Skip to main content

Mafia political parties have completely robbed Indian democracy of everything, including its moral legitimacy!!

Of late, the word ‘affection’ has acquired a new meaning in Uttar Pradesh. The term, which otherwise is used to express qualitative and subjective feelings, has turned hugely quantitative in nature. And interestingly, this change has been spearheaded by none other than the current Chief Minister of the state, Ms Mayawati, whose followers, in a mad frenzy of this affection, had been filling her personal coffers with gifts and donations. The reverence of Bahujan Samaj Party party workers towards her had been so overwhelming that according to reports, in the last three years, her personal wealth has grown almost 50 times! Her personal assets – which in 2004 were around Rs 1.62 crores, a figure she herself had declared before filing her nomination papers – have increased to a whopping Rs 52 crores now! And mind you, she does not have any other source of income except for these gifts! Media reports have put on record that her personal property is worth Rs 37.82 crore, plus cash of Rs 50.27 crore, bank deposits of Rs 12.88 lakh, gold and diamond jewellery worth Rs 49.75 lakh, silverware costing Rs 1.12 lakh, and murals worth Rs 15 lakh!! On being questioned, Mayawati’s explanation was that her party workers and well wishers had contributed this humungous wealth for no other reason but sheer love and affection towards her!

In fact, whatever means that Mayawati has employed to create this wealth and to get infamous is nothing new in the Indian political landscape. But unlike her, most of the other political parties have amassed obscene mounts of wealth through gifts and donations, not for any individual leader per se, but for their respective parties. It all actually started during 1970, when the government – under the Prime Ministership of Indira Gandhi – banned political parties from accepting donations from corporations. Though the objective of this ban was to restrict the influence of companies on political parties in power, the ban hardly served its purpose. On the contrary, this ban had a spiralling negative outcome, of which Mayawati is a classic case.

The political parties took full advantage of this rule and made corporations siphon off unaccounted black money to party coffers. Political parties typically claimed to raise funds, much of it below Rs 10,000 per donation, as then the donation did not require any disclosure. This way any amount of cash with them can be shown as donations from various people at denominations less than Rs 10,000 since by law they need not keep a record of such donors or issue receipts. And thus fund raising went on blatantly.

In other words, it was the most convenient way in which most political parties legitimised their blatant extortion of money from all sections of people. This time, though apparently it is Mayawati’s personal wealth that the media is more bothered about, the bigger problem is the fund raising system in totality. In general, people who provide cash do not have the right intentions, and many a time they demand returns whenever the respective parties or their representatives are in power. This is an aspect that has completely corrupted and criminalised the entire system as it is no secret that the biggest cash donors are obviously those who cannot generate the same amount through legal means. So political parties have conveniently developed a self-sustaining model. Raise funds (in cash), irrespective of going into the details of sources of the income of the donor; then term it as a gift or donation; use the same fund for all kinds of apolitical means to come to power; then when in power, take kickbacks (as the ‘cash’ money has to be paid back), or return favours in some form or the other, like through issuance of government projects or bailing the donor out of our frail legal system after some heinous crime! Or best, give them a ticket to fight the next elections and become MLAs or MPs themselves!

No wonder, one fourth of our sitting Parliamentarians have criminal records like murder, arson and rape! No wonder, politicians in our country get away from any form of legal scrutiny by giving some vague explanation that funds are coming on account of ‘affection’ from well wishers and party workers! No wonder, that not only would the Central Bureau of Investigation believe in these explanations but would also end up giving a clean chit to all such cases. And no wonder, the bureaucracy, judiciary and media sit and watch it all as mute spectators.

There is a popular saying that politics in India is more like a business – but then business enterprises have basic ethics, codes of conduct and moralities in place. Going by the precedence, politics in India is more like organised crime wherein political parties are mafias in themselves, who have completely robbed the Indian democracy of everything, including its moral legitimacy!!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

HATS OFF TO SHAH RUKH KHAN FOR STANDING HIS GROUND! IT’S NOW TIME TO END THIS HOOLIGANISM ONCE AND FOR ALL AND MAKE MUMBAI A UNION TERRITORY!

SRK is great! Not just because he is such a star, but because he genuinely is the most amazing person and has such a logical and sound brain. And now the entire nation idolizes this man all the more because he has become a symbol of sheer courage as well! And I think all it required was someone like him to stand up coolly and say, “This is not right, I’ve done nothing wrong and I won’t apologise.” When he was saying this, one could almost see the schoolboy rebel in him – not ready to cow down to an illogical man trying to act as the school headmaster. I am writing this editorial immediately after coming back from a show on NDTV 24x7, which was on the topic, “Is Sena the real power in Mumbai?” I was one of the speakers. It was sad to see Uddhav Thackeray, who was another speaker in that show, sticking to a stance that cannot be defended by any sense of logic. When questioned on the show by the NDTV anchor on his tendentious comments against SRK, Uddhav’s reply was that one should ask th

It’s important for Anna to become more flexible and respectful towards the democratic process, to give a bigger thrust to his movement

I was too young then to really remember it all; but I have heard from many people that the mass protests generated by the arrest of Anna Hazare are similar to the uprising called Total Revolution led by the late Jaiprakash Narayan in the early 1970s. In fact, it was the Total Revolution and the chaos that followed – and a historic blunder by Indira Gandhi – that led to the imposition of the Emergency in India in 1975. Many people are comparing today’s situation to the Emergency days. The people of India are so fed up and so disgusted with corruption and our rotten and corrupt system that the wave of protests we see is hardly surprising. I have often publicly called India not a democracy but a demonocracy where crooked politicians and their criminal cohorts are openly plundering the nation; well aware that a dysfunctional judicial system will allow them to get away. In almost all cases, they have actually got away and have hence acquired the arrogance and swagger of pirates who know

Don’t see “Slumdog Millionaire”. It sucks!

A phony poseur that has been made only to mock India for the viewing pleasure of the First World!! The emperor’s new clothes! That’s “Slumdog Millionaire” for you… Five minutes into this celebrated patchwork of illogical clichés and you are struck by the jarring dialogues. The cumbersome delivery in a language which doesn’t come naturally to most of the actors sounds like someone scratching on walls with one’s finger nails; it ruins the possibility of a connection… Had this film been made by an Indian director, it would’ve been trashed as a rotting old hat, which literally stands out only because of its stench, but since the man making it happens to be from the West, we’re all left celebrating the emperor’s new clothes. The film borrows an undoubtedly interesting narrative style – from films like “City of God” – but then uses it to weave in a collection of clichés from the Third World’s underbelly for the viewing pleasure of a First World audience. The real slumdog in the movie is not