’s list includes Lalu Prasad Yadav, the railways minister, who was the state’s chief minister till he had to resign over corruption charges.

Even more surprising and shocking is that five out of nine MPs (56%) in the Maharashtra-based Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), which is headed by agriculture minister Sharad Pawar and aviation minister Praful Patel, have criminal cases.

Similarly, 42% - eight out of 19 – from the UP-based Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which is run by Mayawati, UP’s chief minister, are in the list.

Mayawati and Pawar are among the country’s most important politicians and they are both possible candidates to be prime minister, if neither the Congress Party nor the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) win enough seats in the coming general election to lead a coalition.

I spoke to Jalan yesterday and he made the point that, bad though it was, a few criminals in politics did not matter so much when India’s parliament was dominated by the major parties. Now however, with the growth of coalition governments at both national and state level, small parties and their MPs exercise considerable influence.

“Governments have a lot of power over things that criminals want such as land rights and allocation of land, property rights, mining rights and environmental decision,” he says.

The figures show that MPs and candidates with criminal records are more common in regional parties like the NCP and BSP than in Congress and the BJP, where the percentages drop to around 20%. Analysts say that this is because regional party leaders and criminals are mutually useful to each other – criminals provide party finance and muscle power, and receive favourable decisions in return.

The statistics are based on returns that election candidates have to file with information of cases pending for more than two years. They are allowed to stand and be elected when they have either not been convicted, or are on appeal, because they can claim that they are innocent – though in many of the cases their guilt is beyond question. In India’s often corrupt judicial system, it is easy to delay and even fix cases so as to avoid a final decision.

Jalan is not sure how much impact the campaign will have, but he is sure that “parties will be much more reluctant to nominate people with criminal records”. Other foundation members include Naresh Chandra, former cabinet secretary and ambassador to the US, Tarun Das of the Confederation of Indian Industry, and Suresh Neotia, chairman of Ambuja Cement whose Neotia Foundation has provided the finance.

The campaign is being supported by some newspaper groups, including the Times of India, and other organisations. It is using mobile phone text messages to encourage voters to ask questions about candidates’ past histories, plus You Tube (two films click here and here), and has gathered 4,000 members on its Facebook entry for No Criminals in Politics. There is also an advertisement campaigns on tv and in newspapers encouraging people to vote with slogans like “keep religion out of politics and politics out of religion”.

Other public figures including Ratan Tata, head of the Tata group, and E, Sreedharan, who runs the highly successful Delhi Metro, last year launched the Foundation for Restoration of National Values. This is reported to be taking legal action over the vast numbers of government advertisements that appeared two weeks ago just before the general election was announced.

All this may not have much effect on the coming election, but it is a beginning. India’s greatest strength is its democracy and it is time it was wrenched free of criminals and their political friends.

INDIAN POLITICS ...........................

Politics of India takes place in a framework of a federal parliamentary multi-party representative democratic republic modeled after the British Westminster System. The Prime Minister of India is the head of government, while the President of India is the formal head of state and holds substantial reserve powers, placing him or her in approximately the same position as the British monarch. Executive power is exercised by the government. Federal legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Parliament of India. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

According to its constitution, India is a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic." India is the largest state by population with a democratically-elected government. Like the United States, India has a federal form of government, however, the central government in India has greater power in relation to its states, and its central government is patterned after the British parliamentary system. Regarding the former, "the Centre", the national government, can and has dismissed state governments if no majority party or coalition is able to form a government or under specific Constitutional clauses, and can impose direct federal rule known as President's rule. Locally, the Panchayati Raj system has several administrative functions.

For most of the years since independence, the federal government has been led by the Indian National Congress (INC),[1] Politics in the states have been dominated by several national parties including the INC, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) and various regional parties. From 1950 to 1990, barring two brief periods, the INC enjoyed a parliamentary majority. The INC was out of power between 1977 and 1980, when the Janata Party won the election owing to public discontent with the corruption of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. In 1989, a Janata Dal-led National Front coalition in alliance with the Left Front coalition won the elections but managed to stay in power for only two years.[2] As the 1991 elections gave no political party a majority, the INC formed a minority government under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and was able to complete its five-year term.[3] The years 1996–1998 were a period of turmoil in the federal government with several short-lived alliances holding sway. The BJP formed a government briefly in 1996, followed by the United Front coalition that excluded both the BJP and the INC. In 1998, the BJP formed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) with several other parties and became the first non-Congress government to complete a full five-year term.[4] In the 2004 Indian elections, the INC won the largest number of Lok Sabha seats and formed a government with a coalition called the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), supported by various parties.[5]

At the federal level, India is the most populous democracy in the world.[6][7] While many neighboring countries witness frequent coups, Indian democracy has been suspended only once.[8] Nevertheless, Indian politics is often described as chaotic. More than a fifth of parliament members face criminal charges[8] and is not unheard of that most state assembly seats are held by convicted criminals.[9] Corruption in India is common.


Constitution of India

The Constitution of India lays down the basic structure of government under which the people are to be governed. It establishes the main organs of government - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The Constitution not only defines the powers of each organ, but also demarcates their responsibilities. It regulates the relationship between the different organs and between the government and the people. It thus forms the basis of politics in India. The Constitution is superior to all other laws of the country. Every law enacted by the government has to be in conformity with the Constitution.

The governance of India is based on a tiered system, wherein the Constitution of India appropriates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The constitution uses the Seventh Schedule to delimit the subjects under three categories namely the union list, the state list and the concurrent list. The central government has the powers to enact laws on subjects under the union list, while the state governments have the powers to enact laws on subjects under the state list. Both the central as well as the state governments can enact laws on subjects under the concurrent list. However, the laws enacted by the central government under the concurrent list overrides the laws enacted by the state government when a conflict arises between those laws.

The central government exercises its broad administrative powers in the name of the President, whose duties are largely ceremonial. The president and vice president are elected indirectly for 5-year terms by a special electoral college. The vice president assumes the office of president in case of the death or resignation of the incumbent president.

The constitution designates the governance of India under two branches namely the executive branch and Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister of India. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who is designated by legislators of the political party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority. The President then appoints subordinate ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister. In reality, the President has no discretion on the question of whom to appoint as Prime Minister except when no political party or coalition of parties gains a majority in the Lok Sabha. Once the Prime Minister has been appointed, the President has no discretion on any other matter whatsoever, including the appointment of ministers. But all Central Government decisions are nominally taken in his name.


The constitution designates the Parliament of India as the legislative branch to oversee the operation of the government. India's bicameral parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Council of Ministers is held responsible to the Lok Sabha.

The government can enact laws and ordinances as required for the governance of the country. However, laws and ordinances have to be passed by the legislative branch in order to be effected. Parliament sessions are conducted to discuss, analyze and pass the laws tabled as Acts. Any law is first proposed as a bill in the lower house. If the lower house approves the bill in current form, the bill is then proposed to be enacted in the upper house. If not, the bill is sent for amendment and then tabled again so as to be passed as an Act. Even if the bill is passed in the lower house, the upper house has the right to reject the proposed bill and send it back to the government for amending the bill. Therefore, it can be said that the governance of India takes place under two processes; the executive process and the legislative process. Ideally, the governance cannot be done through the individual processes alone. After the Acts are passed by both the houses, the President signs the Bill as an Act. Thus the legislative branch also acts under the name of the President, like the executive branch.

Ordinances are laws that are passed in lieu of Acts, when the parliament is not in session. When the parliament is in recess, the President assumes the legislative powers of both the houses temporarily, under Part V: Chapter III - Article 335 of the Constitution of India. The government has to propose a law to the President during such periods. If the President is fully satisfied with the bill, and signs the bill, it becomes an ordinance. The powers of ordinances are temporary, and each ordinance has to be tabled in the parliament when the houses reassemble. The President also has the right to withdraw an ordinance

LOCAL GOVERNENCE :===

On April 24, 1993, the Constitutional (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 came into force to provide constitutional status to the Panchayati Raj institutions. This Act was extended to Panchayats in the tribal areas of eight States, namely Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Rajasthan from 24 December 1996.

The Act aims to provide 3-tier system of Panchayati Raj for all States having population of over 2 million, to hold Panchayat elections regularly every 5 years, to provide reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Women, to appoint State Finance Commission to make recommendations as regards the financial powers of the Panchayats and to constitute District Planning Committee to prepare draft development plan for the district.

Powers and responsibilities are delegated to Panchayats at the appropriate level:

  • Preparation of plan for economic development and social justice.
  • Implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice in relation to 29 subjects given in Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution.
  • To levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees.