PROFESSOR JAGDEEP CHHOKAR is former Director In-charge of Indian Institute of Management, (IIM) Ahmedabad and one of the founding members of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has been awarded for pioneering social service by The Times of India, CNN/IBN and NDTV. He had earlier worked with the Indian Railways as a mechanical engineer and manager for over a decade, and as international marketing manager with a public sector organisation for four years. He did his PhD from Louisiana State University, USA and has taught at Universities in Australia, France, Japan and the US. In an interview with MOHAMMAD NAUSHAD KHAN, he said political corruption is the root of all corruption; and, likewise, corruption prevalent in India has its roots in politics.
According to Ipsos latest findings, the most important issue in India is political corruption. What’s your take thereon?
I believe it is correct. Most important issue is political corruption. It is difficult to say that maximum corruption is in politics only. I don’t have a fair idea about it. May be in business there is more corruption, or by the government. But what is true is that political corruption is the root of all corruptions. The corruption which is prevalent in India has its original source in politics. Other corruptions are just a symptom of this disease and therefore it is important to eradicate corruption from politics for permanent cure of the disease.
What I believe is that corruption cannot be eradicated from a country or society completely. There is no country in the world where one can say that corruption is zero. But corruption should not go come in the way of growth of the country and in the daily life of the people. Now in India corruption has become a part of our daily life. Therefore corruption is the most important issue; if the survey has said so then it is correct.
There had been a serious debate on political reform. Do you think we can see any glimpse of that today?
Not yet. We have made progress in forming committees only. Jayaprakash Narayan and Morarji Desai and Congress formed committees. There have been many suggestions. There is no dearth of committees and suggestions but what is lacking is the political will. The political leaders have vested interest and are afraid of any change. Many politicians believe there are many things wrong in the system but are not open for change. They are afraid of the impact of that change on them. And those who are getting benefit from the present system do not want any change. And the reason is that in our political parties there is no internal democracy. The leaders of political parties, their candidates and office bearers are not elected but rather they are nominated. So long there is a process of nomination, things are unlikely to change. In India, there is a democracy and we claim to be a vibrant democracy, which is good. And the instruments required for the function of democracy are the political parties.
It is often said that political parties are the pillars of democracy; they can either strengthen it or make it weak. Political parties are the system. But political parties are not democratic and the system is democratic. This is the basic problem. And that is why I say that there has been no serious effort towards political reform. Political reform requires change and our politicians are not ready to change.
In 5 to 6 television debates, I had participated. I saw political parties just blaming each other and pointing fingers against other parties for lack of consensus for any kind of political reform. So in such a case, there will be neither any consensus nor will there be any political reform. When there is any kind of talk of political reform by the Judiciary or by the Supreme Court and when we file a PIL, all parties come together. And under such circumstances, they easily arrive at a consensus. When the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that political parties come within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, no party accepted it. All six parties are together on this and they have not even replied to the notice of the CIC. And in Supreme Court, the first reply came from the Union of India even before political parties that political parties should not come under the RTI.
During 1999 to 2003 when we had started our work, the High Court had said that candidates will have to provide information about any criminal cases pending against them but the government appealed against it. The Supreme Court also said that they have to furnish details. After that 22 political parties held a meeting on 8 June 2002 and all parties unanimously said that they would not let it happen and they would change the law. And in order to stop political reforms they all came together.
So is political reform possible without bringing political parties within the ambit of RTI?
Everything is possible. If political parties really want to reform, they can do so provided there is will to do that. It has happened in other countries; for example, in England some 100 years ago. When political parties were in serious trouble and had to face the anger of the people, they themselves decided to reform rather than vanish. It is fairly a case of the will and if there is will there is a way. We wish political parties to be within the ambit of RTI because there will be some kind of transparency after that.
Is there any country which can be said to have a unique political system with political transparency?
It is a very difficult question and I am not aware of all the countries. What I believe is that in some Scandinavian or some other countries there is a possibility. There is another angle to it because the possibility of a unique democracy is only a dream. Democracy is not like that; if we have attained democracy, it will remain as it is and we don’t have to do anything further. It has to be nurtured and strengthened from time to time. Democracy is not a final destination but it is a journey. We are on the different stage of that destination. We may be little behind; some may have moved forward.
Have you ever felt in the recent years that democratic space has been reduced?
Yes, I have felt that. The space for discussion, disagreement, dissent and debate has been reduced. It is not only in India but in the entire world. You see in America Donald Trump has been made president. It is so in Philippines and Brazil. In some places, people have become impatient with democracy. Democracy is a long-term process. In every society, there could be different views and opinions. It requires debate and discussion. People should be convinced. Efforts are made to convince those who disagree. People are impatient and want quick result and solution as we are in twitter age. In a democracy, there cannot be instantaneous reply and solution. It is a continuous process. The impact of instantaneity can be seen everywhere.
You talked about political parties and system. Do you think people’s faith in the system has declined in the past decade?
It has to some extent. We do not have the system as that of the past. Not only system but even people are also not the same. So there is some fault within the system and from people’s side as well.
When you look at our entire political system, what makes you happy and sad?
I feel happy when people say irrespective of profession, caste and class, having been rich or poor that we elect a government. I feel happy that the democratic call is firmly entrenched in the mind of the people. I feel sad and unhappy that the political class which has the major responsibility and media, civil society and of course the people have failed and not done enough on their part to correct our governance and political system.
Uttar Pradesh is going to polls very soon. What would be your suggestion to the Election Commission particularly after demonetisation?
I have given many suggestions to the Election Commission and the Election Commission has given many good suggestions to the government. Whatever the Election Commission can do, it is doing good work. Many believe that the Election Commission is free to do what it wants. It is not so. It has got its limitations. In Article 324 it is said that the Election Commission is free to do its work but it has been said in a context. Election Commission is not free to do anything in every situation. Under Section 29A of Representation of People’s Act, it has the power to register a political party. In most of the government provisions, those who can register are also entitled to deregister but as per a Supreme Court order Election Commission has the power to register but it cannot deregister a political party. The power of Election Commission is limited. Election Commission does something new in every election. What suggestion can I give? I only want internal democracy and financial transparency in a political party. Election Commission with its surveillance team in the past seized money and I hope it will do here also.
Do you think political and corporate nexus was already strong or the bonding has further strengthened?
The nexus has been always strong. Now the big corporates and business houses have come closer. As I have already written and said that demonetisation will adversely affect small, and medium businesses will be more affected by demonetisation. They will find it tough to become cashless. They don’t have that capacity to cope up with the present situation as compared to big business houses. It is possible that small and medium businesses will end and be reduced and the impact would be that of what we have seen after Wal-Mart of USA or Pasco of Britain. In India too Reliance Fresh and Big Bazaar can also do the same here. They have wiped out local and small businesses. So eventually demonetisation could be said to provide maximum benefit for big corporate houses. And if it is the case then there could be also the possibility of any kind of nexus. I would like to say further that this is not a question of only political parties or so; the country is in the filth and we have to save our country and take it out of there.