Criminalization of Politics After 60 years of Indias independence the lives of commoners is far worse than under Britishers.

The benefits of independence have reached only few, thus creating islands of few ultra rich people surrounded by vast sea of utterly poor. The rich people in nexus with those in power are getting favourable laws enacted to suit their ends. Those in power are shamelessly enjoying 5star luxuries all at tax payers expense, while more then 50 million are starving to death. The criminalization of politics, executive & judiciary is almost complete. The corruption has spread its tentacles far & wide, there is corruption from womb to tomb, from maternity hospital to grave yard. The injustices mated out, the atrocities perpetrated by public servants are worse than Britishers. The biggest confounding factor in the political environment of business is criminalization of politics: people with criminal backgrounds becoming politicians and elected representatives. Around 20% of the members of the current Lok Sabha have criminal cases pending against them. The charges in several of these cases are of heinous crimes such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, and not just violation of Section 144, or something similar. It is well known that all parties take the help of criminal elements to dominate the election scene in India. But this process is influencing the mind and the will of the people both to gain the majority to rule the country according to their will. The system of democracy is now changing into the dictatorship of some. Because the democracy of India are now in hands of the criminal who are not capable any way to hold the post if legislature. Components:(1) Muscle Power:The influence of muscle power in Indian politics has been a fact of life for a long time. As early as in 1977, the National Police Commission headed by Dharam Vira observed: ``The manner in which different political parties have functioned, particularly on the eve of periodic election, involves the free use of musclemen and Dadas to influence the attitude and conduct of sizable sections of the electorate. The Panchayat elections, like other elections in the recent past, have demonstrated once again that there can be no sanity in India as long as politics continues to be based on caste and Gangsterism. The politicians are thriving today on the basis of muscle power provided by criminals. The common people who constitute the voters are in most cases too reluctant to take measures that would curtail the criminal activities. Once the political aspect joins the criminal elements the nexus becomes extremely dangerous. Many of politicians chose muscle power to gain vote bank in the country, and they apply the assumption that, if we are unable to bring faith in the community then we can generate fear or threat to get the power in the form of election. (2) Money Power:The elections to Parliament and State Legislatures are very expensive and it is a widely accepted fact that huge election expenditure is the root cause for corruption in India. A candidate has to spend lakhs of rupees to get elected and even if he gets elected, the total salary he gets during his tenure as an MP/MLA will be meagre compared to his election expenses. How can he bridge the gap between the income and expenses? Publicly through donations and secretly through illegal

means. The expenditure estimation for an election estimated as Rs 5 per voter as election expenditure, for 600 million voters, and calculation of all the expenses in a general elaction estimated around Rs 2,000 crore. Then there is the period between elections. This requires around Rs 250 crore. Then there are state elections and local elections. All told, the system has to generate around Rs 5,000 crore in a five year cycle or Rs 1,000 crore on average each year. Where is this money to come from? Only criminal activity can generate such large sums of untaxed funds. That is why you have criminals in politics. They have money and muscle, so they win and help others in their party win as well. Reasons Of This Criminalization:(1) Vote Bank:The political parties and independent candidates have astronomical expenditure for vote buying and other illegitimate purposes through these criminals or so called goondas. A politicians link with them constituency provides a congenial climate to political crime. Those who do not know why they ought to vote comprise the majority of voters of this country. Therefore majority of the voters are manoeuvrable, purchasable. Most of them are individually timid and collectively coward. To gain their support is easier for the unscrupulous than the conscientious. We have long witnessed criminals being wooed by political parties and given cabinet posts because their muscle and money power fetches crucial votes. Elections are won and lost on swings of just 1% of the vote, so parties cynically woo every possible vote bank, including those headed by accused robbers and murderers. Legal delays ensure that the accused will die of old age before being convicted, so parties virtuously insist that these chaps must be regarded as innocent till proved guilty. (2) Corruption:In every election all parties without exception put up candidates with a criminal background. Even though some of us whine about the decision taken by the parties, the general trend is that these candidates are elected to office. By acting in such a manner we fail to realize that the greatest power that democracy arms the people is to vote incompetent people out of power. Independence has taken place through a two-stage process. The first stage was the corrupting of the institutions and the second stage was the institutionalization of corruption. As we look at the corruption scene today, we find that we have reached this stage because the corrupting of the institutions in turn has finally led to the institutionalization of corruption. The failure to deal with corruption has bred contempt for the law. When there is contempt for the law and this is combined with the criminalization of politics, corruption flourishes. India is ranked 66 out of 85 in the Corruption Perception Index 1998 by the German non-government organization Transparency International based in Berlin. This means that 65 countries were perceived to be less corrupt than India and 19 were perceived to be more corrupt. (3) Loop Holes In The Functioning Of Election Commission:The Election Commission must take adequate measures to break the nexus between the criminals and the politicians. The forms prescribed by the Election Commission for candidates disclosing their convictions, cases pending in courts and so on in their nomination papers is a step in the right direction if it applied properly. Too much should not be expected, however, from these

disclosures. They would only inform people of the candidates history and qualifications, but not prohibit them from casting their votes, regardless, in favour of a criminal. For the past several general elections there has existed a gulf between the Election Commission and the voter. Common people hardly come to know the rules made by the commission. Bridging this gap is essential not only for rooting out undesirable elements from politics but also for the survival of our democratic polity. This is an incremental process, the rate of success of which is directly proportional to the increase in literacy rate in India. The electorate have made certain wrong choices in the past, but in the future national interest should guide them in making intelligent choices. (4) Denial Of Justice And Rule Of Law: Criminalization is a fact of Indian electoral politics today. The voters, political parties and the law and order machinery of the state are all equally responsible for this. There is very little faith in India in the efficacy of the democratic process in actually delivering good governance. This extends to accepting criminalization of politics as a fact of life. Toothless laws against convicted criminals standing for elections further encourage this process. Under current law, only people who have been convicted at least on two counts be debarred from becoming candidates. This leaves the field open for charge sheeted criminals, many of whom are habitual offenders or history-sheeters. It is mystifying indeed why a person should be convicted on two counts to be disqualified from fighting elections. The real problem lies in the definitions. Thus, unless a person has been convicted, he is not a criminal. Mere charge-sheets and pending cases do not suffice as bars to being nominated to fight an election. So the law has to be changed accordingly. Legal Threads:(1) Vohra Committee:12 bombs blasts that shook Bombay on 13 march 1993, had involved the collaboration of a diffuse network of criminal gangs, police and customs officials as well as their political Patrons, a commission were institutes to investigate the so-called nexus. The report by N.N.Vohra found such deep involvement of politicians with organised crime all over India that it was barred from publication. Here Vohra observes "the various crime syndicate/mafia organisations have developed significant muscle and money power and established linkage with governmental functionaries, political leaders and other to be able to operate with impunity. As highlighted by the Vohra Committee Our elections involve a lot of black money and it is this use of black money in elections which has also brought about the criminalization of politics. After all, the story of the Hawala scam started by the police stumbling to the Jain diaries in their effort to trace the money received by the Kashmir militants. The scam brought out the linkage between the corrupt businessmen, politicians, bureaucracy and the criminals. The 1993 Bombay blasts which took away the life of 300 people was made possible because RDX could be smuggled by allegedly bribing a customs official with Rs.20 lakhs. Some 15 years ago Vohra committee submitted its report to curb criminalization of politics but the fact is that no application in this way is being made. This was mentioned in the petition submitted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha and President of India on 16th may that- The subject of criminalisation of politics is one that concerns the entire nation closely. It is deeply disturbing that on the one hand, our polity is tolerant of fake encounters (summary executions) of alleged criminals and terrorists, while our

highest representative body Indian Parliament harbours people caught red-handed in acts of human trafficking, and convicted on charges of abduction and suspected murder. (2) Supreme Courts Judgement:The Supreme Court judgment of May 2, 2002 mandated that candidates disclose their criminal antecedents, if any, as also their financial and educational background. The Election Commission had proposed amendment of statutory rules and the format of nomination papers, to give effect to this judgment of the Supreme Court. The Apex Court judgement to check corruption among public servant is a welcome step. No law should provide protective shield to the corrupt public official and the court has rightly held that no prior sanction of competent authority would be required to prosecute them. With this order, 93 MPs and 10 ministers in Manmohan Singh's ministry are under the scanner on various criminal charges. This is appalling. It is ironical that the executive and legislatures who make and implement policies and guidelines for the development are themselves acting as stumbling block in the development of the nation. The role of Supreme Court becomes very important here. The Apex Court as custodian of constitution should take all necessary steps to strengthen democracy in the country. The legislature and executive have been complaining about the Supreme Courts intervention on their domain, but it becomes imperative in such kind of unwanted situation. The Supreme Court of India upheld a PIL which made it mandatory for everyone seeking public office to disclose their criminal, financial and educational history. It was a way to ensure that the voters knew the important details about their honourable leaders, and steamed them were indeed. Some of the parties would be able to draw advantage from the Supreme Court order because they have had less opportunity to indulge in crime and corruption. They would have a greater chance of watching candidates of other parties squirm and suffer in agony. Some others might be happy because they already have efficient watchdog systems and batteries of lawyers in place that would permit them to file counter-affidavits and challenge nominations of opposing candidates within hours of their being filed. (3) Right To Information Act And Criminalization Of Politics:The Court held that the right to information - the right to know antecedents, including the criminal past, or assets of candidates - was a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and that the information was fundamental for survival of democracy. In its Judgement of May 2, 2002, it directed the Election Commission to call for information on affidavit from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or the State Legislature as a necessary part of the nomination papers on: Whether the candidate has been convicted / acquitted / discharged of any criminal offence in the past - if any, whether the candidate was accused in any pending case of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge was framed or cognisance taken by the court of law. If so, requires the details thereof; the assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of the dependents; liabilities, if any, particularly of any overdue of any public financial institution or Government dues; educational qualifications of the candidate. The Right to Information Act 2005 is a historical Act that makes Government officials liable for punishment if they fail to respond to people within a stipulated timeframe. Many public servants are leading luxurious lifestyles, beyond the legal sources of their income. Many public servants are filing false affidavits about their annual income, wealth details to Election Commission of India /

Vigilance Commission / other authorities, as the case may be. These authorities are not properly verifying these affidavits. Many scams, scandals are coming to light day in & day out, politicians are accusing each other of involvement in scams. Whereas, the said authorities are keeping mum, as if those affidavits filed by tainted public servants are true. The tainted public servants are not even providing full, right information to public as per RTI Act, lest the truth come out. This seen is very normal now a day that some public servants, caught red-handed during luxurious spending, they easily say that it is at their political partys expense or their well wishers expense. However no entries are found in the account books of said parties to that respect. The law forbids public servants from accepting gifts, hospitality, favours beyond the value of rupees one hundred (Rs. 100 ) , as it may be a form of bribe. But one may ask all these under RTI. Right to Know is an inherent attribute of every person. Right to know differs only in one sense with right to information. Right to know is a natural right and right to information is a provision given by government to its people. Natural rights do not have any value legally until they are legally considered. Hence right to know as such implied in the freedom of speech and expression which is a legally considered right must have to be given a special value. Right to information as such will bring transparency of the government activities and allow the people to find remedies for those things by which they suffered. Criminalization of Politics
BY : MANISH KUMAR SINGH . B. A. LLB(HONS) Contact details: manishsingh2882@gmail.com

The Sangh Parivar poses a grave threat to the Indian polity and society, not so much because it mixes religion and politics, but because it resorts to criminal acts. For instance, had the BJPRSS-VHP, Bajrang Dal and company stopped at the demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya and proceeded to celebrate their victory through aarti and bhajans (devotional'songs), more people might have accepted their claim that they were motivated by religious sentiment. The deposed and recently murdered mahant of the Ram Janamsthan Mandir, Baba Lal Das, openly stated in various interviews that none of the VHP leaders ever came to pray or made any offerings at the Ram temple during this period. Lal Das alleged that after demolishing the Babri Masjid, the VHP cadres barged into the Ram Lalla mandir, looted the cash box containing a month's offerings and stole ancient idols worth several crores. According to the late Lal Das, they even stole the original, ancient Ram Lalla idol and replaced it with a fake one. While some were looting the Ram Lalla temple, others went on a murderous spree. Between nightfall on 6 December and mid-afternoon the next day, these supposed kar sevaks killed and burnt 13 Muslim men and children. They could not lay their hands on more because the majority of Muslims in Ayodhya had fled before 6 December, and the rest on hearing the news that the Babri Masjid had fallen. The rioting in Ayodhya began in the early morning of 7 December; for nearly twelve hours Sangh Parivar gangsters roamed the streets, plundering and torching every single one of the 134 Muslim homes and business establishments in the city. First they looted all the valuables and currency they could lay their hands on. Then they smashed to pieces everything that was in the houses. What couldn't be broken, whether it was motorcycles, clothes

or books, went into huge bonfires. After this the Muslim houses were set on fire. Barring two, all the masjids and idgahs of Ayodhya were either destroyed or damaged. This was not just a euphoric mindless reaction of the Sangh Parivar to their success in razing the Babri masjid to the ground, but part of a well-prepared plan. The Sangh Parivar had made prior lists of the locations of all Muslim homes. So careful was the planned targeting of Muslim homes that, where a Muslim house was situated too close to a Hindu house, they only looted and destroyed whatever they found within, but refrained from setting the place on fire, lest the neighbouring Hindu houses catch fire. They could do all this openly, in broad daylight, because both the police and the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) brazenly assisted them in the mayhem. This pattern of targeted killings of the Muslims with the open help of the police and paramilitary forces, and often with government support, has been witnessed in all recent massacres and riots such as those in Meerut and Malliana in 1987, in Bhiwandi, Bhagalpur, Ahmedabad and more recently in Surat and Bombay. In many of these riots, women have been stripped and paraded naked in the streets before being gang-raped and brutally put to death. These acts are not as much due to mixing religion with politics as they are a consequence of the brazen use of criminal means to win political battles. The issue is, therefore, not so much the survival of secularism as it is the increasing criminalization of our political life, and the active protection criminals receive from the political machinery. It is this nexus which needs to be broken. Just as the Hindutva of the Sangh Parivar relies heavily on murder, mayhem, loot, rape and arson, so does the 'secular nationalism' of the Congress party. In recent years this party has been increasingly using riots and pogroms as a means of winning over vote banks. The anti-Sikh massacres of November 1984 were organized with a view to consolidating their Hindu vote bank. Anti-Muslim violence has been a regular feature of several Congress-ruled states. The Congress party has openly patronized the anti-social politics of Shiv Sena hoodlums and has joined the Sangh Parivar in legitimizing the politics of hatred and bloodshed. This increasing criminalization of the political and social fabric is the main danger, not the mixing of religion with politics. Unlike in Europe, where religious authority, especially the Roman Catholic Church, has a long history of intervening in the secular domain, India has no such comparable tradition. Religion has never sought to dictate politics in India because there has been no consensual centralized religious authority which could claim to speak on behalf of the entire Hindu or Muslim population. Modern India is witnessing the very opposite of the battles fought in Europe to free politics from encroachments by religion. In our country, there are hardly any instances of religious leaders insisting that politics be subservient to them. On the contrary, it is politicians who have in recent history attempted to take over religious institutions and destroy their sanctity. In Punjab, it was the battle between the Akali Dal and the Congress Party over who was to have exclusive control over gurudwaras, so as to be able to use them as a political base, that caused so much bloodshed and strife. This tradition was started by the British who tried to prop up corrupt mahants in gurudwaras leading to a long struggle by the Akalis to free the gurudwaras from British influence. There have been similar intrusions by the Congress government into the affairs of the mosques through control over Waqf Boards.

Since Hindu temples do not have a centralized body, they could not be taken over by politicians staging a coup from above. But in recent decades there has been a systematic attempt by politically affiliated criminals to forcibly take over temples. This is one of the reasons for the success of the BJP-RSS-VHP Combine in politicizing the Ram Mandir issue in such a murderous fashion. In India, it is not politics which needs saving from religion but religion which needs to be protected from political hoodlums. Temples, gurudwaras and Waqf Boards provide criminals with vast amounts of economic resources and a ready-made political base. They have converted these religious institutions into battlegrounds for gang warfare. Even this politicization of religion would be a relatively harmless affair if the parties concerned vowed not to use criminal means to secure their political ends. This is what made Jinnah so dangerous. He could secure the partition of the country not on the strength of religious fervour, but by instigating riots and bloodshed in the name of mass action for the purpose of polarizing Hindu and Muslims. That is what began the process of forcible Hindu exodus from certain Muslim majority areas, leading to retaliation by Hindus in areas where they were numerically dominant. Thus the foundation of Pakistan was laid through bloodshed and criminal acts of politicians rather than by religion dominating politics. Advani, Bal Thackeray, Singhal of the Sangh Parivar and many in trie Congress party insist on following the path chosen by Jinnah. In city after city where Hindu-Muslim riots have been politically engineered, we are witnessing the increasing polarization of the two communities. The Muslims of the subcontinent, especially the Mohajirs of Pakistan and those left in India, are paying a heavy price for not opposing Jinnahism' with vigour and determination. If we Hindus allow our own Jinnahs to get the better of us, we too will be following the path of selfdestruction. Calling the Sangh Parivar politics communal amounts to giving them undue respectability. To be communal-minded involves a strong devotion to the interests of one's own ethnic group rather than to those of society as a whole. On the other hand, the politics of the Sangh Parivar lies in instigating a large-scale criminalization of the Hindu community. For years both the Congress and the Sangh Parivar used poor Dalit men to launch attacks on Muslim bastis while the middle and upper classes could feign ignorance of what was going on in their city. In recent years, however, young people from the so-called respectable middle and upper-class homes have also been encouraged to become the leaders of loot and murder brigades. Their success in mobilizing large numbers of women to join in the violence, as well as to abet and encourage the rape of Muslim women, as in Bombay and Surat during January-March 1993, is a cause for serious alarm. This criminalization of the Hindus by the Sangh Parivar shows that these groups are no wellwishers of the Hindu community. Like the Khalistani terrorists, they too resort to murder to silence the voices of dissent within the Hindu community, as the murder of Baba Lal Das proves. I reproduce extracts from a tape-recorded interview with Baba Lal Das when he came to Delhi in July 1993 to give testimony before the Citizens' Tribunal on Ayodhya: * * * * * * * *

My name is Lal Das. I was appointed by the court as the chief priest of Ramjanmabhoomi temple in 1983 and continued in that position until 1 March, 1992. Before that I used to oversee the work of the Ramjanmabhoomi Seva Samiti. I was attending to the court case [relating to the disputed site] from 1969 to 1983, before being appointed the chief priest. On paper I am still the chief priest, This appointment was made by the Government Receiver. Earlier, a magistrate or a judge used to be the Receiver. In 1992 the BJP government removed me and appointed their own supporters as the priest there. Why did they do such a thing? Why did they feel that you would not work in their interest? The question of working in anyone's interests did not arise. I was not under them. I was appointed by the court and the courts appoint an impartial person. Whatever they wanted from me and whatever expectations they had that I would work for them were not possible. What expectations did they have from you? How did they want you to work in their favour? They had two expectations, one that I should issue statements to the press in their favour and second, that I should tell everyone that all income the Ramjanmabhoomi pujari receives belongs to the VHP. How much was received annually as offerings? Initially it was not much. After the locks were opened, the amount of offerings increased to between Rs 5 to 10 lakhs a year. How much was received before the locks were opened? Before that, whatever used to come used to be at the chabutra of the akhara. People did not go inside the mandir. When we opened the donation box after five or six months, we would get about Rs 10,000 to Rs 12,000. On an average, we received about Rs 30,000 to RS 35,000 a year. This was used for our expenses. Did they want whatever money that came to go to them? No, they were interested in propaganda. What they wanted was that we should tell all the visitors that the VHP owned the mandir because they had already announced all over India that they had rights over the mandir. Since when did the VHP start coming to Ayodhya? From 1984 onwards. Before that there was no interference from them in Ayodhya? All the rioting and violence started in 1984. Before that there was no dispute or trouble. There was a small dispute in 1949 and both sides went to court to argue out their case. There was no fighting or slogan shouting on the roads, neither was there any violence. What happened in 1984 to cause them to suddenly remember this place? It all started at Sitamarhi in Bihar. There they took out a rath yatra to generate propaganda to get the locks on the Ramjanmabhoomi opened. They got popular support and also a lot of money. They realized that they could make a lot of money out of this and also get publicity. So, with more money flowing in, their programmes also went on increasing.

How did they remove you? I was forcibly removed. It's like having dacoits enter your home and take away everything. What about the police? What about them? The police was on their side and the state government was theirs. Did the other mahants of Ayodhya not protest about this? What can the mahants do? Those who are on our side cannot come out on the streets to fight. But they did raise moral objections. How did they do it? There have not been many statements from them. There are nearly 8,500 big and small mandirs in Ayodhya. The press people come and meet a few people, generally those who are in the limelight. The Sadhu Samaj gave us moral support and protested against the VHP action, so did many members of the public and political parties. Which political parties supported you? We received support from the SJP, Janata Dal, Janata(S) and the Bahujan Samaj Party. Only the Congress and the BJP were silent. How come the Congress party did not support you even though you were appointed by their government? The Congress and the BJP have similar policies. What one does is supported by the other. All the troubles have been created by the Congress. Right throughout till the demolition, the Congress has fully supported the BJP. Today also the BJP has the full support of the Congress. They have an internal arrangement-whatever the BJP does the Congress supports. But to show the public that they do not support the BJP they make a big drama like in Ramlila. In the Ramlila you bring Meghnad, Ravan and Sita on the stage to show the public a good drama. But behind the curtain the actors are neither Ravan nor Sita. Just in that manner, all this drama is meant for public consumption. Behind the scenes both BJP and Congress are one and the same. Supposing you were asked to resolve the dispute in your personal capacity, what steps would you have taken to settle the dispute? Since the Muslims have never fought over it, the problem resolves itself. The Muslims had not used the Babri Masjid since 1949. The Muslims of Faizabad did not even know where Babri Masjid was situated, leave alone the Muslims from the rest of India. The older generation of Faizabad may have known where the Babri Masjid was but the younger generations did not know anything about it. The Sangh Parivar started propaganda supposedly to take revenge on the descendants of Babar and to send them to Pakistan. Their propaganda drew attention to the fact that Babri Masjid existed in Ayodhya. It is they who united all the Muslims in India. Thereafter, the Muslims gave the expected reaction-that it was a royal masjid and that it should not be touched while there was a case going on in the courts over it. The Muslims did not come out in the streets to fight over it till they were attacked openly. On 1 February 1986, the district court ordered the locks opened. The BJP-VHP rath yatra processions had to be cancelled. They were silent till 7 February, wondering what to do, as their source of income had dried up. They used to collect a lot of money through the rath yatra; the

villagers used to pay for getting the mandir opened. Now that the mandir was unlocked, what should they do? Did the Muslims not create any trouble in all this time? No, they were mourning, but they did not come out on the streets. They were fighting a legal battle in the courts. There was a meeting in Lucknow on 6 February 1986. At this meeting, the VHP decided that the establishment of a mandir on the disputed site was the basis of their movement. They had already got a lot of money and political mileage out of the dispute. They now called for the construction of a mandir, and announced that their struggle would continue as long as the mandir was not constructed. Their slogans changed from that point onwards. They held processions all over India announcing that they would continue their fight as long as they could not rebuild a mandir there. They also used a slogan: This is just for starters-Mathura and Kashi are yet to come' (Abbi toyeh jhanki hai, Mathura Kashi baki hai). After this they started taking out processions in the Muslim-dominated areas and started abusing them. The Muslims, who were in mourning, became upset at these attacks. From 7 February 1986, riots started. One result of these riots was that many Hindus were attacked in Kashmir. The state government was dismissed in Kashmir as a result of the riots. Elections have not been held in Kashmir ever since then. Even now there is governor's rule in Kashmir. When the riots broke out on 7 February and continued till 20-22 February, the rath yatras were stopped by the then chief minister Vir Bahadur Singh. It was a Congress government then. When the locks were opened on the orders of the Central government, Vir Bahadur stopped the processions. Otherwise there would have been more violence. After the locks had been opened, the VHP started a campaign to lay the foundation stone for the construction of the mandir at the disputed spot. They never betrayed their real intentions. In their affidavit to the government they announced that they would only lay the foundation stone of the mandir on three feet of land. They claimed they would not disturb anything else; they would not destroy or cause any harm to the disputed structure; there would be no violence of any kind. But their real intentions were different. Their thinking was that after they laid the foundation stone there would be more violence. Then construction would be halted. After construction was halted, the Hindus would get angry and join their side in the dispute. They started construction work after they laid the foundation stone. Vir Bahadur Singh stopped the construction work. Then the VHP announced that they had been prevented from building a mandir. After that Rajiv Gandhi was killed. Then the elections were held. The Congress formed the government at the Centre and the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. That the Congress and BJP have a common programme was not known to the common man. The Indian public could not see through the BJP-Congress deceptions as they would alternately blow hot and cold. The lock was not put on because of anyone's order. The lock was put on in 1971. It was not locked in 1949. The legal aspect of this situation was that the place was in charge of a 'Receiver'. The food was cooked in the kitchen of the Ram Chabutra. The sentry would open the lock for the bhog (food offering to deities). In 1971, Priya Dutt Ram, who was the Receiver, expired. There was a dispute between the new Receiver and the Nirmohi Akhara. The police intervened, put their own lock on, and kept the

key. The sentry on duty was changed; he handed over the key to the new sentry. There were two doors. One door used to remain open for bhog offering and prayers. This system was continuing. The BJP and the VHP found a very good opportunity in this to publicize and propagate their ideas and then the other lock was taken off. So it was not that the place was completely locked. Only from the point of view of security was the place locked at times. It could have been opened without fanfare and all the propaganda on TV. It was all done for political gains. They have no love for Ram, these people from the RSS, Bajrang Dal, Vidhyarthi Parishad, Shiv Sena and so on. These people are of the Arya Samaji faith, they do not believe in idol worship. But because they were getting a lot of money and political gain, they whipped up Hindu sentiments. In the entire history of the RSS, they have not constructed a single mandir anywhere in India. Our flag of the Devi is hexagonal and flags over the mandirs of Ram or Krishna have the symbol of Hanuman. Their saffron colour flag is not a symbol of the Vaishnav's but of the Arya Samajis. Om is part of our mantras also, but they have made Om the basis of everything, setting aside all the mantras. Thus the way we pray has no similarity with the way they pray. They consider Ram to be human while we think of him as Brahm (God). We consider Krishna to be God, they think of him as a man. Dr Golwalkar has written in his book that the biggest mistake of the Hindus is that they think of Ram and Krishna as gods. If according to him, this is the Hindu's biggest mistake, then it is clear that they think of Ram and Krishna as ordinary mortals. Whenever they talk of Ram, they always say Bhagwan Ram. All that is just play-acting, as I have already told you. If you say that Ram is God, how can he have a birthplace? Whether this is so or not is a subject of intellectual debate, I do not want to go into that. It is a matter of belief; we treat them as gods and they treat them as ordinary mortals. You said earlier that there was no dispute about the mandir at all When I asked you how you would resolve the crisis, you said that this dispute is an artificial crisis. Are you in favour of this campaign that has been started to construct the Ram Mandir there? I think that a grand Ram Mandir must be constructed. Ayodhya is a city of mandirs. In Ayodha, Ram Mandirs are everywhere. Is there need for one more mandir when there are already over 8,000 mandirs there? The question is that of a Ramjanmabhoomi Mandir. Ayodhya is a city of 8,500 mandirs. The Muslims have never objected to the construction of a new Ram Mandir although 42 acres of land adjacent to the disputed site are even now recorded as a Muslim graveyard (kabristari) in the books of the revenue department. But the Babri Masjid also comes in the disputed area. That is part of the dispute. But the whole area is recorded as a graveyard. Eight mandirs were constructed in the graveyard after 1949. They were demolished by the BJP, who wanted to show the people that they were doing something. Demolishing a mandir is not considered to be a good thing.

That is, only if they believe in Ram. But as they do not believe in Ram . . . Was there no protest in Ayodhya? There was a lot of protest. They demolished eight mandirs, including the ancient Sakshi Gopal Mandir, Hanuman Mandir and Keshavdas Mandir. The historic mandir, Sita ki Rasoi, was destroyed by them during the kar seva on 6 December. The Muslims never objected to the construction of mandirs in their graveyard; rather, they had willingly handed over the land to the maths in Ayodhya. In that area behind the Janambhoomi there is a Shanti Bhavan and next to it a temple. The area was given willingly by the Muslims to the Hindus to construct their temples. They may have received some compensation but the fact remains that the land was given willingly by the Muslims to the Hindus. There was no dispute at all between the two communities over the construction of these mandirs in the graveyard. Whatever dispute existed was being sorted out in court. They never objected to our praying at the disputed site. How many Muslims are there in this area? In Faizabad and Ayodhya the total population would be around JU25 to 1.3 lakh. In Faizabad, the Muslims would be 25 to 30 per cent. In Ayodhya there would be around 5,000 Muslims. There has never been any dispute or quarrel with the Muslims. In fact, there was a great deal of co-operation from the Muslims in the maintenance of the mandir. They owned flower gardens and they sold flowers to the mandirs. Other ingredients required for prayers were also provided by the Muslims. Things were going on smoothly; there was no discrimination. In fact, for the last 40 years the manager of one of the mandirs (Mangal Bhavan) is a Muslim. In Ayodhya there was peace between the Hindus and the Muslims. People from outside have created the rift. For them it was an opportunity to unite the Hindu votes behind them-they wanted to form their own government even though it meant creating a holocaust which may ruin the country. They were not concerned about the consequences. They had only one aim-votes. This money that they have collected in the name of the Ramjanmabhoomi Mandir, some say it is Rs 800 crores. Is there any account of that? I have all the documents and proofs. The VHP had an office near the Bharat Sadhu Samaj. They received Rs 21 million from West Germany. Apart from that they received bricks of gold and silver. Hindu families all over India donated money to them. They have collected hundreds of crores of rupees, divided the money before the 1991 elections . . . What would he the total amount? I know about the money received from Germany and I know that Ramchandra Paramhansa took Rs 30 lakh as commission. Then only did he sign an authorization to let the BJP withdraw the money before the elections. They withdrew the money from here and deposited it in other banks. The money collected for the Ramjanmabhoomi was withdrawn and deposited in banks in Delhi and used for the elections. How much annual income are they getting now? They have no income from the Ramjanmabhoomi at the moment as it is under the control of the government.

But aren 't they still collecting money all over the country in the name of the Ramjanmabhoomi? All the capitalists like Tata, Birla, Dalmia are giving them a lot of money. They give them money because they want the problem to continue so that public attention is diverted from the real issues and they can keep making money the way they want to. In the film Ram Ke Naam in the interview with you, you were told that you sound like a communist. Is speaking the truth speaking like a communist? I am just saying what is actually happening. The VHP has removed you and forcibly taken over the mandir; similarly, it is said that they have removed many mahants from the mandirs in Ayodhya and installed their goons in their place. Is it true? This is true. Not only in Ayodhya, but their idea was that everywhere in India, whenever there is a big mandir or math, they intend to send their men to take over the mandirs and maths so that their writ runs everywhere. How did they take over the mandirs? First of all the VHP and RSS people asked for place to stay. They said they were working for Hindu society. People here are not so shrewd or clever, so they gave them a room to stay. After that one by one they started bringing in more of their workers into the mandirs and maths. Since we don't have family dynasities but a guru tradition, they chose one of their own disciples, made him the mahant and threw out the original mahant. This could have been done only if the guru agreed. There is no consent of the guru; it's all happening on the basis of force. The gurus have been thrown out on the streets; no one is concerned about them. For these people there is neither God nor guru (naguru, na Gobind). What can the gurus do? The police will not listen to them; they can't get justice. Out of the 8,500 mandirs, how many have they taken over? I know of eight mandirs they took over just as they took over the janamsthan. There was no internal resistance over this? Who will protest? Lakhs are protesting against Khalistanis but what is happening? These people are another incarnation of the Khalistanis. What similarity do you see between them and the Khalistanis? There is no difference between them and the Khalistanis. The Khalistanis want total control over Punjab. The RSS wants total dictatorial control over Hindu society. They want people to agree to whatever they say. What would be the solution to this problem according to you? Both Congress and the BJP should keep quiet and stay out of this. We the people of Ayodhya and Faizabad together will resolve the matter. The mandir will be constructed and the Muslims will not object. Were you in favour of demolishing the Babri Masjid?

No, not at all. You felt that without demolishing it a mandir could have been constructed? The mandir was already there. Prayers were being offered while the court case was going on which was dragged on by the government. They wanted to keep the issue alive because at any time they could raise it and start riots. Is it true that murders are routinely taking place in Ayodhya? This is all their doing. They have goons and murderers on their side. Any mahant who does not obey them or toe their line is murdered. In the last two years how many mahants have been murdered? At least 50 to 60 mahants have been murdered, such as the mahant of the big cantonment, Ram Pratap Das, Maithli Sharan of Janaki Ghat. Bajrangdas at Hanumangarhi was murdered some time ago. Recently many people have been murdered. How many people can one name? There should be some list somewhere. I have a list. I cannot remember the names without the list. Every week there are murders-if not every week, every month. I wonder how a person like me is still alive. Yes, it is a wonder that they have left you alive after what you said about them in public. I am alive by the grace of God. They have tried to do everything to kill me. They have attacked my home, taken away my land and house. They have thrown bombs at my house and tried to burn it. They have tried all methods to destroy me. Vinay Katiyar of the VHP even organized a yagna to kill me. Was this agricultural land? No, it was land to build a house on. I am staying in someone else's house. What are you doing these days? I am looking after the mandir of the riyasat. You mean the government? No, not the government, the erstwhile king. Do you have a leaning towards any political party? I have no leaning towards any political party. I hate all political parties because they are the root of all our problems. In your eyes is there any party that would reduce tensions? I don't see any such party. Not even the communists? The communists have also become corrupt. I had read in the newspapers that the communist MP from Faizabad had done a lot of good in Ayodhya.

He is a sinner. In this moment of crisis he never issued a statement that what is happening is wrong. He did not even go to the Muslims. He did not go to anyone-neither the Hindus nor the Muslims. He is MP only of the Ahirs and Yadavs, not of the whole region. Have the Muslims whose houses were burnt down returned to Ayodhya? Most of them have returned. How is the situation now? The situation is still not good. They are still unprotected. They will remain insecure as long there is Congress rule. Will they be unprotected even under the BJP? Yes, even then they will be unprotected. What should be done? Should we banish the Congress and BJP for a hundred years? If the Congress and BJP are not removed by their roots from this country, if the system does not change fully, if the Indian Administrative Service and Provincial Civil Service people remain here, the total revolution that Jai Prakash Narayan had spoken about cannot occur; India cannot change without these things happening first. Why do you want to abolish the IAS and the PCS? Because the IAS and PCS think they rule the country. The thinking amongst them is: 'While we are in service, we rule the country, and after we retire, we should get a ticket from the BJP or Congress so we can rule again'. Their wish is that from their childhood to death they should be the rulers. They want money and power. Both the Congress and the BJP have money and power. The capitalists are providing the money to these parties. The common man, the worker, the peasant has still not been able to understand why we have the vote. It is fools like me who have understood this. Did the Mulayam Singh government do any good, in your opinion? The Mulayam Singh government did its duty well. If 1 had been in his place I would have done more. By more I mean that I would have had so many bullets fired that people would not have dared to raise their eyes. He was a fool-he got scared. If I had been the chief minister in his place, I would have had thousands of people killed so that they would not have dared to look towards Ayodhya during their lifetimes. Do you see any chance of Mulayam Singb coming back to power? It is possible. What about the hatred the Hindus have towards him? Where was the hatred among the Hindus? It was all a creation of propaganda. Even today the people of Uttar Pradesh realize that Mulayam Singh is a good person. He worked for the interests of the poor and the farmers. He did a lot-like waiving agricultural loans upto Rs 11,000 and removing octroi. The things that farmers needed were made available at cheap rates. In case he comes back to power, will this problem be solved?

Until a different government is formed at the Centre, how can the problem be solved? The condition of the mandirs depends on the people who control them. If they are corrupt, the mandirs will perish; if they are honest, mandirs will improve. What do you feel about the politicization of the mandirs in the last 50 years or so? Earlier thoughtful people used to come to the Sadhu Samaj, good people who had become tired of this material world and wanted to devote their thoughts to prayers. They stayed away from jealousy and hatred. Today society has become such that on the one hand there are these socalled followers of BJP who want to bring about Ramrajya through bloodshed and on the other hand you have the Sadhu Samaj which is becoming the home of criminals. Until the time there are good people in them there is no chance for improving political parties or mandirs. How will people improve? When there is change in society, when there is a total revolution, when the system changes, only then will people change.

CRIMINALS IN POLITICS Keep them out of public life

BY : MANISH KUMAR SINGH . B. A. LLB(HONS) ADVOCATE Contact details: manishsingh2882@gmail.com

INDIA boasts of being the worlds largest democracy. With the passage of the 73rd and 74th Amendments on Panchayati Raj, it can make the further claim of being the most representative one, with over three million grassroot legislators being elected, a third of them women. The country has of course a strong democratic tradition of electoral politics and the Election Commission has won plaudits, both at home and abroad. But democracy goes beyond periodic elections, despite their seminal importance in ensuring free and fair choice. What is more important is the participative nature and quality of democratic governance. It is here that the country needs to be vigilant to ensure that its parliamentary system is not hollowed by the criminalisation of the political and electoral political process. Of course, electoral politics is not the sole reason for the criminalisation of politics. The lure of money and the role of vested interests are among other reasons. Nevertheless, many analysts believe that the electoral process is a major fount of corruption and criminalisation in the country. Gaining leverage on politicians has become the road to immunity, if not power. It is now common knowledge that a number of elected representatives to local bodies, state legislatures and even Parliament are persons of unsavoury reputation and, some of them hardened criminals. Alarmed by this trend the Supreme Court intervened a couple of years ago to order a disclosure regime that requires electoral candidates to make known their criminal record, if any, their assets and those of their immediate relatives, and their educational qualifications. The Central Election Commission worked out the related procedures and details. But, not

altogether to the publics surprise, the scheme was unanimously opposed by all parties on grounds that ranged from its impracticality to the likely harassment of innocent persons that it could cause. Vested interests The story possibly goes back to the immediate post-Independence period when prohibition was introduced in the old Bombay and Madras presidencies. All it did was to drive the process of procuring liquor and imbibing it underground. Bootleggers flourished and all manner of noxious brews were peddled to the detriment of civic conduct, the law and public health. Prohibition was later scrapped, and then reintroduced. But it has never truly worked - anywhere. However, it did permanently scar the Indian polity and society. Bootlegging flourished with the connivance of the police, bureaucracy and politicians. An underground supply chain came into being with an elaborate and accepted system of bribery. This ensured that the law-enforcement machinery was bought up to permit moonshining, with a guarantee of both immunity and impunity. The law permitted a certain class of persons to get liquor permits on medical considerations. Such medical certificates were soon on sale, corrupting the medical profession. The fact that drink and drunken revelry continued was an open secret. And behind it all, the liquor mafia grew in wealth, power and influence. An underground network developed, lubricated by bribery, corruption, blackmail and threats of violence. The mafia began to control men and mohallas, and developed their own protection squads to wage inter-gang wars and to deal with others foolish enough to cross their path. These liquor barons soon discovered that they did or could control vote banks through money and muscle. They were sought after by those in distress to settle scores and by politicians to deliver votes or capture booths at election time. The mafia steadily grew and spread its tentacles over all manner of illicit operations foreign exchange, smuggling, the flesh trade, real estate and all manner of other dodgy business. And as their reach and power grew, so did the demands made on them for electoral services, such as rigging, providing unaccounted money and preventing certain classes of people from voting. But services are never rendered gratis. There is a quid pro quo and elected legislators found that they had to dance to the tune of their paymasters and underworld benefactors at the cost of the electorate, the democratic ethos and good governance. Before long, mafia dons discovered that they had become king makers. From there it was but a short step to becoming king. Why trouble to buy a legislator to get things done in the corridors of power. Simpler to do the job oneself by entering the legislature, win respectability and acquire "leadership" status in the bargain. Some people do really believe that to be elected by whatever means is to be placed above the law! Consider the fact that certain criminals and not only in Bihar have been elected from prison. Others have been reported holding durbars in jail, with all home comforts, as they instruct their minions by cellphone and rule their empire, issuing diktats that few dare disobey. Some

take anticipatory bail to avoid arrest. Others find it easier to abscond while notices for their production in court are pasted on walls, nailed on doors and published and broadcast by the media. And when they are ready, they "surrender", engaging clever lawyers to argue their case! This narration is no exaggeration. Indeed, it leaves out much spice. The criminalisation of politics is widespread and has inevitably resulted in the politicisation of crime. Crime is now politics. The crime or wrong committed is of no matter. The question is on whose side the man is. The politicisation of crime has its own etiquette. There is the famous story of an American public official being told by a horrified observer that the man the US was championing abroad was "a son of a bitch"! Pat came the response, "Yes; but hes our son of a bitch"! The language used in Indias politicised crime circuit is possibly not quite so earthy. But the message is the same. Poll protocol The malaise is sufficiently alarming for the Supreme Court to have intervened and the Election Commission to have laid down a protocol for the 2004 polls. The pro forma for disclosures with regard to assets and criminal background were in some ways too complex or left loopholes and the returning officers were also uncertain over procedures and definitions and otherwise overwhelmed by the mechanics of running the elections. However, that poll was a valuable learning experience both with regard to preparing better disclosure forms and securing better scrutiny and compliance for the future. The experiment evoked a very good public response and civil society groups set up a National Election Watch with regional/state units, to build local awareness about the new disclosure regime, interact with the Election Commission with regard to drawing up the forms, collating the information as disclosed by the candidates and then analysing them for the benefit of the media, local communities, political partiers and others. Assets disclosure Analysis of the disclosures showed that many candidates were less than straightforward in recording their assets. With regard to criminality per se, there has been much debate on whether a person should be labelled a "criminal" just on the basis of charges or when an appeal is pending and until final conviction. "Due process", as often subverted in practice, can continue for ever However, there now appears to be a growing consensus that even if an appeal is pending against an adverse verdict in the trial court, candidates should be persuaded or required not to contest until their name is finally cleared. Whether such moral sanction will work remains to be seen. It would be more to the point and, in any event, absolutely essential that the credibility of the criminal justice system be restored. The chain extends from police reforms to the removal of the wide discretionary powers that reside with the political establishment and the bureaucracy to persecute some and either block or delay proceedings against others. The so-called executive single directive that requires the prime minister/chief minister or a minister to sanction the prosecution of a minister/official has inhibited prosecutions. The lack of

any automatic machinery to prosecute those against whom a prima facie case may have been made out by a commission of inquiry has also meant that such inquiries are of little more than archival interest. The investigative agencies, including the CBI, have been used quite brazenly for political purposes on more than one occasion. This has resulted in eroding the credibility of these agencies. The public has become cynical about any fixer or operator getting his just deserts. They are all escape artists and simply get away even with murder. Colluding with them are elements in the law enforcement machinery. FIRs are not recorded, evidence not collected, investigations are pursued in a lackadaisical fashion, there is little expedition, and the prosecution, when that stage is reached, is not pressed with vigour. There would appear to be a clear case for independent public prosecutors empowered to initiate criminal proceedings against any person, including ministers and civil servants, against whom a commission of inquiry or other investigatory body has made out a prima facie case. The idea that this could lead to misuse and abuse is far fetched. Anyone found guilty of manipulating the law in this fashion should also be liable to prosecution. Once the message goes abroad that none can act with impunity, howsoever high or well connected or moneyed, criminal elements will come to heel. Influential people should not be entitled to special treatment in prisons or lock-ups and the law (and punishment) must be equal for all. Nor is there any reason to treat such people as privileged. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker and should not expect preferential treatment on grounds of birth, status or wealth. The laws delays are exploited by criminals to postpone the day of reckoning. Adjournments are too easily granted, with the result that proceedings drag over months and years and the cost of litigation itself becomes increasingly burdensome, if not prohibitive. There is a good case for putting matters on a fast track with a warning that should either party seek avoidable postponements, the trial will proceed ex parte. Electoral reform Electoral reform is another imperative and is something that could help clean public life. The cost of elections has risen sharply but also exponentially, in Parkinsonian fashion, in keeping with the money available for spending! Constituencies are spread over large areas and the electorates are huge, in fact, country-size in the case of parliamentary seats. Reaching out to the voter is, therefore, not easy. Partial state funding has been advocated; though cynics believe that this will only add to the quantum of money candidates spend. The alternative is to limit the span of elections, something that has been partly achieved with the introduction of electronic voting machines. But this process has been vitiated by security considerations that have led increasingly to staggered polling, even within single states, let alone nationally, in order to be able to give the administration time to move around essential electoral and security personnel. It would be desirable to review this practice through consultations and reduce the election process to a span of a few days, even if old-time single-day polling is no longer possible. The other method would be to expand electronic canvassing and insist on a minimum number of election meetings when major contenders are brought on a single platform and can present their views before the people or be grilled by the media.

This would be cost effective, both politically as well as in terms of outlays. It would be simple to make video recordings of these meetings and to replay them through some appropriate mechanism in different parts of the constituency. A far stricter accounting of electoral expenditure should also be required, with heavy penalties not excluding disqualification on defaulters and those found to have falsified their accounts. A reduction in election expenses will certainly reduce the dependence on slush funds and mafia support. More transparency The permit-licence raj has been partially dismantled. But there is scope for further de-regulation. This will reduce the premium on buying the discretionary power of decision-makers in favour of undeserving applicants. The newly legislated Right to Information Act will also promote a greater degree of transparency and accountability. Tackling terrorism A new phenomenon, absent 30 years ago, is terror. Real or imagined grievances and causes combined with the easy availability of small arms and other explosive material has engendered insurgency and terror. This too has spawned a certain kind of criminalisation of politics as witnessed in Punjab, the Northeast and Jammu & Kashmir. Fear buys compliance and silence. Insurgency and terrorism are, of course, far more complex phenomenon but do undoubtedly have a bearing on the criminalisation of politics. Caste and communal factors and feudal mindsets are also instrumental in subverting democratic norms and restraints. The sordid story of Dalit oppression and tribal exploitation bears the markings of a subtle criminalisation of politics. These too must be countered. Democracy is too precious a gift to be squandered or subverted by criminals. This is a battle that has to be collectively fought and won.

BY : MANISH KUMAR SINGH . B. A. LLB(HONS) ADVOCATE Contact details: manishsingh2882@gmail.com