Wanted, Brawny members

By Shyam Kaul The hallmark of politics in Jammu and Kashmir, with its proven positive, negative and volatile dimensions, is its dynamism.

It never freezes and is ever on its toes.

Of our politicians, one can say that consistency is not among their virtues, and their one peculiarity is to lend more unpredictability to political happenings here.

Both, our politics and politicians, can keep people guessing all the time about what their next move is going to be.

This actually is the shape of the setting on which democracy largely functions in this state.

The people here, as everywhere else, have always been told that democracy is a system in which all controversies between any people, their disagreements and differences, can be amicably resolved through peaceful dialogue, discussion and threadbare exchange of views and ideas.

Likewise, about the apex institutions of democracy in action, like the parliament and state legislatures, people have always been told about the sacrosanctity of these August centres, where the people's elected representatives sit together to make laws for progress, prosperity and peace of the people.

A little less than a hundred years ago, then USA president, Woodrow Wilson, had said, "The world must be made safe for democracy." These prophetic words of caution should be the dictum for all developing democracies, where concepts, images and norms of democracy do not seem to be particularly in harmony with what we actually witness these days.

Today, for instance, peaceful dialogue, discussion and heart to heart exchange of views, are not necessarily the mediums of democracy.

It is not with sharpened minds and polished language that members of the legislatures enter their workplace today, as used to be the practice once upon a time.

More often these day, flexed muscles are preferred.

Instead of minds, we now see hands and feet more at work and in use for delivering powerful punches, fisticuffs and kicks.

The terms like berserk and rampage are no more undemocratic, nor a taboo, and are frequently resorted to.

Honourable members frequently get into brawls, that may end in violent exhibition of physical skills.

The playing field of scuffles and brawls has been expended and extended to picking up chairs and hurling them at fellow members, smashing tables, wrenching away and breaking expensive mikes fixed to the tables for the convenience of honourable members.

Pandemonium is a usual and normal spectacle, a zesty feast for the pens of mediapersons in the press gallery, free entertainment show for the officers' gallery and "educative" ringside view for the visitors gallery.

For all intents and purposes, the exhibition of brawn in place of brain is now a legitimate practice for the members of legislatures.

It seems to be rapidly taking the place of dialogue and discussion in a tranquil environment for resolving issues.

Members now freely give vent to their ire and irritation, when things do not go their way, by throwing democratic norms and constraints to winds.

We now see the term "hooliganism" more in use in print and electronic media in relation to the proceedings in the legislature.

"Getting physical" is now actually an acknowledged practice in the legislative houses and there is apparently no effective way to put a stop to this concept and form of democracy in action.

By the same logic, if the genuine voters of any member of the legislature, are disappointed with his performance, or feel that he is knowingly neglecting his obligation to them, or only furthering his own interests, would they be within their right to take recourse to "hooliganism" against him? Could they give him the taste of their ire by freely using their hands and feet against him, and the fixtures in his home? It would simply be a small replication of what the honourable member does in the temple of democracy and as such he should normally have no grouse.

It would perhaps be not difficult for him to get his tormentors jailed, but would he be able to convince his own conscience, in case he has one? The session of the state legislature has ended only a few days back.

It has been largely stormy, with almost all members giving free play to their vocal chords all the time in the lower house, and making frequent use of their physical prowess.

A few more articulate members injected some peppery flavour into the proceedings, which were also marked by high decibel vocalisation, giving a tough time to the Speaker, Mohammed Akbar Lone.

Looking back at the proceedings in the successive state legislatures over the past four decades, one cannot recollect any chief minister being made the target of uncomplimentary and piercing barbs, as Omar Abdullah was during the just concluded session.

Sadiq commanded immense respect of both the treasury benches and the opposition and no member ever made any harsh or undignified remark about him in the House.

On his part he had a cool and unperturbed manner of reacting to the members agitated over different issues.

In one such case, when a member was flaying the administration for negligence in some matter, Mr.

Sadiq coolly remarked, "I am sure the honourable member has had a very spicy breakfast this morning." Instantly, the member mellowed down his tone.

The Assembly that Sadiq headed included statlwarts like D.P.

Dhar, Abdul Gani Lone, Syed Mir Qasim, G.R.

Kar, Shamim Ahmed Shamim and many others.

The quality of proceedings was generally characterised by decorousness, and punches and fisticuffs were not yet in fashion.

It was a treat to watch some member as they addressed the House, for their knowledgeability and oration.

During his second term in power, commencing 1975, Sheikh Abdullah was a much mellowed down leader, and one never saw any member raising his voice before him, leave alone using any strong language, though Sheikh Abdullah occasionally gave the displays of the temper he had been known for in his earlier days.

Whether in chair or not, Farooq Abdullah's quaint way of dealing with situations in the legislature floored everyone, including his detractors.

Once he issued a "leg-breaking" ultimatum to a top opposition leader, who just laughed it away.

Once when he was caught on the wrong foot while making a statement in the Assembly, he promptly turned to the officers gallery and told the House, "These fellows there have misled me".

His frankness does sometimes create awkward situations, but it also provides safe escape route to him, and people take things in their stride.

One thing that young Omar, the "fledgling CM" faced right from the first day was well-orchestrated criticism of his detractors for almost everything he did or every step he took.

It is not that Omar Abdullah, the chief minister, is beyond any flaw or folly.

In fact he has many more than one could normally think of.

His style of governance, for instance, is not in consonance with the traditional concept and mindset of the people, especially in Kashmir, regarding a ruler and his governance, Unlike his father and grandfather, Omar has not been able to connect with his people at the grassroot level.

Nor has he been able to inspire and give a lead to his bureaucracy in being practically responsive and answerable to the people's day to day problems with the administration, their demands and their expectations.

In fact the bureaucracy in this state has never before been as far removed from people as it is today.

Nor still is Omar assertive enough to set at least a modicum of curbs on the political and administrative corruption which is thriving day after day.

The general feeling of the commoners and elite alike is that the government which should be seen at work to be believed, is nowhere in evidence, and that the head of the government is only riding a slothful horse.

Perhaps that is why Omar Abdullah has earned nicknames and labels like, maharaja, dictator, block president of his party, National Conference, and an SOG constable, mostly during the recently session of the Assembly.

It must however be said to his credit that he has maintained his cool, restraint and equanimity, in face of all the sobriquets hurled at him.

He never reacted with ire to the shafts of his detractors.

It must also be said that as the leader of the House, and as chief minister of this state, by virtue of the chair he occupies, Omar Abdullah deserves esteem and dignified deportment of members while addressing him directly or referring to him.

He certainly did not get it.

During these times in our country, it does not matter whether we have good legislators or bad legislators.

What matters is the fact that these are the only legislators we have been electing and having.

A people, it is said, get the government they deserve.

Why should this not be true in case of legislators also? Obama- Manmohan talks..!