By Sunanda K. Datta-Ray , CALCUTTA: Far from being a turning point in public morality, the conviction of former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao on a corruption charge only exposes the absurd complexities of a legal and political system that is tailor-made to encourage abuse.
Mr. Rao, 79, is the only Congress politician outside the Nehru-Gandhi family ever to have been prime minister. He took momentous steps to revive industry, attract foreign investment, forge a more evenhanded foreign policy, move India closer to America, end the long boycott of Israel and seek a rapprochement with archenemies China and Pakistan.
His conviction for bribing four members of a regional party with about $800,000 to vote for his Congress government in a crucial 1993 no confidence debate in Parliament hangs on the technicality that the money was paid outside the confines of Parliament House. Members of Parliament have legal immunity from prosecution for such acts while they are inside.
Another law allows investigation when assets of politicians are in excess of known income. That is where the recipients, one of whom agreedto testify in exchange for immunity, seem to have tripped up. They deposited nearly half the bribe money in banks which acted as the vital link that eventually nailed Mr. Rao.
The final outcome of the case is subject to a Supreme Court appeal by Mr. Rao and his co-accused, Buta Singh, a senior Sikh politician who held various high positions under the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, her son Rajiv and Mr. Rao himself. They have said they will appeal against the judgment of the special court that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party government set up to try the case.
Few Indians doubt that votes were bought seven years ago, with or without Mr. Rao's knowledge. But this is far from a serious crime in local eyes. Not even Judge Ajit Bharihoke, who sentenced Mr. Rao and Mr. Singh to three years in jail as well as fines of $4,400 each, suggested that either gained personally from the crime.
The sentence is widely regarded as excessively harsh punishment for aging men to whom the country owes much. According to the 18-page court order, the intent is to "send a message to society that corruption is not a low-risk business but a high-risk business."
Mr. Rao was widely hailed seven years ago as a savior because the defeat of the confidence motion in which the bribery took place spared the country serious political uncertainty after Rajiv Gandhi's murder and two chaotic short-lived governments under inept and self-seeking prime ministers. By converting his fragile parliamentary following into a stable majority, Mr. Rao also consolidated his reputation as an astute strategist.
His pragmatic economic and political policies angered powerful vested interests in the bureaucracy and the private sector, as well as alienating traditional Congress ideologues. It gave a weapon to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty's supporters, who found a totem in Rajiv's Italian-born widow, Sonia. When Mr. Rao lost the 1996 general election his power faded.
Even if he and Mr. Singh lose their appeal and go to jail, it is unlikely to have a healthy impact on a political system that is compromised from top to bottom. As an opposition politician, Mr. Vajpayee admitted to a parliamentary select committee that every Indian legislator began his career with the lie of false election spending returns, because the ceilings on such spending are unrealistically low.
Since becoming prime minister, Mr. Vajpayee has done precious little to cleanse a system in which graft and abuse of power are commonplace. The fate of Mr. Rao and Mr. Singh will make other Indian politicians more careful, not more honest.
The writer, a former editorof the Indian newspaper The Statesman, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.
courtsey http://www.iht.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment