The hasty expulsion of Mahua Moitra from Parliament is not a good omen for parliamentary democracy and sets a bad precedence

Indian politicians, generally, are not known for their intellect, education, or articulation. Mahua Moitra stood out in this motley crowd of mediocrity. She had all these, plus international exposure, having left a prestigious, remunerative job in investment banking abroad to join politics in her country in 2009. With her sophistication and affluence, she appeared immune to that ubiquitous trait of the lowest common denominator in Indian politics – corruption. Her expulsion from Lok Sabha in the alleged “Cash for Query” scam is lamentable in more ways than one. If the charges are justified, they undermine the public’s trust in our politicians; more ominously, it makes citizens question whether democracy is suitable for our society.

Secondly, it underscores the depravity to which even our power elite have now sunk. Such a loss of moral innocence could perhaps be overlooked, even rationalised, in the case of a newbie politician, with a deprived background and hailing from the rustic hinterland, getting bedazzled by the blandishments with which businesses seek favours from the powerful. It is difficult for the millennial generation to imagine a stalwart like Lal Bahadur Shastri dying in harness without a house of his own and with only an Ambassador car, purchased through a bank loan, being his most valuable asset.

If the allegations are not true, Moitra’s expulsion augers a worse scenario where a majority government can wreak havoc on its inconvenient opponents at will on false charges. This would stymie all dissent and let a totalitarian regime impose its imperious will on differing ideologies and interests.

This is a loss-loss situation for the nation where citizens stand to lose either way. And therefore, it needs to be probed further. Quite apart from the financial corruption angle, the case throws up some disconcerting issues. Time was when “parliamentary language” connoted civility and decorum; to use words like “besharam” and “behooda” for another MP was unthinkable.

Politicians led sober, even austere, lives and lived up to the country’s cultural ethos and values. Smt Indira Gandhi, with all her affluent, westernised family background, sported an inexpensive HMT watch. Upon being asked by President Johnson at the White House banquet for the customary dance, during her US visit in 1966, she politely declined saying that it would not be liked in Indian society. Today, gallivanting socialites find their way into Parliament and flaunt their West-inspired moral shenanigans and ultra-rich accessories in utter disregard of public opinion.

In 1951, Congress MP HD Mudgal was found to have taken two bribes of merely ? 1000 each from the Indian Bullion Association in return for asking questions on their behalf. Faced with Parliamentary enquiry, he chose to resign to avoid the ignominy of expulsion. Nehru, always a stickler for financial propriety, insisted even after the resignation, that the Parliamentary Committee resolution record that the ex-MP “was deserving of expulsion”. His political career ended, there being no question of going back to the hustings and getting re-elected. Ms Moitra’s party, the TMC, sees no problem in giving her a ticket to contest elections again; this when the Parliamentary Committee has found a prima facie case against her and recommended “an intense, legal, institutional inquiry” by the Central Government. To consider re-election after such “highly objectionable, unethical, heinous and criminal conduct” and “serious misdemeanours”, as the Committee report puts it, shows an unseemly arrogance on the part of both the MP and her party.

Then there was the ugly brawl with her “ex-boyfriend” over a Rottweiler dog leading to a cat-and-mouse game, with police complaints of theft and trespass by her, and sending of “dirty messages” by him, all of which were narrated at length, and with relish, by the aggrieved MP to the Committee. The narration was irrelevant, and being a personal matter should have been eschewed, as pointed out by the Chairman. Yet, in a perplexing twist, the MP and all the opposition panel members went on to accuse the Chairman later of asking offensive personal questions and walked out midway through the hearing in protest. One vociferous panellist from the opposition even lamented that the Parliamentary Committee was reduced to discussing a spat between two individuals over the custody of a dog, quite forgetting that the cuddly canine was introduced into the discussion by the MP herself in her defence.

To air the sordid details of one’s personal life herself, to repeatedly refer to dirty messages (“gandey-gandey”) from an ex-boyfriend and then to allege “personal” questions by the Chairman that violate one’s right to privacy, and walk out on that ground in feigned self-righteous indignation, is a mockery of Parliamentary norms and protocol. If proven, the charges call for the severest punishment to make a deterrent example of such cavalier violations of India’s parliamentary democracy by delinquent politicians.

Now the feisty MP has gone to the Supreme Court alleging “substantial illegality” and “arbitrariness” in her expulsion and demanded an urgent hearing to set it aside. India’s Supreme Court has far more weighty matters seeking its attention. The Indian taxpayer too deserves better. His hard-earned money is not meant for financing the wilful antics of hubris-driven and notoriety-seeking politicians. It is time for the Supreme Court to put an end to such self-aggrandising charades.

(The writer is a columnist, views are personal)