NEWS
INTERVIEW
SPECIALS
CHAT
ARCHIVES

It is class bias which accepts the Gandhis and not the Yadavs

Not to admit that the new dynasty in Bihar differs little form the old dynasty in New Delhi is to expose a class bias.

Granted that many of the events that have taken place, and are still taking place, in hoary Pataliputra are outrageous. Even granted that, as the prim people say, things are, really and truly, just one step away from anarchy. These prim people think they have the exclusive right of defining and defending democratic norms in this country. They are shell-shocked. But, then, they richly deserve that. Their indignation spills over at the spectacle of Rabri Devi.

Can there be anything more disgraceful, they will buttonhole you and ask, their voices choked in anger, than the manner in which the travesty of a dynasty is being foisted on the hapless people of Bihar, the buffoon of the husband is precluded from holding office, the wife is summoned from the kitchen to be his formal standby.

This is the pits, declared editorial articles carried under banner headlines on the first page of the newspapers; this is the pits, echo constitutional and political science experts. There is no question of defending the acts and activities in either Patna or New Delhi, it is as if a million simians are on the rampage, both civil manners and observance of constitutional properties are beyond their ken. And yet, some of the sentiments articulated in the media are plain garbage.

The nation, it is suggested, should hang its head in shame at the monstrous sight of Laloo Prasad Yadav installing the good wife as chief minister in his stead. Such crude violation of democratic norms as well as ordinary decency is, supposedly, unprecedented in post-independent India.

The pundits are either forgetful, or incapable of recognizing the near identity of occurrences of a particular genre. Remember the frenetic course of events, less than 13 years ago, on October 31, 1984? A prime minister was assassinated in the forenoon; before midnight struck, her son was installed as the nation's new prime minister and took the oath of office.

Dynastic succession was presented both as a fait accompli and as a phenomenon as natural as the cyclical pattern of the seasons. No need was felt to convene, even for appearance's sake, a meeting of the Congress parliamentary party to propose the name of the new leader and have the proposal accepted with or without acclamation. It was only after some days of the swearing in that the new prime minister was introduced to the party's parliamentary party.

No pundit was then heard condemning the proceedings. It can at least be stated on behalf of this venerable lady, Rabri Devi, that she was first voted as chief minister by the party's legislators before taking the oath the office; no constitutional norms were therefore breached. What took place on October 31, 1984 was qualitatively different; the parliamentary party be damned, hurry, hurry, the decision was made by a mysterious few, the President was brought back from West Asia where he had gone on an official visit, he was informed of the succession as soon as he landed, he did not either dare to, or choose to, raise the issue of constitutional property. Dynastic succession was thereby accepted as an integral element of the version of parliamentary democracy practised in this country.

Let there be some plain speaking. By holding Rabri Devi to ridicule, the snooty ones are only betraying their class bias. When people of the noble order found a dynasty, their credentials are not questioned. It is a different matter if the bug of dynastic aspiration bites the rustic crowd who have risen from the ranks of one of the Mandal or dalit communities. The very notion of a parallel between the two phenomena is anathema to the snobs: how can anyone in his or her senses compare the accession of a Rabri Devi with the coronation 13 years ago of the prince charming.

The moment reasons are sought for the expressed disapproval of the comparison, the cat is out of the bag. The individual who was installed as prime minister through nobody's leave represented the dynasty, the dynasty which epitomises the dreams and aspirations of the entrenched Indian establishment; Rabri Devi, on the other hand, the daughter of one goatherd and married to another, belongs to the lower depths not normally mentioned in the salons of the bold and the beautiful.

Call this dichotomy the town-country divide or the rich-poor divide, discriminatory treatment is accepted as the natural order of things in the media and the marketplace, in institutions and establishments. The reaction of those discriminated against is one day bound to come out in the open. Like it or not, this too is a variant of the class war.

The media instinctively chooses sides. But this is what class war is about. Not even a minuscule proportion of the media, for instance, has bothered to comment on the curious reluctance on the part of officialdom to go in earnest pursuit of Ottavio Quattrocchi even after the Swiss superior court ruled that he was one of the principal recipients of the Bofors bribes. Quattrocchi, was very much in the country on the day, July 12, 1993, the Swiss judiciary divulged information confirming his venality. So what?

The regime in New Delhi did not try to interrogate Quattrocchi to find out on whose behalf he had received the bribe money, and what he subsequently did with it. The Bofors management were no fools; they paid Quattrocchi because they knew he had close links with a household in India otherwise known as the dynasty. But even in July 1993, Quattrocchi was not to be disturbed, he was considered part of the dynasty. He walked the corridors of power in New Delhi till July 31, 1993, as if nothing was the matter. Then he disappeared. His wife returned, packed their belongings and said a final goodbye to India. Not a leaf stirred.

Cross over to 1997; it is the reign of the United Front, than whom, the assumption goes, there could be no greater defender of moral values and administrative transparency. An unstarred question is asked in Parliament concerning the reasons for the failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation to apprehend or interrogate Quattrocchi when he was still in India between July 12 and July 31, 1993. The government's smooth answer: the CBI did not consider it feasible to interrogate Quattrocchi on the basis of the documents it possessed at that point of time.

An unstarred question does not allow scope for digging at more facts than the government furnishes of its own volition. A further question was however sought to be asked: will the government be pleased to state whether, in arriving at the decision that to interrogate Quattrocchi was not legally feasible, the CBI had the benefit of legal advice either from inside the government or from outside, and, in case such advice was sought and rendered, whether the text of the actual legal advice could be tabled in the house. This question too was reportedly about to be admitted as an unstarred one, for which a written answer was supposed to be provided, but, going by the technical expression, it 'lapsed' with the CBI presumably breathing a sigh of relief.

But the matter still remains in the public domain. And the prime minister has since been written to provide answers to a couple of straight-forward questions: whether the CBI actually sought any legal advice on the issue of interrogation/arrest of Quattrocchi during the period July 12-31, 1993, and in case it did, would the prime minister kindly share the contents of the advice with members of the public.

Mind you, this prime minister is pledged to maintain the highest standards of probity in government. He has promised total transparency in administration. Answering these questions should not cause any strain to his office. Alas, the prime minister has acknowledged the letter containing the request. But the contents of the letter are being examined, which is standard terminology when the government wants to bury a matter.

There is an underlying message in all this. Any questions concerning Quattrocchi will be headed off. Not to do so will perhaps raise the ire of the dynasty. Whatever the colour of the government formally in power in New Delhi, the dynasty, it is understood, is not to be disturbed. Not to be disturbed by the media either. They would rather pick on the household tending goats in Patna.