An Open Letter from an Anguished Citizen
Dear Professor Mahapatra,
I have been following with great interest your recent pronouncements as reported in the press. They are very illuminating and, as a harbinger of things to come, very revealing. Like your illustrious predecessors, M/s. Borooah, Antulay and Sathe who have also adorned the offices of President and General Secretary of your party, you have held aloft the torch of sycophancy and inspired by its brilliance gone on to express your views on the political system, the opposition and the press.
Shall we take them one by one ?
On Rajiv Gandhi : “Mr. Mahapatra opined that he (Rajiv) should occupy a “pivotal position” in the organisation. Mr. Gandhi had an “excellent perspective” about the nation’s future. He had also demonstrated his “tremendous organisational abilities” and it was highly necessary that he be given a “pivotal position”. ( Times of India, July 26, 1981 ) and further --- He (Prof. M.) indicated that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi would soon be Secretary-General of the AICC(I). “He does not need special grooming because he has seen politics from his childhood.” ( TOI, July 27, 1981 )
A few more statements like this and your future is made, Professor. In fact, why don’t you straightaway propose Rajiv as deputy Prime Minister - obviously, no grooming is required and how much relief that will give to Mrs. Indira Gandhi who can then turn her attention to “bigger things”. Keep right at it. You are on the right track.
On our political system : “Prof. S. S. Mahapatra, General Secretary of the AICC(I) said here today that it was impossible to achieve socialism through parliamentary democracy........ He said the main reason for this was that the bureaucracy in a parliamentary democracy served the interests only of contractors and not of the people” (TOI, July 27, 1981) But I am really at a loss to understand why you complain ? We neither have Parliament, nor democracy. Just how many MPs of your party attend Parliament while it is in session and of those that do, how many take part in the proceedings other than shouting down opposition speakers, and of those that do participate in the discussions how many contribute something worthwhile ? As for democracy, surely you are not guilty of practising it.
Your party is named after an individual ; there have been no organisational elections in your party ever since it was formed. All Chief Ministers of the states where your party is in power are appointed by the Prime Minister or her son and given the boot whenever the lady is annoyed ; much fuss is made about the party being against a person holding a cabinet post as well as an organisation post at the same time and much fanfare has attended the Prime Minister’s “firm step” in asking Mr. Darbara Singh to resign from the Presidentship of the PPCC. But, why, oh why, Professor, does Mrs. Indira Gandhi not take a similar “firm step” to either resign from the Party Presidentship or the Prime Ministership and why don’t any of you have the courage to ask her to do so ?
On the opposition : “... the opposition had been rendered ‘irrelevant’ by the recent elections .....” This has been a recurrent dream of your Party, dear Professor, so I’m afraid you are not exactly original. In the heydays of the emergency, Mrs. Indira Gandhi had declared that “the opposition is subdued but not vanquished.” However, it is interesting that in the same breath she and you blame this ‘subdued’ irrelevant opposition as being the cause of all the troubles in the country, be it riots, declining industrial production, deteriorating law and order, death of Sanjay Gandhi, agitation by any section of the populace etc.
On the Press : “Indian newspapers and journalists have ‘no commitment, principles, integrity and ideology’ according to Prof. S. S. Mahapatra, AICC(I) general secretary” (TOI, July 27, 1981). You have already decried that political system, you have labelled the opposition irrelevant i.e. to say --- only you matter ; your party has always held that the judiciary and the constitution are the biggest roadblocks to your efforts to improve the country and now you feel that the press is another major evil.
All you and your party and its leaders want to do is the undo things. You want to do away with Parliament, with democracy, with opposition with the judiciary and with the constitution. Is there not a single thing you want to build ?
You know what you really want Professor ? You want ---- no shackles, no controls, no questions on what you do, how you do it and to whom, when and where. That is why you are against the Constitution which lays down the limits to a Government’s powers and regulates its conduct. That is why you are against Parliament because it calls for a discussion on what you propose to do and how and why. That is why you are against the opposition which can ask inconvenient questions or seek revealing information.
That is why you are against the press because it can report your doings and keep the people informed. That is why you are against the judiciary because it can censure you and call you to order whenever you flout the constitution and invade the citizen’s rights.
And that is why, in your party, you have none of these --- no Constitution, only ad-hoc appointments, ad-hoc committees and the President’s orders ; no Parliament ------- no discussion or questioning of what the President says or does ; no opposition --- need I elaborate ? No press --- i.e. no expression of views contrary to the President’s, all functionaries of the party to only act as mouthpieces for the President ; the clever ones amongst you still manage to express conflicting views but this, too, only in the name of the President. (That is why you have this spectacle in all the states ruled by you of a ruling group and a dissident group, both claiming support and blessings of the Prime Minister and, what is more interesting, getting it) ! And of course, no judiciary --- no appeals against any decisions. Can you, if you feel aggrieved against the Prime Minister appeal to the party President ? Or, vice - versa ? Quite a teaser, isn’t it ?
Professor, let us for a moment grant you your scenario. Let us imagine that there will be no Constitution, no Parliament, no Opposition, no Press and no Judiciary with your party in power. What will it be like ? Is this your definition of ‘socialism’ ? Assume for a moment that all these five roadblocks are removed overnight ; will prosperity shower upon us and alleviate all our miseries ?
You know what we will have when you remove these five impediments - an unambiguous monarchy which is what all of you have really been craving for. No longer will you have to justify or explain hereditary succession to the throne; no longer will you have to bother about things like public opinion or the opposition’s demands nor for any legal restraint on your actions ; you can now have a regular durbar where all of you can compete at paying court and showing obeisance to the monarch and the royal family, and poor commoners like us will be at your bid and command and grateful for the morsels you might care to toss our way. What a wonderful dream, isn’t it ?
But just a minute, professor. Unfortunately, by a quirk of nature, the common man also dreams. And what else can he do ? Fed, as he has been, on dreams for over three decades (of which all save two years have been under your rule, he lives from day - to - day on the strength of his dreams alone. What is his dream ?
Let me describe it for you. An opportunity to do an honest day’s work, enough earning to feed and clothe himself, and have a modest roof above his head. A clean and safe environment, an access to education that would keep his mind usefully engaged. A government that would look after its citizens rather than be after them, that would help them grow rather than curb their growth, that would do what they want rather than dictate what they should do and what they should not. A mundane sort of dream that cannot hold a candle to your dreams, that are woven with grandeur, ambition and power.
But this is all that the people want. They do not envy your palaces and parties nor grudge your foreign trips and lavish weddings. They do not mind your looting and squandering away public money for they knew that this is an inborn trait that you cannot easily shake-off. They even tolerate your perpetuating yourselves in power by violating laws or by simply changing them with retrospective effect to regularise your actions.
In return for all the indulgence they show you, all that they ask is to be left alone and allowed to live a life of dignity with their minimum physical requirements fulfilled.
The tragedy is that you are not bothered in the least about their dream, much less, willing to do something about it. It is a tragedy, not for them but for you. You imagine that having won an election you have received sanction to do what you want for as long as you wish ? You think that with all the money that you have amassed you can purchase every soul ? You believe that by subduing the Opposition and the Press, by ignoring Parliament, by bullying the Judiciary and by destroying the Constitution you can keep yourselves in power indefinitely ? You are wrong, my friend.
You are wrong because you have forgotten one inconvenient factor - the people. You can destroy everything, but not them. You can change everything and fashion it to your will, even history, by rewriting it or, as in the case of the Shah Commission reports, suppressing it, but you cannot erase people’s memories. They will not forget what you promised and what you delivered. They will not ignore what you took versus what you gave.
And then they will act. Do not mistake their silence for consent, nor construe their tolerance for approval. Everything in this world has a flash point. Indians have a very high flash point but you may yet earn the distinction of being the first to ignite them.
Come back to earth, Professor, and tell your friends that they are servants of the people and not vice - versa, that the Constitution is a body of rules enacted by the people to regulate the affairs of the government and not an instrument for the latter to usurp the rights of the citizens, that the Parliament is a forum to question the government on its actions and inaction and ensure full public participation, through the MP’s in the decision-making process of the government, that the press is a media to inform how the people feel about its various actions, that the judiciary is the citizens’ leash on the government to ensure that it acts according to the Constitution and does not assume authority which has not been given to it. Tell them that they have been elected to do work for the people and not to get people to do work for them.
Let your friends understand this fast, Professor. Time is running out. The people want results, now. The people cannot wait, forever.
Yours sincerely,
hemendra k. varma
Mumbai
August 12, 1981
Dear Professor Mahapatra,
I have been following with great interest your recent pronouncements as reported in the press. They are very illuminating and, as a harbinger of things to come, very revealing. Like your illustrious predecessors, M/s. Borooah, Antulay and Sathe who have also adorned the offices of President and General Secretary of your party, you have held aloft the torch of sycophancy and inspired by its brilliance gone on to express your views on the political system, the opposition and the press.
Shall we take them one by one ?
On Rajiv Gandhi : “Mr. Mahapatra opined that he (Rajiv) should occupy a “pivotal position” in the organisation. Mr. Gandhi had an “excellent perspective” about the nation’s future. He had also demonstrated his “tremendous organisational abilities” and it was highly necessary that he be given a “pivotal position”. ( Times of India, July 26, 1981 ) and further --- He (Prof. M.) indicated that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi would soon be Secretary-General of the AICC(I). “He does not need special grooming because he has seen politics from his childhood.” ( TOI, July 27, 1981 )
A few more statements like this and your future is made, Professor. In fact, why don’t you straightaway propose Rajiv as deputy Prime Minister - obviously, no grooming is required and how much relief that will give to Mrs. Indira Gandhi who can then turn her attention to “bigger things”. Keep right at it. You are on the right track.
On our political system : “Prof. S. S. Mahapatra, General Secretary of the AICC(I) said here today that it was impossible to achieve socialism through parliamentary democracy........ He said the main reason for this was that the bureaucracy in a parliamentary democracy served the interests only of contractors and not of the people” (TOI, July 27, 1981) But I am really at a loss to understand why you complain ? We neither have Parliament, nor democracy. Just how many MPs of your party attend Parliament while it is in session and of those that do, how many take part in the proceedings other than shouting down opposition speakers, and of those that do participate in the discussions how many contribute something worthwhile ? As for democracy, surely you are not guilty of practising it.
Your party is named after an individual ; there have been no organisational elections in your party ever since it was formed. All Chief Ministers of the states where your party is in power are appointed by the Prime Minister or her son and given the boot whenever the lady is annoyed ; much fuss is made about the party being against a person holding a cabinet post as well as an organisation post at the same time and much fanfare has attended the Prime Minister’s “firm step” in asking Mr. Darbara Singh to resign from the Presidentship of the PPCC. But, why, oh why, Professor, does Mrs. Indira Gandhi not take a similar “firm step” to either resign from the Party Presidentship or the Prime Ministership and why don’t any of you have the courage to ask her to do so ?
On the opposition : “... the opposition had been rendered ‘irrelevant’ by the recent elections .....” This has been a recurrent dream of your Party, dear Professor, so I’m afraid you are not exactly original. In the heydays of the emergency, Mrs. Indira Gandhi had declared that “the opposition is subdued but not vanquished.” However, it is interesting that in the same breath she and you blame this ‘subdued’ irrelevant opposition as being the cause of all the troubles in the country, be it riots, declining industrial production, deteriorating law and order, death of Sanjay Gandhi, agitation by any section of the populace etc.
On the Press : “Indian newspapers and journalists have ‘no commitment, principles, integrity and ideology’ according to Prof. S. S. Mahapatra, AICC(I) general secretary” (TOI, July 27, 1981). You have already decried that political system, you have labelled the opposition irrelevant i.e. to say --- only you matter ; your party has always held that the judiciary and the constitution are the biggest roadblocks to your efforts to improve the country and now you feel that the press is another major evil.
All you and your party and its leaders want to do is the undo things. You want to do away with Parliament, with democracy, with opposition with the judiciary and with the constitution. Is there not a single thing you want to build ?
You know what you really want Professor ? You want ---- no shackles, no controls, no questions on what you do, how you do it and to whom, when and where. That is why you are against the Constitution which lays down the limits to a Government’s powers and regulates its conduct. That is why you are against Parliament because it calls for a discussion on what you propose to do and how and why. That is why you are against the opposition which can ask inconvenient questions or seek revealing information.
That is why you are against the press because it can report your doings and keep the people informed. That is why you are against the judiciary because it can censure you and call you to order whenever you flout the constitution and invade the citizen’s rights.
And that is why, in your party, you have none of these --- no Constitution, only ad-hoc appointments, ad-hoc committees and the President’s orders ; no Parliament ------- no discussion or questioning of what the President says or does ; no opposition --- need I elaborate ? No press --- i.e. no expression of views contrary to the President’s, all functionaries of the party to only act as mouthpieces for the President ; the clever ones amongst you still manage to express conflicting views but this, too, only in the name of the President. (That is why you have this spectacle in all the states ruled by you of a ruling group and a dissident group, both claiming support and blessings of the Prime Minister and, what is more interesting, getting it) ! And of course, no judiciary --- no appeals against any decisions. Can you, if you feel aggrieved against the Prime Minister appeal to the party President ? Or, vice - versa ? Quite a teaser, isn’t it ?
Professor, let us for a moment grant you your scenario. Let us imagine that there will be no Constitution, no Parliament, no Opposition, no Press and no Judiciary with your party in power. What will it be like ? Is this your definition of ‘socialism’ ? Assume for a moment that all these five roadblocks are removed overnight ; will prosperity shower upon us and alleviate all our miseries ?
You know what we will have when you remove these five impediments - an unambiguous monarchy which is what all of you have really been craving for. No longer will you have to justify or explain hereditary succession to the throne; no longer will you have to bother about things like public opinion or the opposition’s demands nor for any legal restraint on your actions ; you can now have a regular durbar where all of you can compete at paying court and showing obeisance to the monarch and the royal family, and poor commoners like us will be at your bid and command and grateful for the morsels you might care to toss our way. What a wonderful dream, isn’t it ?
But just a minute, professor. Unfortunately, by a quirk of nature, the common man also dreams. And what else can he do ? Fed, as he has been, on dreams for over three decades (of which all save two years have been under your rule, he lives from day - to - day on the strength of his dreams alone. What is his dream ?
Let me describe it for you. An opportunity to do an honest day’s work, enough earning to feed and clothe himself, and have a modest roof above his head. A clean and safe environment, an access to education that would keep his mind usefully engaged. A government that would look after its citizens rather than be after them, that would help them grow rather than curb their growth, that would do what they want rather than dictate what they should do and what they should not. A mundane sort of dream that cannot hold a candle to your dreams, that are woven with grandeur, ambition and power.
But this is all that the people want. They do not envy your palaces and parties nor grudge your foreign trips and lavish weddings. They do not mind your looting and squandering away public money for they knew that this is an inborn trait that you cannot easily shake-off. They even tolerate your perpetuating yourselves in power by violating laws or by simply changing them with retrospective effect to regularise your actions.
In return for all the indulgence they show you, all that they ask is to be left alone and allowed to live a life of dignity with their minimum physical requirements fulfilled.
The tragedy is that you are not bothered in the least about their dream, much less, willing to do something about it. It is a tragedy, not for them but for you. You imagine that having won an election you have received sanction to do what you want for as long as you wish ? You think that with all the money that you have amassed you can purchase every soul ? You believe that by subduing the Opposition and the Press, by ignoring Parliament, by bullying the Judiciary and by destroying the Constitution you can keep yourselves in power indefinitely ? You are wrong, my friend.
You are wrong because you have forgotten one inconvenient factor - the people. You can destroy everything, but not them. You can change everything and fashion it to your will, even history, by rewriting it or, as in the case of the Shah Commission reports, suppressing it, but you cannot erase people’s memories. They will not forget what you promised and what you delivered. They will not ignore what you took versus what you gave.
And then they will act. Do not mistake their silence for consent, nor construe their tolerance for approval. Everything in this world has a flash point. Indians have a very high flash point but you may yet earn the distinction of being the first to ignite them.
Come back to earth, Professor, and tell your friends that they are servants of the people and not vice - versa, that the Constitution is a body of rules enacted by the people to regulate the affairs of the government and not an instrument for the latter to usurp the rights of the citizens, that the Parliament is a forum to question the government on its actions and inaction and ensure full public participation, through the MP’s in the decision-making process of the government, that the press is a media to inform how the people feel about its various actions, that the judiciary is the citizens’ leash on the government to ensure that it acts according to the Constitution and does not assume authority which has not been given to it. Tell them that they have been elected to do work for the people and not to get people to do work for them.
Let your friends understand this fast, Professor. Time is running out. The people want results, now. The people cannot wait, forever.
Yours sincerely,
hemendra k. varma
Mumbai
August 12, 1981
1 comment:
Even after more than decades nothing has changed. The so called leaders are still assuming that getting elected means getting license to Loot. May Lord save my country from the plunderers and cheaters.
Post a Comment