news details |
|
|
| Constitution facilitate criminals to capture power | | | Mahadeep Singh Jamwal | 1/1/2019 10:01:45 PM |
| When the reins of power corridor passed on from British to our own countrymen in 1947, the parliamentary democracy was preferred as best way of delivery over presidential form of government. If we look into presidential form of government, we can say, it is necessarily associated with stability and continuity of policies whereas the parliamentary form emphasis on accountability to the people. Our constitutional architects were of the view that a government should quintessentially have the elements of accountability as well as stability and respecting accountability switched over to parliamentary democracy. Even after remaining under British rule for years, we adopted parliamentary model, predominantly based on the British system. Our constitution makers remained busy in copying another's work or borrowing from other countries constitution and in presenting the borrowed work as a rule book for the government that was adopted on 26th November, 1949 and came into force on 26th January, 1950 as 'Constitution of India'. As a post constitution generation, it never persuaded to think about much of the provisions of the constitution and it never remained in much discussion as life was a smooth passage. Very rarely it used to be in public domain about any MPs/Legislators especially ministers being accused of charges of murder, rape, loot, kidnapping etc. Although their involvement in scams and corruption cases can well be traced to the 'Jeep Scandal' in 1948 as first major corruption case in independent India. We were loaded with information about MPs/Legislators facing charges of murder, attempt to murder, rape, kidnapping, looting etc. occupying big chunk of Lok Sabha/Assemblies, only after 2003 onward, when Supreme Court made it mandatory for all the candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal, financial and educational background prior to the polls by filing an affidavit with the Election Commission of India. These directions were outcome of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filled by the 'Association for Democratic Reforms' - ADR (that came into existence in 1999, a non-partisan, non-governmental organization working in the area of electoral and political reforms) with the Delhi High Court regarding the disclosure of the criminal, financial and educational background of the candidates contesting elections. The PIL was upheld by the Delhi High Court in 2000. Annoyed with the judgment and expecting their expose in this field, the government of time preferred an appeal in Honorable Supreme Court. However, in 2002 and subsequently in 2003, the Supreme Court issued the mandate of filling affidavits before ECI. The process led to greater awareness among voters of criminal cases against politicians. The revelations by ADR about political fraternity sitting in the Parliament in 16th Lok Sabha or had been part of 14th and 15th Lok Sabha facing heinous crimes such as murder, attempt to murder, rape, kidnapping, looting etc. make one to think hundred times, what sort of leaders we are voting to represent us. After the mandatory provision of filling affidavits by contesting candidates, 14th, 15th and 16th Lok Sabha elections were analyzed by ADR based on the information contained in self submitted affidavits by contesting candidates and startling facts make us to shudder. The 14th Lok Sabha (UPA government) had 128 MPs with criminal record including 55 MPs facing serious criminal offences; the 15th Lok Sabha (UPA government) had 150 MPs with criminal record including 72 MPs facing serious criminal offences, and the 16th Lok Sabha (NDA government) has 186 MPs with criminal records. Every third newly elected MP in 16th Lok Sabha has a criminal record. The more clarity on the subject speaks that in 15th Lok Sabha, there were 42 (36%) MPs out of the 116 from BJP having criminal record and Congress had 41 (20%) of the 202 MPs having criminal record. Whereas 16th Lok Sabha loaded with 63 elected MPs from BJP, 3 out of 44 winners from Indian National Congress, 3 out of 37 winners from AIADMK, 8 out of 18 winners from Shiv Sena have serious criminal cases against them. While we know that the share of MPs and MLAs with criminal backgrounds has been growing steadily, the puzzle that stares us in our face is why such candidates get rewarded and not rejected by the voters. Political parties act as a platform, purveying criminal candidates to the voters. With the proliferation of political parties and expanding size of the electorate, electoral democracy has become a costly affair, which needs a steady flow of money to keep its wheels moving. Criminal candidates with ill-gotten wealth make them available to political parties as self-financing candidates and financial rents to the party coffers. This fraternity assumes Robin-hood image in the ignorant society and enjoy popular support in spite of their corrupt and criminal backgrounds. While scrolling on Google I came across a posting dated August 31, 2017 with heading as; BJP has highest number of MPs, MLAs with cases of crime against women: ADR?study. It has highlighted that ADR and National Election Watch have analyzed 4,852 out of 4,896 election affidavits of current MPs and MLAs. This includes 774 out of 776 affidavits of MPs and 4,078 out of 4,120 MLAs from all the states of India. Out of the analyzed 1,581 (33%) MPs and MLAs with declared criminal cases, 51 have declared cases related to crimes against women that include BJP with the highest number of MPs and MLAs 14 followed by the Shiv Sena 7 and the All India Trinamool Congress 6. The charges are related to assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, kidnapping, abducting, rape, and word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
The data encouraged me to think about constitution makers about their intentions of keeping Parliament free of criminals as we won't find any restriction tagged in the constitution by its maker to keep criminals away from the house of democracy, the Parliament, responsible to enact law for the countrymen. Criminals play a decisive role in making laws for society and our constitution is helpless. Does a provision not required to be incorporated in the constitution to debar this criminal fraternity desecrating the Parliament? My quarry was responded in positive by 90% people in my acquaintances and 80% in my unknown list. Similarly the expectation of Apex Court from Narinder Modi to drop such ministers from his cabinet, facing murder, rape, looting charges etc. is true reflection of Hindi idiom " Kaan Par Ju Tak Na Rengna" and claims of giving neat and clean government is joke of the first class. Here the words of Ray Kroc, an American entrepreneur "The quality of a leader is reflected in the standards they set for themselves". The present takes us to the 'Arabian Nights' story of 'Ali Baba Chalis Chor' with the difference that Ali Baba of the story, a poor woodcutter managed its entry into the thieves' den with the magical words 'Khul Ja Sim Sim' and carried away treasure collected by thieves but in present time one has to manage his entry into the Lok Sabha not with the phrase of Ali Baba but with criminal record and ill gotten money to carry away treasure not of thieves but of the tax payers. We cannot keep our lips glued in 21st century, when we are given a government loaded with 31% ministers facing criminal charges of murder, attempt to murder, rape, kidnapping etc. only if someone claiming to be savior of humanity and taking country to greater heights but responsible for their entry in government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
