Comment Pieces

By Venkatesh Kannaiah 

 

It was in the summer of 1996, that Jayalalithaa Jayaram was defeated for the first time from a rural assembly constituency of Bargur in Krishnagiri district in Tamil Nadu. It was after her unchallenged reign of five years from 1991 to 1996 when she swept to power on a 'sympathy' wave following the assasination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. She came to power in alliance with the congress party in the state and lost power in five years, winning only four of the 168 seats she contested in the state.

 

There were widespread allegations of corruption and the general impression was that she lost because the people thought that her government was corrupt. Over the next five years, she faced more than 30 cases of corruption against her, and the cases are still in court. 

 

After being out of power for just two years on grave charges of corruption, during the 1998 parliament elections, she staged a remarkable recovery with her alliance winning 30 of the 39 seats in the state.

 

She later on went on to win the assembly elections in the state to become a chief minister of the state. She is not the first nor the only politician accused of corruption, but she was the only one who  had to face such a large number of cases, with an intensity unheard of in Indian politics. She is also the only politician to bounce back after such a defeat in such a short span of time. 

 

You scratch my back, I scratch yours theme that permeates Indian politics does not work well in Tamil Nadu. Here politicians go at each others' throat at the slightest opportunity. It is also ironic that due to the large number of cases faced by her, and her frequent appearances in court, there was huge 'sympathy' factor working in her favour. It is a different matter altogether that with the antics of the Karunanidhi family over the last ten years, she might soon be considered the Ms Clean of Tamil Nadu politics. 

 

But the issue remains. Are people so forgetful that just because a person is out of power for a few years his or her record in power is forgotten? Or is it that people vote and unseat politicians for different reasons, that the English language media has no clue of? Or is it that we middle class Indians see things through the  prism of corruption and wrong doing, while the Aam voter has a different yardstick?

 

Or is it that the judiciary is seen to be so politicised that the people are unable to accept the normal course of an investigation into corruption allegations, and see every other case as a political witch hunt. 

 

Same is the case with Jagan Mohan Reddy in Andhra Pradesh. Accused of corruption and wrongdoing during his father's reign as a chief minister, Jagan is in jail for more than a year with the court even refusing him bail, as he could tamper with the evidence if he is let out.

 

But he is immensely popular in Andhra Pradesh, and he is expected to be the Chief Minister of the state, if only the Telangana issue had not suddenly overtaken him .

 

Now this is shocking to the middle classes, but not to an ordinary voter. Informal surveys have shown that people who vote for Jagan Mohan do not consider him 'incorruptible' but in fact defend his earning of money disproportionate to his known sources of income by saying that 'he is atleast pro-poor like his father' and question those who survey by asking 'who else is not corrupt?'. 

 

There are many Jagan's in the world of Indian politics. Seen as corrupt by the middle class voters, but immensely popular within their constituency, and so popular that they vote for them to bring them back to power with huge majorities.

 

This is not so good for probity in politics. At times, corruption appears to be a theme when voters vote out a politician but it does not seem to affect them later; when they vote him back to power.

 

Analysts say that it is due to the There Is No Alternative factor (TINA), and voters are voting out some politicians and do not care that because of their actions, some one corrupt is getting in. And also that there is not much of a choice. It is always a race between two big parties, and there might not be much of a difference between the candidates.

 

It all points to the fact that there is no 'anti-corruption constituency' in Indian politics. and whatever gets discussed in the television stations might have no relevance to how a voter votes, and on the issues he votes for. The party system allows for a stranglehold of families and groups and the voter is left with no choice.

 

Perhaps voters are bothered more about blatant 'misuse' of power, rather than corruption per se. Given the ease with which 'corrupt' politicians come back to power, one wonders on how corruption is perceived at various layers of the social strata. 

 

Is there a way out ? Till we are able to 'banish' one politician from public life due to corruption charges, all talk of corruption on television or in the media would have little effect on the political class.