Criminals to stay in politics
Posted September 28, 2015on:
BJP MP R K Singh, who was Union Home Secretary just before he joined BJP on his retirement, has repeatedly stated that the BJP has sold tickets and also fielded criminals in the Bihar Assembly elections slated for October-November. Allegations of links with criminals and gangsters have been made by all parties against their rivals but no party has taken any initiative to end this menace. Madhya Pradesh, though essentially a two-party State, provides an example of politicians’ reluctance to end the politician-criminal nexus.
A Commission of Inquiry was constituted in August 1995 by then Congress government of Digvijaya Singh precisely to inquire into the nexus among the politicians, bureaucrats and criminals in the State. Justice G G Sohoni, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, was appointed its chairman. The terms of reference included, among other matters, the processes by which illegally acquired wealth is laundered; the efficacy of law enforcement agencies in curbing such activities; the activities of subversive elements; and the role of politicians and Government officials in patronising criminal elements.
After two years, the Commission submitted its report without any findings, being conscious of the fact that it has not been able to serve the purpose for which it was appointed. The reasons given by the Commission are summarised below:
No person, in response to the notice issued in that behalf, disclosed such material to the Commission as would have been relevant to ascertaining the nexus among the politicians, bureaucrats and criminals.
As an investigative team was not provided by the government, no investigation could be carried out to ascertain the veracity of rumours circulating in the public pertaining to persons holding important public offices.
Similarly, no thorough investigation could be carried out to probe matters which were relevant to the subject matter of inquiry and had come to the notice of the DIG, Police, deputed to the Commission. Hence no relevant evidence could be adduced before the Commission to find facts relevant to the matters referred to the Commission for inquiry.
Justice Sohoni lamented that the report might appear to be a “faceless drab document” blurring the issues referred to the Commission for inquiry and that the report might not, therefore, come up to the expectations of the public “which has anxiously waited for startling disclosures from the Commission regarding the names of politicians and Government officials patronising and protecting criminal elements in the society”.