Executive's assault on Judiciary .... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard / May 15, 2016

Executive's assault on judiciary will only kill the essential spirit of the constitution

It is the destiny of men to pass into the great beyond one day. But the institutions created by mankind are meant to survive to promote and protect the system. Though their arbitrary misuse of power causes critical confrontations. The Indian Constitution—the world’s longest—strongly emphasises the division of power between the executive, judiciary and legislature. The wise men and women who wrote it anticipated a conflict between politicians and judges. They, however, hardly foresaw the depth of animosity that could rise between the two pillars of democracy.

The oppugnancy between the executive and judiciary is not new. But today, it has escalated into a turf war rather than a civilised disagreement in the spirit of the Constitution. Rattled by the rising number of judicial verdicts against various actions of the executive and legislature, politicians across the spectrum have unsheathed their swords against the judiciary. Legislatures, including Parliament, have been turned into platforms to launch diatribes against the judiciary.

During the last session of Parliament, the judiciary was targeted sans serious provocation. None other than Finance Minister Arun Jaitley led the attack. The House was discussing financial issues, but he chose the occasion to hit out at the judiciary, accusing it of destroying “step by step, brick by brick, the edifice of India’s legislature”.

Jaitley was echoing the views of not only PM Narendra Modi, but also of former PMs like Manmohan Singh, as well as a number of powerful leaders across parties. Last year, Modi lamented the rising tendency of judicial activism. Addressing a conference of Chief Justices and CMs, he had said, “It is never too difficult to deliver justice within the boundaries of the law and Constitution. But it is very difficult to find the truth between perception and reality. It must be pondered over whether five-star activists are driving the judiciary today… if havoc is created to drive the judiciary. It has become difficult to deliver justice in an atmosphere of perception”. He also criticised the long vacations enjoyed by high court and Supreme Court judges, especially the month-long summer break in the apex court. His predecessor had expressed his annoyance with the judiciary by warning, “The judicial family must consider the ills that face the judicial system with concern and find quick solutions for it. Any further delay in finding such solutions will only jeopardise the integrity and efficacy of judicial institutions”.

India is not alone where the political leadership is concerned about what it perceives as judicial encroachment. In the 1800s, America’s Founding Father and president, who was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had noted, “Judicial activism makes a thing of wax in the hands of judiciary which it can give the shape as it wishes.”Apart from politicos, the judiciary is also under attack from agenda-driven civil society. There are numerous examples of activists attacking judicial pronouncements, which went against their ideological convictions.

If political leaders have been acerbic in their criticism, judges have not kept schtum either. In April, Chief Justice T S Thakur, while sharing a platform with the PM, made it clear that his fraternity cannot be blamed for the executive’s mistakes. Speaking in a voice trembling with emotion, he clarified, “It is not only in the name of a litigant or people languishing in jails but also in the name of development of the country, that I beseech you to rise to the occasion and realise that it is not enough to criticise. You cannot shift the entire burden on the judiciary.” He responded on judicial vacations by saying, “Do you think we go to Manali or some other hill stations to enjoy ourselves? If he (the PM) thinks we have long vacations, he is entitled to hold on to his views. But only a judge, his wife and children can tell you how much judges enjoy in the vacations.”

Behind the verbal duel between the judiciary and executive lies the reality of various arms of the latter abandoning their basic duty of providing responsive and clean governance. During the past two decades, the courts have rapped the executive’s knuckles on various issues by:

• Quashing the National Judicial Accountability Act, which would have given decisive role to executive in the selection of judges
• Striking down caste and religious reservations by various states
• Barring politicians from contesting polls after conviction and vacating seats
• Taking serious view of scams and ordering court-monitored probe
• Preventing state governments from playing with environment
• Striking down imposition of Article 356 in Uttarakhand
• Giving freedom to investigative agencies to probe politicians and civil servants without seeking approval of any authority
• Cleansing the corruption-ridden BCCI, which is largely dominated by political leaders.
It is not the judiciary, which is becoming more involved in the administration of the state, but the rising number of citizens who are approaching various courts for the redressal of their grievances after they failed to get justice from government departments. The state is the largest litigant in India. According to legal luminaries, the judiciary has stepped in whenever the executive has failed. But politicians assert that unelected persons cannot be given the power to reverse decisions taken by an elected government in the public interest.

A prominent jurist fired a robust rebuttal, maintaining that the Constitution was written on behalf of the people while it is only one-third of the voters, which elect a government. Fortunately, the judiciary enjoys far more credibility than the executive. Any attempt to damage its reputation through insulations and legislations will only kill the essential spirit of the Constitution. At a time when the nation is witnessing the growth of confrontationist politics, any attempt to weaken the judiciary will strike at the roots of Indian democracy and its Constitution.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Further Strife with Judiciary .... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ October 18, 2015

Further Strife with Judiciary Will Put Government’s Democratic Intentions in    the Dock

King Solomon, the ancient king of Israel, was widely known for his sagacity and justice. His throne had a round top and two lions standing below each arm. Centuries later, Indian justice’s golden throne, the Supreme Court, delivered a judgment that protected the cornerstone of our democracy. A five-member Bench headed by Justice J S Khehar struck down the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act, which sought the government power in choosing judges.

The greatness of the Indian judiciary is an allegory of Solomon’s throne, nationally emblematic of India’s legislature and executive. There was, however, leonine disappointment over L’affaire NJAC. It was the Modi government’s first major encounter with the judiciary. But PM Narendra Modi should take the setback as signal for course correction by initiating a dialogue for reconciliation and accommodation rather than insolent confrontation.

The judicial burial of NJAC has, however, caused much animosity and anger in the ruling establishment. Justice Khehar made a significant remark in his judgment: “It is difficult to hold that the wisdom of appointment of judges can be shared with the political-executive. In India, the organic development of civil society has not as yet sufficiently evolved. The expectation from the judiciary, to safeguard the rights of the citizens of this country, can only be ensured by keeping it absolutely insulated and independent from the other organs of governance.”  He was echoing the voices and intent of the collective wisdom that gave India its Constitution. It’s no surprise that the idea of the NJAC was born out of political consternation after various courts brought many of the high and mighty to justice, sending Union ministers, chief ministers and top bureaucrats to prison.

The judgment showed the Indian judiciary continues to be courageous and outspoken. The reaction of the ruling party and its top law officers, however, was dismally churlish. Law minister D V Sadananda Gowda, an advocate himself, said, “I am surprised by the verdict of the Supreme Court on NJAC which was completely supported by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. It had 100 per cent support of the people.” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who extensively argued for the government, echoed Gowda’s sentiment and termed it a flawed judgement “ignoring the will of the Parliament, half of state legislatures and the will of the people for transparency in judicial appointments”. Ironically, it is the BJP and its allies who have historically gained from judicial activism. Leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani have been champions of judicial independence. The BJP must remember that it is an independent judiciary that has corrected distortions in the functioning of the executive and restored the rule of law. In the 1970s, Indira Gandhi had rammed through various legislations, which she considered the Will of the Bill. Many curbs on fundamental rights during the Emergency were passed by the same Parliament, which adopted the NJAC. The will of the people is reflected in the Constitution of India as “We, the People.” Various judicial orders since Independence have clarified that the Constitution’s basic structure cannot be mauled to suit the political philosophy of a ruling party. Using convoluted arguments against the role of courts, politicians are suggestively selling the ominous idea that any elected government can demolish the judicature by invoking the Will of the People doctrine.

It is not for the first time that court verdicts have created a confrontation between the judiciary and executive and sometimes even with the legislature. Irked by judges’ vigorous scrutiny of government actions and legislations, politicians have tended to tinker with the judiciary’s powers. The current battle stems from the same desire to disturb the delicate balance of power between the judiciary, executive and the legislature. Undoubtedly, the collegium system to choose judges needs to be insulated against extraneous factors. But it has worked much better than the previous one for the past 22 years. Of the 2,000-odd appointments in high courts and the Supreme Court since 1993, hardly a dozen turned out to be bad apples. But if the NJAC is enforced, politicians will choose judges. By making the law minister and two other non-judicial individuals members of the selection panel, the executive can slip in people with dubious backgrounds. Can India afford to institutionalise a mechanism by which chargesheeted or tainted leaders are allowed to select top judges? What sort of Solomons would the country get if Yeddyurappa, Lalu Prasad, Azam Khan or A Raja becomes the law minister, either in their states or at the Centre? Is it not a possibility that by changing the system, those facing the rule of law would instal puppet judges to superimpose the rule of their masters on the system?

The judiciary’s role is well defined by the Constitution. Its responsibilities are to ensure the rule of law and to interpret the Constitution. People who are tempted to remove any checks on their lust for unlimited power cannot be allowed to choose judges. The Indian judiciary has delivered directions on issues like health, environment, crime against women and better education, which are not in our written Constitution. It takes over when the executive fails. Even now, the latter has the power to stall any appointment if it finds the candidate’s credentials unsatisfactory. The NDA government, too, prevented an eminent lawyer from becoming a Supreme Court judge for unexplained reasons. Any further confrontation with the judiciary will not only weaken India’s healthy democracy but also raise questions about the government’s democratic intentions. Like during Indira’s regime, there are many in the NDA who enjoy intimidating the judiciary to settle personal scores. They will push the PM to take the verdict as a challenge to his authority. But a strong and secure leader like Modi will succeed only by making hallowed institutions like the judiciary even stronger. History is an estuary of evidence, which shows that those who have fiddled with judicial independence have done so at their own peril.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Individuals, Not Ideologies ....... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ February 15, 2015

Individuals, Not Ideologies, Dictating Poll Verdicts Show Changing Contours of Democracy

There are punctuations in history that signal shifts in political idiom. Democracies are expected to vote for or against an ideology. By definition, the democratic process involves confrontation between distinctive ideologies represented by different parties. Today, individuals have replaced ideologies. Even in mature democracies like the US and UK, individuals such as Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher et al turbo-charged electoral energy rather than                                                                           
                                                                                 (From left) Kejriwal, Chamling, NTR and Mahanta)

In Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi has seen the kinetic rise of an individual instead of an alternative political philosophy to the BJP and Congress. For the political pundits, Kejriwal’s triumph has been an exceptional electoral enigma. Since it is for the first time that a newborn party has secured over 50 per cent of votes in Delhi, AAP’s victory has been projected as an unprecedented mandate. This is not entirely true. The Kejriwal Charisma is just yet another endorsement of the changing contours of political verdicts. Fed up with established parties and lethargic leaders, voters have been desperately looking for individuals who not only seem different but also behave differently. Kejriwal didn’t defeat the BJP or the Congress. He trounced the expired or confused ideologies of the national parties. The massive turnout at his second swearing-in was an indication of his personal popularity and not that of his party. Self-appointed political stargazers and opinionated intellectuals are busy predicting the impact of Kejriwal’s victory in other parts of the country. Besides bringing a broad smile to the face of Modi-wounded rivals, the Delhi declaration may not cause serious upheavals unless more Kejriwals emerge in the poll-bound states. If this happens, it may turn out to be a major headache for Modi bhakts and the BJP. But none of the local leaders have the capacity to neutralise the Modi Mantra as Kejriwal could in Delhi.

Kejriwal’s rise is as spectacular as that of Modi. People from all over the country chose Modi not because he was leading the BJP but because he looked different from the usual caricature of the political campaigner. His delivery of rhetoric was more convincing than the discipline and devotional colours of his saffron party. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani could not retain their following. Gandhi Parivar members have also lost their charismatic copyright. In the past decade, many individuals have risen at the cost of their own parties or have floated smaller organisations to take on the national or local parties. Earlier, when the Congress, led by Indira Gandhi, marginalised local leaders and ran the states like personal fiefdoms, the backlash resulted in the birth of regional satraps who ejected the Congress from their states. Some examples:

• During the early 1980s, the Congress in Andhra Pradesh became a symbol of arrogance and corrupt governance. It was run from Delhi. The local leadership had to take instructions from the private secretaries in the PMO for even appointing senior officers. As the Congress became ineffective in Andhra, it was left to film icon NT Rama Rao to take on the ruling party. NTR was the first homegrown leader who stormed to power within months of floating his party. In 1983, the TDP won 201 of 294 seats and polled 54 per cent votes. The Congress couldn’t digest its humiliating defeat. The High Command tried to break the TDP and imposed a dummy CM after dismissing NTR. But the Union Government had to yield to public pressure and order fresh elections in 1985. Once again the TDP polled 54 per cent votes and won 202 seats. But it wasn’t a vote for the TDP. It was a verdict in favour of an individual who lacked ideology but was seen as a person who would provide a clean and responsive government. Andhra became the first large state to hand over its destiny to a political novice. NTR wielded so much clout that the subsequent coalition government at the Centre couldn’t choose its PM without his approval.

• In the Northeast, another rising star demolished the might of the national party by floating his own outfit to become India’s youngest CM at 33. In 1983, student leader Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, along with half a dozen other student leaders, launched an agitation against illegal immigrations to Assam. Over 400 people died in the agitation and Mahanta became the saviour of the Assamese identity. Since the All Assam Students’ Union became a rallying point for all Assamese people, PM Rajiv Gandhi was forced to sign the Assam Accord following which the Congress government headed by Hiteshwar Saikia was dismissed. Fresh elections were ordered. Mahanta floated the Asom Gana Parishad in 1985 and won an absolute majority the same year and became the CM.

• In the tiny state of Sikkim, Pawan Kumar Chamling, 44, created history in 1993 when he floated his own party, the Socialist Democratic Front (SDF). He announced on his official website that “serving the people of Sikkim is our duty and religion”. In 1994, his party won an absolute majority. Since then he has been winning all the elections in Sikkim. In 1999, his party polled 52 per cent votes, which rose to 71 per cent in 2004. In 2009, the SDF won all the 32 seats in the Assembly.

Kejriwal’s victory is just a rekindling of the people’s desire to support those with fire in their belly. Even leaders like Mamata Banerjee, Naveen Patnaik and KCR have defeated the national parties not because their parties were seen as better alternatives but because they are perceived as better administrators. Constitutionally, India may still be a parliamentary democracy. But on the ground, the monumental triumphs of individuals like Modi and Kejriwal have transformed the country’s political ethos into a presidential form of democracy. From now on, individuals with an agenda and attitude, who do not necessarily have a defined ideology, will decide the fate of their own parties and the populace.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

US must realise that India can be a Friend ..... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/January 12, 2014

US Must Realise that India Can be a Friend, Only as an Equal and Not as a Follower

Agonised apologists for America are in angst over the angry objurgation against American arrogance over L’affaire Devyani Khobragade. Ever since the Indian government showed some spine by retaliating against the US government, America’s Indian megaphones are rising in fortissimo to counter the orchestra of domestic disgust. For them, money is more important than national pride. The class that adores the colour of the greenback over respect for the Tricolour are asking fustian questions like “Is Devyani more important than the Indo-US relationship?” In their lucre-driven bombilations, they have chosen to forget that Devyani, a Dalit diplomat, was representing her country and was not just some individual the Indian government had dispatched to the US. Forget amor patriae, an obstreperous campaign is on to undermine her reputation and underplay the colossal insult to the prestige of Indian state by a petty American official. As Devyani returned home in disguised disgrace, the government hit back by asking a US diplomat to be recalled. He was the one instrumental in getting Devyani’s maid Sangeeta Richard’s family ‘evacuated’ from their own country—India.

While Devyani was declared persona non grata, US authorities remained silent about the behaviour of her nanny and her family members who entered the US to avoid facing Indian courts. The inexplicably imperious US posturing on Devyani hides more than what it reveals. Otherwise both countries wouldn’t have adopted an eyeball-to-eyeball stance. It is perhaps for the first time that both India and the US have expelled diplomats in concert. Such an exceptional row comes at a stage when they were perceived as allies in global economic and strategic issues. For the past two decades, India has been bending backwards to mend its ways and means to suit American corporate and strategic interests. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the only Head of State who has made the maximum number of trips during his two terms to the US than any of his peers. American diplomats in India were given exceptional waivers to open schools, clubs, import luxury goods and even employ Indians without following Indian laws. The American Embassy in New Delhi was shown the magnanimity of blocking the road behind it in the name of security, while the Indian Embassy in Washington was even denied two parking spots. American diplomats have been enjoying special facilities at various airports in India, unlike Indian diplomats in the US. American Embassy staff were given passes to enter official areas where even senior civil servants, ministers and chief ministers could not tread. The Indian Prime Minister and Union ministers have been liberal in granting visiting US junior diplomats an audience. But for our ministers, getting an appointment with even a Secretary in the US government, let alone President Obama, would be unthinkable. The UPA has been so eager to oblige America that it even risked a fall by getting the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement passed, facing charges of political misconduct.

If that wasn’t enough, the Indian government went out of its way to save American companies from sinking during the economic recession by placing huge orders on capital equipment. America has been treating India as a bespoke colony, expecting Indians to surrender their self-respect. Since India opened up its economy to become a global player, it has been granting American companies preference over multinationals from other countries. During the past 10 years, India has placed orders worth `50,000 crore with US corporations for defence equipment and aircraft. India is America’s largest but unreciprocated trade partner. It has invested over $60 billion in US treasury bonds, thereby becoming America’s 17th largest investor. Even on international issues, the UPA would invite the ire of its domestic constituencies by supporting US policy on Sri Lanka and Iran. Indian corporate Caesars have been liberal in funding American academia with millions of dollars, which they rarely do for Indian institutions. In America they perceive a natural ally who would fight against terror, dictatorships and communist expansionism for mutual benefit. Indians of American-origin contribute bounteously to parties during the US elections.

The Devyani episode has proved that America preaches democracy and peace but practices dictatorship and exclusivity. Anyone who questions their arbitrariness and arrogance would be treated as an enemy. Even after extracting maximum economic flesh from India, no American company or the US government has shown even a minor interest in protecting India’s dignity and security. In reality, they have been supporting the anti-India forces in our neighbourhood, closing their eyes against terror camps in Pakistan and imposing strict conditions on the immigration of Indian skilled labour to the US. They are tight-fisted while investing in India. According to official records, the cumulative FDI equity inflow into India was just $2 million until September 2013. About 20 per cent of it went to the services sector. Americans have refused to transfer technology and invest in immovable assets but are insisting on extremely liberal tax policies for their FIIs so that they could fatten their coffers by playing the markets.

Yet India has been magnanimous towards America. But the way they treated Devyani proves beyond any doubt that US policymakers are uncomfortable with India’s rise as an economic and military super power, which could challenge their supremacy one day. They have perhaps forgotten former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who always showed them their place, whether it was over China or Pakistan. The US may have infiltrated the Indian establishment but it has wounded the heart of India. For Indians, protecting the prestige of the Tricolour is a matter of faith, which cannot be compromised by showering a bounty of dollars on a chosen few. The time has come for America to realise that India can be a friend, only as an equal and not as a follower.

Prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Democracy will vanish ... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ October 21, 2012

Democracy will vanish if bribing voters becomes standard practice

Political parties are meant to be driven by conviction in a democracy. That is all history now. All Indian political parties are now led by convenience. The emphasis is on buying votes rather than winning hearts. In a nation where illiteracy is over 35 per cent, and over 30 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line, leaders are indulging in competitive politics—not to make life better or to remove unemployment, but by offering electronic toys to people, who hardly get electricity for more than four hours a day. In a country where most schools and households are without basic amenities like toilets and water, voters are promised fancy laptops, computers, electronic gadgets, colour TVs and mixer-grinders. Instead of improving their purchasing power, the political leadership is determined to fill the order books of companies. Parties have devised an innovative mechanism to collect money from the poor—impose taxes and inflate government expenditure first, and then return the money in the form of attractive goodies instead of productive goods. Money and material have become much better rewarding tools than missions with a vision.

The Congress party’s election manifesto for Himachal Pradesh, which was released last week, guaranteed more freebies than freedom from corruption and poverty. It assured voters of better governance than the ruling BJP, though. While releasing the party’s road map for the tiny state, the Union Minister of Commerce, Industry and Textiles, Anand Sharma, spent more time promising doles than development. Being a hardcore Rajiv Gandhi loyalist, Sharma couldn’t think of a better name for a freebie scheme than one named after his late mentor. Sharma declared that if voted to power, the Congress would launch the Rajiv Gandhi Digital Student Yojana, under which 10,000 students who perform exceptionally well in the board examinations of Class X and XII will be given free laptops. He also promised laptops to students who secure a first class in Class VIII. If that wasn’t enough, he made another commitment—all school- and college-going children would get free passes to attend classes.

National parties like the BJP and the Congress are expected to set the tone and agenda for regional parties by outlining the big picture and their vision for development. But now, the regional satraps and their narrow view of governance lead the national parties. For the past 10 years, most regional parties have won elections only by promising freebies. For example, in 2006, the DMK played a trump card by vowing to give free colour TVs to each family, if voted to power. Over 40 per cent of families live below the poverty line in Tamil Nadu. The DMK won by a massive majority and TV manufacturers minted money; some of them survived the slump, thanks to massive orders for colour TVs from the state government. But the DMK government never thought of providing power or cable connections to the TV viewers. Not to be left behind, in 2011, the AIADMK promised grinders or mixers to all families, and it won at the hustings.

The art of winning elections through gifts, and not performance, travelled fast to the north. More recently, the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Akali Dal took a leaf out of the Dravidian model. The SP even went a step further. Without bothering to work out the costs of its munificence—before the Uttar Pradesh polls—SP announced free tablets to all students who passed Class X and laptops to all those who passed Class XII. It also promised an unemployment allowance to anyone above 35 years of age. The Akali Dal’s freebies were even more attractive—laptops with data cards to all Class XII students and free education up to graduation level to all girls, and free bicycles to girls studying in Class IX and X. In 2005, Lalu Prasad Yadav had made an attempt to defeat his arch rival Nitish Kumar by announcing that his government would deposit `10,000 in the bank account of every girl belonging to a BPL family as against `2,000 promised by Nitish. But Lalu lost because Nitish’s bouquet of freebies was a better model of social engineering.

The growing tendency to resort to populism and profligacy at the cost of better governance has already demolished well-defined models of holistic economic development. The Congress which didn’t raise an eyelid while raising diesel prices and limiting the number of LPG gas cylinders to just six a year is now leading the pack with the worst kind of allurements to retain its fast-eroding electoral base. On one hand, the Prime Minister and various Congress leaders are pleading for harsh measures to contain the deficit. On the other, its local leaders are devising newer ways to empty the government’s coffers. Even most BJP chief ministers are offering schemes to hand out cash to voters than job opportunities. For the ruling political establishment, it makes good economics and better politics to make both the corporates and the poor dependent on the state for survival. Elections won by using state money and not a development mission pose a greater threat to Indian democracy than the caste and communal divide.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com;  Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/May 22, 2011

Politics of antagonism will murder our democracy

The survival of democracy depends on dialogue and debate. Sadly, the Indian democratic system is being subverted by the very individuals who are expected to hold healthy discussions to resolve contentious issues. The picture of a chief minister seeking justice from the president of India against the atrocities unleashed by a nominee of the Rashtrapati Bhawan defines the impending collapse of India’s institutional framework. Last week, Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa accompanied by 121 of his MLAs walked up Raisina Hill in New Delhi to meet Pratibha Patil because back home, Governor Hans Raj Bhardwaj had refused to engage the chief minister in sane dialogue. For Bhardwaj, the language of threats and dismissal was the best means to settle political disputes. As the BJP leaders were meeting the president, the governor issued yet another veiled threat to a democratically elected government which has been repeatedly winning the people’s mandate during the past few months.

The crisis in Karnataka symbolises the sickness that plagues Indian politics. Consensus has been replaced with confrontation, effusiveness with ego and accommodation with arrogance. As five new chief ministers took over in states which went to the polls last week, the mood at nearly every swearing venue was the jubilation of a bloody war won. It didn’t look anything like the celebration of an electoral victory. Those who were defeated by the voter were conspicuous by their absence; those who won were least concerned about their missing rivals who had earlier ruled the state for five years. It was a change without the continuity of democratic tradition. In both Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, no political party that vied for power had ever opened a dialogue with each other. Mamata Banerjee had been leading a relentless campaign against Marxist misrule for the past 15 years but not one photograph of her with former chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya has appeared anywhere. When did anyone last see J Jayalalithaa and M Karunanidhi sitting across the table to discuss issues concerning their state? In fact, the leaders of the opposition (read whichever party that lost the elections) have made it a point not to attend Assembly sessions for five years in the wilderness.

No wonder, former chief minister Karunanidhi and his clan were missing in Chennai when Amma was sworn in. So were all prominent Left leaders in Kolkata and Thiruvanthapuram when the new chief ministers took charge. In Assam, there was no opposition worth the name left to represent those who lost to the Congress. This trend looks ominous for the survival of a pluralistic political system in which the majority must have its way while the minority is allowed to have its say. For the past few years, both the opposition and the ruling parties—at the Centre and in the states—have abandoned the democratic tradition of consulting each other on problems facing the people. In almost every state, the ruling party has hardly ever made an attempt to even invite the leader of the opposition for an informal meeting to discuss issues. For example, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati has never met a single opposition leader in the past so many years. In Bihar, even the normally affable Nitish Kumar has kept the opposition at a distance, as if he doesn’t need their suggestions on tackling the state’s thorny problems. In Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti has spurned every offer of Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to participate in all-party meetings. Kashmir faces daily threats of terror and is still one of the least developed states despite liberal grants from Delhi. But never have the ruling party and the opposition confabulated even once to get rid of poverty and ensure security.

Even when helpless Tamilians were being mowed down by the Sri Lankan army, it didn’t occur to Karunanidhi to invite the leader of the opposition for a brainstorming session. In the north, have we ever heard of the Chautalas of Haryana breaking bread with Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda in the past seven years?

Perhaps, our state leaders are taking the cue from their bosses in New Delhi. For the past few years, all opposition parties have been locked in the foulest slanging match ever with UPA leaders. The most recent example is the total demolition of the Public Accounts Committee—an institution whose credibility had survived until now amid political scandal for decades. Confronted with the 2G impasse, its members resorted to the use of offensive language against each other rather than civilised and mature discussion. The political air has been fouled by mistrust so much that neither the Government nor the Opposition has met even once so far to take stock of the security situation arising out of the threat posed by the ISI chief’s outburst against India. It seems even the UPA’s coalition partners have forgotten to hold the usual meetings of the coordination committee. The fact is they are involved in an internecine secret war.

Their only agenda has been to dislodge, besiege and besmirch the reputations of one another through means both fair and foul. In the process, even daily political discourse has acquired venomous overtones with most leaders using acerbic, sometimes even abusive, language against each other. Perhaps, the current crop of political leaders have forgotten how Titans—who are part of their own political lineage—like Jawahar Lal Nehru, Ram Manohar Lohia, Atal Bihari Vajpayee conducted their political lives; each one of them was capable of going for the jugular within the legislature but would be seen dining together and sharing the same venue later in the evening. Lal Bahadur Shastri invited the RSS to work for civil defence and Vajpayee called up Indira Gandhi after India won the 1971 war against Pakistan. For them, the nation came first and not their names on the front pages or their faces on prime-time news. Now politicians use newspapers and the small screen to convey anger through abuse. Their discourses are not about solutions but slandering one another. GenNext is certainly a master of words but severely lacks wisdom. prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com