Thursday, April 23, 2009

We all accept crooks in the subject of ‘politics’ but not in ‘science’

V. Raghunathan asks some basic questions as a citizen of India but the relevant is very high both in terms of time and the future democracy is concerned. 

  • The abysmal attendance record of some of our celebrity parliamentarians—as measured by mere signing of the register and not by participation in the parliamentary proceedings—has been much in the news recently. Clearly, no attendance requirement applies to our representatives. Why? 
  • Criminal background and behaviour, which may be unacceptable in students or employees in any decent school or organization, are perfectly acceptable for our parliamentarians. Why? 
  • Our education minister does not have to be an educationist or the minister for urban planning an architect. Nor is it essential for a parliamentarian to be a degree holder in political science or have a record of public service. Why? 
  • One would imagine that neither running of industries nor running of the state is a part-time job. How, then, do we expect industrialists such as Rahul Bajaj and Vijay Mallya to juggle their industrial empires with statecraft? Or a senior leader such as Sharad Pawar to juggle statecraft with cricket? Or a Govinda (incidentally, he did not attend a single parliamentary session in 2007) or a Jaya Prada to juggle their Bollywood careers with parliamentary sessions? But we have put them there as members of Parliament. Why? 
  • While a 56-year-old colonel is too old to run his regiment, an octogenarian parliamentarian is not too old to run the country. Why? 
  • Corporate governance is important, but not so country governance. Why?

No comments: