CLEARLY, this BJP government is brazening out the turmoil in the parliament and is hoping to `ride the storm’ and escape parliamentary scrutiny over grave charges of corruption that have been raised by the united opposition. On the eve of this monsoon session of parliament, this BJP government and PM Modi, celebrating their first year in office, bombastically claimed that they have provided a corruption-free government as opposed to the scam-ridden UPA-2 government. The recent revelations in the Lalit Modi scam, the Vyapam scam in Madhya Pradesh, the involvement of two BJP ministers in the scams in Maharashtra and the public distribution system connected scams by the BJP government in Chhattisgarh have busted this myth. The issues causing the current disruptions in both houses of parliament are the serious allegations of misuse of office pertaining to the union minister for external affairs and the chief minister of Rajasthan regarding the undue favours they have shown to a fugitive from Indian law, former cricket IPL czar, Lalit Modi. It is alleged that their recommendations, facilitated this fugitive from remaining beyond the jurisdiction of Indian law. It is alleged that they facilitated the procuring of a legal travel document to this fugitive from a foreign government (UK). Outside the parliament, the BJP counters these charges by saying that these actions by the external affairs minister were prompted by feelings of humanism to help the concerned fugitive to attend to his ailing wife in Portugal. It was argued that this fugitive requires to sign the papers sanctioning medical treatment of his wife. Subsequently, it was shown that Portugal does not require the concurrence of the spouse in such medical cases. Further, many media reports have shown how this limited objective could have been met through a limited travel permit from London to Portugal, even if that was necessary and, at the same time, ensuring the return of the fugitive to be tried under Indian law without recommending the issue of a general travel document. The current parliamentary disruptions are also connected with demand for action on serious allegations against the Madhya Pradesh chief minister in the Vyapam scam. This scam represents a deadly cocktail of crime and corruption that has claimed the lives of scores of people, many outside the state. This BJP government charges the opposition of avoiding a discussion in parliament when they are prepared to (mercifully!) allow one. The opposition correctly maintains that a parliamentary discussion cannot be a substitute for an investigation. These are serious charges that need to be investigated at the highest level. Till such an investigation continues, as is the norm for any government servant, the accused demits office in order to ensure strict impartiality. It is precisely this that is being asked of this BJP government. After all, PM Modi declared from the Red Fort that he is not the `Pradhan Mantri’ but he is the `Pradhan Sewak’! Surely, therefore, the same rules and norms that govern a government servant in such cases must apply to ministers as well. All that the opposition is now asking this Modi government is that it applies the same yardstick that they were asking for earlier. Consider the utterly duplicitous positions now being taken by the BJP compared to their own utterances in the past. Much has appeared in public domain on the positions taken by the minister for external affairs as the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha and the finance minister as the leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha when similar disruptions rocked the parliament during the UPA government’s tenure. On the oil for food scandal (Volker disclosures), the 2005 parliament’s winter session was disrupted leading to the resignation of the then external affairs minister, Natwar Singh. Then the present minister for external affairs, Sushma Swaraj had said, “It was only due to the pressure mounted by the opposition that the government yesterday talked about probing the issue….No probe can be impartial without Natwar Singh quitting office” (November 4, 2005). Later in September 2012, on the coal scam, Sushma Swaraj as the then leader of the opposition said, “I would like to remind the prime minister, when he was leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha (Dr Manmohan Singh), they had stalled parliament over the Tehelka issue. Even over the coffin scam, they stalled parliament and called us coffin thieves.” Further, “Debate under 193 would mean a `talkout’ by the government and walkout by opposition. If we would have taken debate under (rule) 184, they would have won because they have numbers. Numbers however do not give the license to loot the country.” Also, “Not allowing parliament to function is also a form of democracy like any other form”. She contended reacting to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement that the BJP’s stalling of parliament was a “negation” of democracy. The Congress and BJP roles now seem to have been reversed! The only consistent anti-corruption voice in the parliament remained and remains that of CPI(M) and the Left. In this context, it is necessary to highlight, once again, that neo-liberal economic reforms engender corruption at high places by nurturing `crony capitalism’. This Modi government is pursuing neo-liberal economic reforms more aggressively than the Manmohan Singh government; scams, familiar under UPA governments, thus, are bound to recur, if not, intensify under this Modi government. Further, take the case of the present union finance minister who is also the leader of the house (Rajya Sabha). He has been popping up and down like the proverbial “jack in the box” raising “points of order”. On every occasion that he has done so in this current session, the house was disrupted prompting opposition leaders to say that he is raising “points of disorder”. However, under the UPA government, while leading the disruption of parliament as the leader of the opposition, he had said, “There are occasions when obstructions in parliament brings greater benefits to the country…Our strategy does not permit us to allow the government to use the parliament (for debate) without being held accountable….we do not want to give the government an escape route through debate”. Further, “We, in the opposition, are not interested in merely the issue being talked out through a one day debate in parliament…” (August 26, 2012) In this current session, the same person charged the opposition by saying, “Why are you running away from a discussion? ...you are scared of a discussion. (July 21, 2015). Further, “I dare you to start the discussion. You don’t have a single fact. Therefore noise making is all that you want to do, and you don’t want to discuss...” (July 22, 2015) Can there be greater duplicity? Parliamentary disruptions during the 15th Lok Sabha eventually resulted in the resignations of some UPA-2 ministers – A Raja, Dayanidhi Maran, Sashi Tharoor, P K Bansal, Ashwini Kumar etc. (Today, the union home minister says, unabashedly, that this BJP government is not the UPA government and no minister shall resign!) We can go back even earlier to expose the BJP’s current duplicity. Atal Behari Vajpayee in December 1995 said, “We don’t want a debate for debate’s sake” demanding the resignation of the then communication minister Sukh Ram. Surely, two wrongs do not make a right. The point is not to score points with the BJP on what they said when they were in the opposition. In this context, it is important to underline the constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the parliament. Specifying separation of powers and spelling out the mechanics to work in harmony where the three wings – executive, legislature and the judiciary – play a joint and participatory role, our Constitution defines the centrality of the will of the people. The preamble defines this most eloquently by stating, “We, the people of India” and “do hereby Adopt, Enact and Give to ourselves this Constitution”. The eternal message is the sovereignty of the people and its primacy in our constitutional system. The people exercise this sovereignty through their elected parliamentarians who, in turn, are accountable to the people by making the government accountable to the parliament. The executive and the legislature given their responsibility under the Constitution to manage public affairs are in the final analysis accountable to the people. Accountability, in fact, differentiates democracy from other systems of governance. The effectiveness of the parliament in ensuring such accountability by the government is paramount for “good governance”. PM Modi and the BJP had campaigned ad nauseum in the 2014 general elections that they will provide good governance as opposed to the `paralysis’ and `silence’ of the Dr Manmohan Singh government. By negating the parliament’s discharge of its important responsibility of making the government accountable, they are seriously undermining “good governance”, in fact, negating it. The parliament, thus, can only ensure executive accountability through effective legislative scrutiny not through a debate but by pressurising the executive to order an investigation into the allegations. This BJP government is escaping being accountable behind the veil of conducting a “debate for debate’s sake”. It is this BJP government that is today, thus, causing parliamentary disruptions. Further, the BJP argues that the recommendations given by the external affairs minister and the Rajasthan chief minister do not constitute an act of corruption. This is patently wrong. The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, article 13 (1) (d) (iii) states: “while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;”. Surely, obtaining a travel document from a foreign country for an individual staying abroad to escape action under Indian law and when the Indian passport of this fugitive is declared invalid under Indian law, is a `valuable thing’ and `without any public interest’. This is corruption, plain and simple. In this context, recollect how a western democracy deals with similar situations. The resignation of Peter Mandelson from the Tony Blair government in the UK is appropriate. In early 2001, British media reported that Mandelson had raised money for the `millennium dome’ from the Hinduja brothers, in return for a `favour’ of securing a passport for one of them, Srichand. The passport was delivered within six months of applying against the average 20 months, in breach of the British Nationality Act, 1981. This was done on the basis of Mandelson’s recommendation to the immigration minister in the UK home office. There was a hue and cry in the British parliament. Mandelson had to resign though Srichand Hinduja was not accused of wrongdoings and was not a fugitive from justice. Also the `millennium dome’ was a national edifice not involving any personal pecuniary gain. Further, there was no suggestion of any “cosy relationship” between Mandelson and Srichand Hinduja unlike in the present instance (both external affairs minister and Rajasthan chief minister have publicly stated their closeness to Lalit Modi). It was the sheer impropriety in the act recommendation for which Mandelson had to resign. Here in India, persons committing graver offences are being protected by this BJP government! Such is the `good governance’ that PM Modi promised to deliver in 2014. Such promises cannot be allowed to be betrayed. This Modi government must be made accountable to the parliament and, through it, to the people. (July 29, 2015)