The media reported that in a recent encounter with district authorities in Bihar, who wanted to carry out a routine check of the motorcade of Rabri Devi, the Rashtriya Janata Dal candidate from Saran constituency, her husband Lalu Prasad Yadav was at his vintage best. He shouted and abused the officials.
As per reports, so great was his umbrage at being questioned that he almost physically prevented the officials from checking the car. He is also reported to have told the district magistrate: “Maar chappal thanda kar denge” (I will beat you with my slipper to show you your place).”
Not far away from Bihar, in Varanasi, we were witness to another demonstration of high indignation at non-compliant behaviour by authorities. The Bharatiya Janata Party wanted certain permissions from the local authorities for the programme of their leader, Narendra Modi, who is also their candidate from Varanasi. These were, according to them, not forthcoming promptly.
There could be merit in the BJP’s version that they were not treated fairly. Equally, there could be merit in the returning officer’s explanation that there were valid reasons for his decision, and that the response on his side was as prompt as possible in the prevailing circumstances. But what is significant is the manner in which the BJP expressed its outrage.
Spokesmen after spokesmen attributed mala fide motives to the Election Commission. A much-respected constitutional authority was accused of being biased and working for those who opposed the BJP. In addition, words such as “shameless” and “incompetent” were bandied about with indignant ease.
Mr Lalu, not known, even remotely, for correct behaviour or decorum or tact, threatened duly constituted authority with a chappal. The BJP did not descend to that level, but were not much better in terms of the vituperation and intent of their language.
Why is it that the powerful in India believe they can take liberties with civilised behaviour? Does power, or the sense of power, give immunity against the normal working of a legal state? Do those who should be helping to maintain the rule of law genuinely believe that they have an ordained right to transgress it themselves?
The right to protest arbitrary use of authority rests with every individual. Mahatma Gandhi taught us that civil disobedience is a valid tool to oppose unfair use of power. However, to look at those who are doing their job as interlopers who have the audacity to question the writ of the powerful is not so much about protesting arbitrary authority as it is an assertion of the hubris of power.
In the case of Mr Yadav, the chappal became the handy metaphor to convey that sense of hubris. In the case of the BJP, the linguistic excess for the expression of outrage was the vehicle of choice.
An allied question is: Why do those whose legitimate authority is being challenged in this uncouth manner toler-ate this humiliation? For instance, on being threatened to be beaten by a chappal, why didn’t the district magistrate arrest Mr Lalu? There are several provisions under the law which would have been transgressed by the use of this language against an officer on duty.
Similarly, on being called all kind of names, and having their motives questioned by the BJP, why didn’t the Election Commission come out with a more spirited response to put down this kind of linguistic terrorism? The truth is that more often than not we take this kind of bad behaviour as the norm.
Certainly, every Bihari will recall that during the 15-year rule of Mr Lalu, directly or by proxy through his wife, Rabri Devi, the rule of law was considered entirely irrelevant to the functioning of the state. And the sad truth is that most bureaucrats, including senior functionaries from the coveted IAS and IPS services, accepted this kind of behaviour and even became complicit in it.
But acquiescing with the misuse of power by the powerful is not restricted only to Bihar. I recall an incident in New York some years ago, when the wife of an Indian minister had arrived at JFK airport, and the private secretary to the minister, a senior IAS officer very conscious of his own esteem, was five minutes late in receiving her. When he met her, she exploded: “Ullu ke patthe, yeh time hai aane ka!” (Bloody fool, is this the time to show up!)
Later that day, when this officer told me about what had happened, I asked him in genuine indignation, what his response had been. He looked at me in surprise. “Nothing”, he said. “If I want to keep my job as PS to the minister I have no option but to swallow the insult.”
It is this lack of spine that encourages the Lalu Yadavs of this world. His appalling behaviour, which well-meaning social scientists initially sought to interpret as the empowerment of the dispossessed, is nothing short of the most blatant abuse of power.
Similarly, while the BJP is within its rights to protest the rulings of a returning officer, it is transgressing the code of constitutional politics by questioning the motives of the Election Commission.
Elections are not only about electing a ruling party or coalition. They are also about instilling the spirit of democratic functioning in those who have always treated this as something optional. Ultimately, it is unlikely that such people will change voluntarily.
It is the people of India who will have to convey to them in no uncertain terms that they are not willing to tolerate this kind of behaviour anymore.
Author-diplomat Pavan K. Varma’s latest book is Chanakya’s New Manifesto: To Resolve the Crisis Within India
