The norm now is to see all kinds of antics—ranging from physical fights, trading of abuses to walkouts, the ‘mildest’ act—on the floor of the state assemblies and Parliament instead of serious deliberations by the ‘honourable’ members. Outside the hollowed chambers many of the ‘Netas’ (leaders) savour their ‘reputation’ built on dubious grounds.

For two days in the last days of July 2009 much of the nation’s attention was riveted to the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly where the leader of the main opposition, Mirza Afzal Beg, linked the young chief minister with a 2006 sex scandal. The shocked and infuriated Omar Abdullah reacted instantly by announcing his resignation after Beg had made the ‘allegation’. The house was made more lively by the heir apparent of the PDP throne, Ms Mehbooba Mufti, performing a two-in-one protest act of tearing the copies of CBI report absolving Abdullah of any link with the alleged sex scandal, and unhitching from its stand a mike but hurling it short of any human target.

What happened in the J&K assembly was not edifying and was a poor advertisement for Indian democracy. But Indian democracy is being assailed so assiduously in recent days that unseemly exchanges between political rivals and egregious incidents in and out of assemblies and parliament no longer leaves most people shocked or surprised. They have probably begun to see them as normal or routine hazards of Indian democracy.

The J&K incident had followed a more shocking event in UP, once regarded as the respectful cradle of Indian politics, and politically still the most important state because it sends the country’s largest contingent to parliament. The chief of the Congress in the state, Rita Bahuguna Joshi, had made certain ‘derogatory’ remarks against the BSP chief minister, Mayawati, only to find her house in Lucknow burnt and herself being shunted off to prison.

Weeks earlier it was also in UP that a political party member—a young and ‘bright’ one to boot—had uttered the most vicious and foul words against the main minority community openly. The mother of the ‘young and bright’ leader, herself a prominent political figure, raised the level of nastiness by attacking the state chief minister with some unacceptable remarks. On the other hand, another angry leader, a union minister at the time, was ready to use a road-roller to chastise the offending young politician.

In Tamil Nadu and West Bengal there is rarely a dull moment in state politics because two formidable ladies are capable of flying off the handle frequently. Some political observers are already wondering if the ruling UPA would be able to survive the frequent furious bouts of one of these leaders, a cabinet minister. Let it be added straightaway that the intention here is not to run down female politicians in any manner. When it comes to using ‘objectionable’ language male politicians leave women far behind. Many will be able to recall some of the words used by late Pramod Mahajan and George Fernandes against Sonia Gandhi and Indira Gandhi.

In recent days some the most prominent leaders of the Opposition went over the top in criticising the leadership of the Congress, particularly the prime minister and the AICC chief. A candidate in the Lucknow Lok Sabha constituency had described the Samajwadi Party candidate a Budhiya Gudiya (ageing doll) or some such thing. A leader of the JD (U) had once drawn ire of almost the entire women members of parliament by using the expression ‘Par Kati’ (bobbed-haired) for women who were demanding passage of women’s reservation bill.

It is a matter of worry and regret that women politicians seem to be closing ranks with their male counterparts in resorting to questionable methods and tactics in making their point. The only consolation at the moment is that few, if any, women leaders can claim to match the status of some of their male ‘Neta’ colleagues who stand personally accused, if not formally charged, with serious allegations like murder and rape and are known to be the captains of notorious syndicates and dreaded gangs.

One of the arguments that were put forward in pressing for a quota for women candidates in state assemblies and parliament was that the presence of large number of women would have a sobering impact on the proceedings of the house and perhaps politics in general. That proposition might look questionable now, even though the basic reason for the demand for reservation of seats for women in elected bodies is entirely different. It is about empowerment of women, a perfectly acceptable idea in a country where emancipation of women is confined to pockets in urban areas.

If leaders in the country, both men and women, have stopped bothering about observing certain niceties in public life it is because of the general decline in the standard of political debate in the country. It did not start suddenly; it has been happening gradually over the years. The fact is that nobody wanted to stop that rot because some of the much feared and admired leaders were also often guilty of indiscretion in their choice of words or action in elected houses.

In recent years, a figure that is released regularly is the paltry number of sittings of elected houses in different states. The exercise, one would presume, is undertaken to draw attention to a serious lapse. But have things improved? For the record, everyone expresses concern over the ever-shrinking length of house sittings, but nothing is done to stop that.

Not a day has to be lost in doing something to arrest the trend of using loose tongue, irresponsible behaviour and taking recourse to ugly physical encounters inside elected houses, or else our democracy will become a big farce. Certainly, the appellation of India being the largest ‘democracy’ in the world will hardly look apt or justified.

Printer-Friendly Version