HOW ARE THE CRIMINALS PROTECTED BY THE POLITICAL PARTIES

PERHAPS it is wrong to single out Uttar Pradesh when criminals are sprinkled all over the country’s politics. If one to believe film star Amitabh Bachchan who frequently told television audiences in his compelling voice that “U.P. was the most peaceful state as compared to other states, and if people took it with loads of salts, it is understandable considering his close association with the then ruling party in the state led by Mulayam Singh Yadav, on the one hand and the notorious characters who adorned candidates’ list. Then again, one might turn around and say, this is an old phenomenon. But this election had some additional features; one of them being that the number of those with criminal records contesting the polls was larger than the previous elections.
The U.P. Election Watch, an independent election-monitoring organisation, of which the former State Director-General of Police, I.C. Dwivedi, is the convener, has noted that all the major political parties had a certain number of hopeful entrants to the Assembly with criminal backgrounds. Quite a few had a long list of crime appended to their names, like murder, dacoity and extortion.
What about the tall promises made by all the political outfits at the time of releasing their manifestos that they would not touch those with a criminal past with a pair of tongs? They have gone down the drain like all other promises they usually mouth before the elections. The people have come to teat these assurances with casual nonchalance. They know that the politicians almost always do not mean what they say.
The Election Watch, going through the affidavits submitted by the candidates before the election authorities, has found that all the parties culprits. The Samajwadi Party(SP) led with 35 per cent of its candidates facing many charge sheets, followed by the Bahujan Samaj Party(BSP) with 32 per cent, the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) about 30 per cent and the Congress 20 per cent.
Dons and gangsters campaigned vigorously for themselves or others. In most of these cases such criminals get elected into legislature. Which makes one wonder how or why should people vote for such known bad characters? The obvious answer, fear, was brushed aside by a Member of Parliament also on the campaign trail for his party’s candidate, Himself facing at least 20 cases of murder and attempt to murder, he said, without batting an eyelid, “they vote us because they love us.”
At least three men absconding from the police had surfaced to contest the polls. And those MLAs who had to resign their seats, because they were caught on camera by a television channel taking bribes for various nefarious acts, including one for smuggling drugs, had brazenly come out to test their popularity in the elections.
An idea of how politicians generally view such criminals was given by no less then the then Chief Minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav, himself in one of his election speeches in support of his party’s candidate. He told the gathering, “Yes, he is a criminal, but you vote him to the Assembly, and he would give up his criminal activities.”
Mulayam Singh made the candidate apologies to the crowd for all his past deeds. And the candidate echoed his leader’s words—“I will not indulge in any criminal activity if I am elected to the Assembly.” The catch in the two statements could not have been missed by the audience “if I am elected…”—which carries the underlying threat that if not voted in, he would revert to his old habits.
Such statement by the then chief minister sours the taste of the mouth that indirectly he accepted the fact that under the coverage of politics crimes are blossoming and will blossom. When a Chief Minister is the sole authority to safeguard the security and integrity of the public but is working against the oath taken at the time taking over the reign of power. It leaves a beg question mark over the working of the state government as well as the Central Government.
The question of keeping criminals out of the party’s list of ticket-holders has long been debated. The parties have always shielded away from taking the bull by the horns. There is no consensus. The result is election after election, whether it is in UP, Bihar or Tamil Nadu Assembly or Lok Sabha polls, parties’ hand out tickets to criminals. The only criterion for the party is that he/she should be a winnable candidate. It is all a game of numbers and they do not mind sacrificing political morality or such success.
The Election Commission has been making repeated suggestions and recommendations to deter such elements from entering legislatures. But successive governments have chosen to let such reports from the Commission gather dust. The National Commission on Constitutional Reforms had, inter alia suggested that Section8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, wherein members are not disqualified even when convicted until their appeal is decided, should be deleted.
Secondly but not lastly, the Election Commission should make some provision for the candidates not to contest from two seats, if elected from both the seats and has to leave one seat there the runner-up should be declare elected or the expanses for the re-polling should be covered from him. There should be some system. The public is asked to pay tax on this or that head but the leaders are enjoying over the public money. A leader should be neat and clean in his/her affairs; otherwise he/she has no right to rule.