Another in the series of sting operations — a sensational camera expose of 11 MPs allegedly taking money for asking parliamentary questions — has been the hottest news of the week. Strangely nicknamed Operation Duryodhana, the undercover operation has raised more questions than it has answered. The statistics regarding the party affiliation of 11 MPs are not much relevant because conductors of the operation claim to have more up their sleeves. According to them, what has been put in the public domain “cannot be construed as the entire gamut of facts” and they have “more interesting material”. This is enough to keep many other members and parties on the tenterhooks with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Is their a second list and, if so, would there be the possibility of blackmail?

The 11 alleged bribe-takers have been caught not by any official law enforcement agency, any crime branch of the police or anti-corruption squad but by a private body. Questions arise in regard to the morality and motivation of Operation Duryodhana. Were the operators moved only by altruistic high patriotic motives of serving the nation and public interest? The criminal act of bribery is one and involves a giver and a taker, one who tempts and the other who yields. Both are equally guilty.

Could we not legitimately expect greater transparency in the operation? For example, what was the total number of MPs approached? How was the list of those approached prepared? What sampling techniques, if any, were used? Was it random or representative sampling? It is important to know these details to dispel the doubts regarding only a few being specifically targeted or entrapped. Selective indictment or selective justice may seem unfair and prove counter-productive. Should the people not know how many of the MPs approached refused to take the bait and be bribed? If all the other 775 MPs were found to be immune from temptations of such money should they and their number not have been specifically mentioned while branding 11 as black sheep. Also, was there no one in the list of those approached who could haul up the Duryodhana team for the attempt to bribe an MP and for serious breach of parliamentary privilege? Both Parliament and the law of the land could have then punished those behind Operation Duryodhana appropriately.

Could it be said that the whole exercise may have resulted in catching some small fries from the back benches while the big sharks escaped or were kept outside the net? It is said that many politicians are on the regular pay rolls of different interest groups, including business groups and crime syndicates. But why single out politicians; many others in honourable professions get paid in the name of retainership fee, consultation fee, service charges and the like not for professional services or expertise but for acting as middle men, fixing deals, influencing high-ups and getting legitimate or not-so-legitimate things done.

For the last many years a question that remains unanswered is regarding the financing of politics. For running a political party, for any political activity or for contesting an election to a state legislature or Parliament, tonnes of money is required. Almost everyone in politics needs it. Where is it to come from? Where does it come from? Nobody pays his hard earned, tax paid white money to parties or to politicians. Also, even black or tainted money can be expected only when one is part of the establishment as a minister or a member or the like in a position to harm or help. And, elections are a tricky business. One has to prepare for the worst case scenario, for the rainy day, particularly if one is a whole-time professional politician or public man with no other known means of comfortable living to fall back upon.

While there are some excellent men and women of high calibre and great integrity in Indian political life today, the general, even though most unfortunate, perception seems to be that politics has ceased to be a vocation for sacrifice and service and has descended into being the most lucrative business with the highest ROI for getting rich quick. And the problem is not peculiar to India. Even in the more advanced western democracies there have been cases similar to ours. In the UK, for example, payment of £1000 for a question resulted in the Nolan Committee report and the introduction of the Register of Members’ interests.

Almost all those elected to the legislatures have to begin their legislative career with giving incorrect statements of election expenses. One may ask if there is a general crisis of character in the nation as a whole, in all walks of life and all professions. Is there all-pervading devaluation of values? Have money, success and power, at whatever cost, become supreme concerns? Can we blame only the legislators for all the ills? Is the problem not more fundamental, calling for systemic rethinking and holistic reforms? The National Commission on the Constitution (2002) made some far-reaching recommendations and presented a blueprint for the needed reforms. Do these not need to be considered on the basis of merit?

As for the present case of the expose, the response of the Presiding Officers of the two Houses and of the parties has been prompt, swift and most exemplary. Nothing better could be asked for. In the Rajya Sabha, the matter was referred to its Ethics Committee presided over by a member of the seniority and eminence of Dr. Karan Singh. The lone member involved in the expose has been suspended. In the Lok Sabha, the Speaker asked the accused 10 to abstain from the House till their cases were finally settled.

Presumably, following the 1951 precedent in the H.G. Mudgal case, a Special Committee has been appointed to enquire into the cases and report to the House before the current session concludes. Mr Pawan Kumar Bansal, who has been appointed Chairman of the committee, is himself the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges.

Now that the matter is before the two highly prestigious committees, one should wait for the results of their enquiry and recommendations. It would then be for the respective Houses to consider whatever further action is deemed necessary.

As early as in 1951, during the Provisional Parliament, when a Congress member, H.G. Mudgal, was reported to have taken a paltry amount of around Rs. 2000 for asking questions for and otherwise promoting the interests of the Bombay Bullion Association in Parliament, Prime Minister Nehru himself moved a motion and the matter was referred to a special committee which reported that the conduct of Mudgal was unbecoming of a Member of Parliament. Mudgal lost the membership of the House.

Later, instances came to the notice of the Speaker where a member had not himself signed the questions to be asked or had signed blank forms on which someone else wrote or typed the questions. During the eight Lok Sabha 96 notices of questions relating to Drug Manufacturing firms were received from seven members. The questions appeared to be sponsored and have had the same source. All these notices were disallowed by the Speaker for being a misuse of the question procedure. It is no secret that sometimes Parliament members have been signing blank question forms for various reasons. Members are repeatedly advised in their own interest not to do so.

Some hypothetical queries are being now raised in the media in regard to te likely action if the members involved are finally adjudged guilty of conduct unbecoming of members of Parliament and of lowering the dignity and committing contempt of their respective Houses by accepting financial gratification for asking questions in Parliament. It is clear that the decision in that regard would vest in the respective Houses and that for those found guilty it can extend to depriving them of their membership.

At least in some of the cases, it may be possible to take legal action also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, resulting in even a jail term for the guilty. In fact, there is every case for the Supreme Court reviewing its ruling in the Narasimha Rao case letting off the bribe-taking JMM MPs on the ground that under Article 105 members taking bribe for voting in the House could not be proceeded against in any court.

Bribe taking cannot be deemed to be part of the proceedings of the House nor can it be construed as anything said or vote given in Parliament.

The writer is President, Citizenship Development Society and former Secretary-General, Lok Sabha.