So what is the "price" of a member of the Lok Sabha, the Lower House of Parliament in the world’s largest democracy? Is it really Rs 25 crores as has been claimed by CPI general secretary A.B. Bardhan? Or could the rate go up even as you read this column or over the next 48 hours as the UPA government faces its biggest political challenge? Within less than 24 hours of Mr Bardhan’s remarks, almost as if on cue, two MPs belonging to the Samajwadi Party from Uttar Pradesh — Akshay Pratap Singh from Pratapgarh and Chaudhary Munawar Hasan from Muzaffarnagar — went on record saying they had been offered amounts varying between Rs 20 crores and Rs 25 crores to vote in favour of or against the Manmohan Singh government on July 22.

In media interviews, the two MPs described in graphic detail how they had been sought to be "purchased". Mr Hasan had already rebelled against the SP leadership and had stated that he would vote against the government when he was sought to be "bought" over so that he would vote in favour of the UPA. He said he had been offered a bribe by a person who had visited him at his residence in South Avenue, in the heart of New Delhi. As for Mr Singh, a POTA detainee and relative of the dreaded don of Pratapgarh, Raghuraj Pratap Singh, better known as Raja Bhaiyya, he claimed he had been offered money to vote against the government. It’s horse-trading time again. But why give such a bad name to this noble animal?

Fifteen years ago, in July 1993, the minority government headed by P.V. Narasimha Rao had won a vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha when five MPs belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and a faction of the Janata Dal switched allegiances. The amounts that had changed hands then were just a few crore rupees per MP — inflation has since then raised the price of each elected representative. The former Prime Minister had to face charges of having bribed MPs that were framed by the CBI. In September 2000, a lower court convicted him and one of his ministers (Buta Singh) and sentenced them to three years’ imprisonment. Eighteen months later, in March 2002, he was acquitted of the charges by the Delhi high court.

Besides Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh, it is interesting to recall the names of some of the luminaries who had figured in the scandal: Shibu Soren, Ajit Singh (as recipients of bribes), Satish Sharma and M. Veerappa Moily (who allegedly organised the money that was used as bribes). Unlike most of these luminaries, four JMM MPs — Mr Soren, Suraj Mandal, Simon Marandi and Shailendra Mahato — had to spend four months in jail in January 1997.

In a April 1998 ruling, the Supreme Court, by a three-for and two-against verdict, sought to draw a distinction between bribe-givers and bribe-takers in its interpretation of Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India that reads: "No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings." Article 105(2) is aimed at ensuring MPs are provided immunity from prosecution for any vote given by them in the House.

The same judgment curiously held that if MPs accepted a bribe but abstained from voting, they were liable to be prosecuted since they were "public servants" under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 — Ajit Singh fell into this category since he did not vote in July 1993. In other words, what MPs have to ensure this time round is that even if they accept bribes, they should not abstain from voting. Such a situation is indeed strange. There is a strong view that this Supreme Court judgment needs to be reconsidered and Article 105(2) reinterpreted, specially after a dozen MPs who were caught on hidden cameras accepting bribes for raising questions were expelled from Parliament.

There is another important issue that arises in this context. It is hardly a secret that politicians receive funds from business houses to run election campaigns. The rules laid down by the Election Commission are such that a candidate can stick to the letter of the law and still ensure that large sums of money are spent on her/his behalf by "friends" and "associates" including the political party to which she/he belongs. It is about time this glaring loophole in the law was plugged — although this is being resisted by the political class as a whole, cutting across party affiliations. Otherwise, India’s political funding system can never become more transparent.

In the United States, the political donations system is more transparent than ours, but there too there are loopholes in the law. After the Watergate scandal, in 1976, a system of "public financing" was introduced wherein the federal government would spend up to $84 million (today worth over Rs 350 crores) of taxpayers’ money on a candidate provided she or he undertakes not to privately raise funds. It may be noted that Barack Obama is supposed to have raised over $265 million (more than Rs 1,110 crores).

In the US, as in India, donations come in the form of "hard" money (cash) and "soft" money in the form of facilities (transport, accommodation, food and so on). Given the current public outcry over the "buying" and "selling" of MPs, it is hoped that the bigger issue of cleansing our electoral system from the pernicious influence of big money will not be quickly forgotten — after all, political donations represent the fountainhead of corruption in India.





http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:5UXRrgim4FIJ:www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/
opinion/op-ed/a-wake-up-call-on-money-in-indian-political-arena.aspx+%22a+wake-up+call+on+money
+in+indian+political+arena%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=in

---