Convicted netas should keep away from polls: Here's why allowing Lalu Prasad to campaign in Bihar is immoral and unmitigated farce

The Supreme Court did well two years ago to stop the farce of convicts contesting elections by appealing against such criminal conviction within three months by striking down Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act. But for that initiative of the apex court, the feisty Lalu Prasad Yadav the founder of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) would have most certainly contested the just-concluded Bihar Assembly elections and thrown his hat in the chief ministerial ring. Nitish Kumar must be secretly happy though. He is having the best of both worlds—the ban on contesting has made him the chief minister uncontested while ensuring that the mahagathbandhan got the requisite majority which it would not have but for Lalu’s indefatigable zeal in campaigning and an impressive tally of 75 seats for RJD. [caption id=“attachment_1142775” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Lalu Prasad Yadav. AFP[/caption] Indeed, all the 75 victors have Lalu to thank for. To be sure, some of them might have deserved to win on their own merit and steam but that seldom happens in the Indian hustings. In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi ranted and raved against corruption which got the BJP a rich harvest of 282 seats. Pundits credit the Indian electorate with native intelligence but the fact still remains that demagogues hold sway. Lalu could have successfully fielded his wife Rabri Devi as his proxy for the chief ministerial chair but she is by no means an adequate substitute for him in the rough and tumble of electioneering, more specifically rabble rousing. Ban on the entire electioneering process including campaigning is a corollary to ban on contesting. One may wonder if ban on campaigning would militate against the right to freedom of expression. But a moment’s reflection would show that right is not absolute but hemmed in by reasonable restrictions as conceded by Article 19(2) of the Constitution on grounds of public order, decency and morality among other things. Clamping down on right to electioneering including campaigning is necessary lest the ban on contesting is rendered meaningless and thumbed nose at. It is immoral to allow a convict barred from contesting an election to contest vicariously which is what campaigning without let or hinder amounts to. The government would therefore be perfectly justified in curbing the right to speech of a convict when it comes to electioneering. This is one act a convict cannot delegate or accomplish through a proxy. And with 24X7 news channels around, this ban can be flouted by a candidate and his convict-benefactor or patron only at their combined peril. Remember, Lalu was granted bail by the High Court without staying his conviction. So much so, his conviction remains intact, rendering him unfit for contesting elections. Alas, if only the High Court while granting him bail had added one more condition —he cannot campaign. Allowing a convict to electioneer short of contesting is not only an unmitigated farce but also like allowing a devil to quote scripture. Indeed, clamping down on this right of convicts is crucial given the fact that campaigning makes the difference between success and defeat in the Indian elections. Nitish Kumar and Lalu must be praying for the appeal to progress at snail’s pace because should Lalu’s conviction be upheld by the High Court, Nitish would be more embarrassed than Lalu. Indeed, in such an eventuality, his stock would go down and BJP’s would go up correspondingly. It would do incalculable harm to his clean image and that would dog him forever. In that sense, it could well turn out that Nitish’s victory was momentary and his strategy, shortsighted and possibly short-lived, the one that he might rue when he seeks to sate his national ambitions sooner than later. But in politics as indeed in all walks of life one can be counted upon to cut one’s own nose to spite the face. So miffed was Nitish with his bete noire Modi’s ascendance to the prime ministerial chair that he was ready to kiss and make up with a felon. Not only did he hug a felon but he also toned down his party’s ambitions in the dawning realisation that the felon’s demagogy and Robin Hood image would be more powerful in swaying the electorate than his own arguably impressive performance.