His unsuccessful attempt to reform The UN ended, in asking it to reform by itself. He did not let go his urge to reform at the gates of UN but tried to dig deep into the bowels of Earth, hoping to get at the root of a problem that needed reform. If unlucky, at least he would become the owner of a well, producing crude oil or an exploitable gas field. After shifting millions of tons of debris, he struck pay dirt, literally. His oil-soaked eureka moment arrived.
He belatedly understood that the representatives of UN are comprised owing allegiance to political hues or appointed by that colourful stream. Like the passengers carrying baggage, they tote briefcases and hold-alls. He had learnt that the best attempt at reform must begin at the source of leak, rather than waiting to repair the pipe after it had burst.
Imaginch needed only a suitable trigger to act. A sexagenarian or a septuagenarian speaking in the house of lawmakers lamenting in a weak voice provided him that impulse to press the trigger. The LM (Law Maker) droned on, “We enact laws but are afraid to implement them. Then why at all we do it in the first place?”
Imaginch latched on to these reasons for that outburst. Maybe, retiring or forced to retire from house as a N P LM (Non-Performing Law Maker)? Biding time to switchover to another party, fearing the axe on another term. Or, his conscience awakening suddenly on the past financial misdeeds coming home to collect with penal interest! Or, divested of privileges, the longarm of rusted laws might grab him?
Wandering among the laws this august body had enacted, his mind understood that there exited a tiered structure called courts. They study, scrutinise and implement the law as it is or with interpretations, drawn from experience or precedence. So far, the often-repeated cliché "letter and spirit of law" reassured him.
Then, why the ‘why at all we do it? question! Was the LM or the likely NPLM, trying to say, "our own heads are not reliable places to hear things, we have been refusing to hear.!"
In the LM’s political career is this indicative of too little wisdom arrived too late? Feeling confused, Imaginch approached it from another perspective, that of a confused sexagenarius/septuāgēnārius lawmaker. He remembered reading “If you have to do what you have to do, to learn what you could do, then do what you have to do to learn it!” Definitely a bit more confusing to the already confused mind.
Within the house, the lawmakers enjoy privilege, a form of immunity, and power as elected/selected representative. Such privileges (immunity, power) are unheard of for the people who have elected them. He had a doubt ‘in democracy’ if it implies that all are equal is for the print and some are more than the equal is the hidden operative part.
He could not but question “whether these more than equals could confer on themselves these special exemptions, as lawmakers representing the country’s population?”. This leaves the less than equal majority to strictly adhere to the enacted laws. Was the LM unaware of this less than equal people who had no occasion to personally put to test their limits of privileges against that of the more than equal! It dawned on him that the ‘all are equal’ is merely a ruse to fool the electorate.
The LM as a representative of people, should live the life of an ordinary citizen, at least to know what it takes to lead that life. To ease these LMs gently into the general world, he wanted them to pass through toll gates like any other highway user - pay by Fastag.
Being LMs, ruling or opposition party, they get salary and perks (unanimously voted by themselves for themselves and whenever convenient to them!) The first thing expected of LMs is attendance and participation in population centric discussions. A government employee on 'AWOL' does not get paid and to set a moral standard, the LMs, should draw their salary and perks on a pro rata basis, based on the ‘physically present attendance percentage’, inside the house. This pro rata basis does not apply for the licence fee, utility charges. Along with, TDS these charges are to be deducted at source.
The time is ripe to give taste of the laws enacted by LMs. The privilege of rushing by e-way to knock at the doors of the highest court needs to be replaced with the more common practice and struggles faced by an ordinary litigant – fall in line and come through the judicial hierarchy. Since the LMs have been showing undue haste to come to the highest court of the land, Imaginch wanted to help them in only ‘in the hurrying part.’
Till the litigation reaches the
highest court, their appeals for adjournment should not be entertained or
granted. In case of arrest, bail only from jail as anticipatory means knowing
in advance.
When relevant records, video
& audio files mysteriously disappear on the day of hearing, it should be
taken as culpability of both the named and the custodians of such material
proofs. The named should be found guilty and the custodians dismissed from service,
without appeal. The LMs should not be allowed to file a review petition, to
save the drain on public money.
Another thought - why not they foot the bills
in total and get reimbursed after winning the case? Probably, the lamenting LM can
help in removing the adjournment clause and introducing the culpability, ‘bail
from jail’ and ‘footing the bills by the named with a reimbursement, clauses to
free the hands of justice! Imaginch was very much pleased because “those who
liked to rule with an iron hand, will now be served with an ironclad justice!”
Alternatively, make the LM, be a minister or member an ordinary citizen to give them a taste of the litigation with adjournment cycles. The LM, now an ordinary citizen, will have to fork out funds for his trial. Soon, this litigant will start crying for "no adjournment please."
Imaginch thought that his reform drive should drive enter the house and not to get stalled at the gates. He wanted to drive through with report cards. There should be an annual assessment and grading, to determine the usefulness, salary and perks both upwards and downwards. Parties will be happy that it becomes easier to weed out NPLMs. There is no danger of the LM resigning, except the certainty of not returning for another term.
Privilege is guaranteed only when the LM makes the speech inside the premises. LM not making that inside the premises but air views outside the premises that too soon after staging a walk out, is a violation. The penalty is automatic suspension for a specific day, pro rata reduction in salary and perks. In the case of repetitive violation ends in forfeiting of membership.
Imaginch thought that all along the LMs have been enjoying privileges and his “Storm for Reforms” could be the one and only way to bring back to life a modified cliche that “in democracy all are equal but none are more equal than the others.”
Imaginch had high hopes on LMs such as the one who lamented, “why at all do we do it?” to energetically, not withstanding the age of their creaking bones, legislate and take forward his “Storm for Reforms”. When push came to shove, they would not hesitate to take away the privileges, immunity, salaries, and perks of others who act as arms, legs, ears and eyes of the governing / Opposition hierarchy! Imaginch took his imaginary hat off, salute their bone-weary valour. He hoped for that to happen to the valour to survive the weary bones, in the long run!
Immediately another doubt cropped up. Will the LMs have the nerve to touch the judiciary with such restraining measures? A prompt reply,” No way. Who knows when they have to come and knock on the doors of judiciary!” Then what about the 3 letter agencies? Another prompt reply, “Do you insert your hand in the mouth of a lion, to count its teeth?”
Once their privileges are removed, the judiciary and the alphabet agencies will have fun time. The LM cannot shoot and hoot as a past time. Levelling allegations and hitting below the now a belt, prima facie offence with attached condition ‘Jail before bail” Now the aggrieved need to do only one thing - file a complaint and the courts in the land will treat this as a suo motu case and do the rest, in the blink of an eye.
The LM will regret and become poor by paying the legal fees. While on the legal fees, he had another brainstorm. LMs who are also practicing lawyers, will have to choose between making money or making laws. He was much pleased with this strong thought, had an afterthought - wanted to amend the rules of adjournment such that a named LM cannot plead for an adjournment citing sessions, electioneering and prior commitments and suddenly falling ill etc. Upping the ante, he wanted to make the ‘taking suddenly ill’ as a cognizable offence with a forfeiture clause on bail from jail.
One last nail on the cabin of privileges. Contesting from two constituencies, winning and resigning from one – there will b no bye-election. The vacated seat will automatically vest with the runner up in that constituency. It is universal and applicable for any type of seat contested. For now, he did not want to touch the seat falling vacant due to demise of the winner.
After tying up all the legal loopholes, Imaginch had some questions to that lamenting LM.
Why do we end up with NPLMs in
the hustings? Is the ability to bury the truth in fiction a prerequisite? How
can justice be made out as a criminal act when they summarily dismiss
allegations against them as figment of opponent’s imagination and criminal conspiracy?
A hate speech of a common man attracts the wrath of law but a neta making hate
speech is only given wide publicity and does not attract the law, or PIL or a
suo motu case! Imaginch decided to leave it for later.
As a last act of defiance, Imaginch wanted to
change the rules of game called ‘defection’.
A LM will no longer enjoy the game of pole vault or play the role of a
trapeze artist. One strict law will end the circus of switching sides, like
changing a shirt or other garment. Defecting alone or as a group, the red flag
of political vanvas goes up accompanied by a shrill whistle to signal that the
game is over. He was dissatisfied with
that sexagenarian or septuagenarian for lamenting "what for?" instead
of "why not"?
He sorely noted the absence of “Toolkits” which always make an appearance even in the case of people sneezing due to severe personal cold to facilitate agitations against a government.
Like he did in the case of the UN reform, he did not want to leave this “storm for reforms” as an orphan by simply after appealing for self-reforms. He could not set aside his feeling that in this fight for “storm for reforms”, he is like the ill-trained matador thrown into the arena of a Spanish bullring!
Let us wait and watch, with abated breath, to find out who is the winner – the matador or the bull? Any bets?
No comments:
Post a Comment