Mohua Moitra’s battles fought on many fronts—from custody of a Rottweiler to contesting the sworn affidavit of a close friend turned approver to an ethics committee of the Parliament clearly not interested in principles of natural justice or due process—have begun to bore the spectators.
To begin with, most were sympathetic to the lady who reminded them of a celebrated queen who fought against the British. Khoob ladi mardani, etc. She appeared clearly aggrieved and quite capable of dishing out as good as she received. Then the tide slowly turned against her. There are important lessons for leaders and the le alike in our democracy in the unraveling.
The pugnacious Member of Parliament admitted to sharing her login password with a friend and receiving some gifts from this person who it was alleged is a business competitor of Adani—the main target of Moitra’s lethal salvos. What she pointed out is that there is no rule barring an MP from sharing the login password and not an iota of proof was put on record to show that any cash had changed hands.
The plaintiff and the approver were not summoned by the ethics committee in its wisdom, but Mohua was called. The line of questioning, claims the lady, outraged her modesty and violated her right to privacy. She stormed out along with opposition members of the committee. Since then she has been accused of playing the ‘woman victim card’. She, in turn, has retaliated by pointing out that the Chair of the committee was playing the ‘caste victim card’ to deflect the heat.
In the past, too, more than one leader has played a card that was expected to shut up the opposition. Some even juggled caste, gender, and poverty at the same time. The ball is now spinning in the speaker’s court. The ethics committee has recommended her expulsion. This is going to be of no great consequence. MPs have been expelled before this and it can be safely predicted that this will not be the last case. Even to those who concede that Moitra may not have committed a crime, her conduct does seem to have transgressed a fuzzy ethical line. Darshan Hiranandani is not the only character in this drama who made an error of judgment.
What the writer of these lines finds extremely distressing is the arrogance and sense of entitlement our leaders—cutting across party lines—display with brazen shamelessness. They are the elite whom the masses must follow blindly. Without getting into the debate over expensive attire and accessories, it is possible to point this out. In numerous interviews, Moitra has repeated that she was making millions as a merchant banker in New York before she decided to serve the people. She was using Louis Vuitton bags and could afford dozens of designer shoes.
She gratuitously added that those who questioned her about these things couldn’t even spell the brand names correctly and didn’t really know the many meanings of the word ‘Dear’ in the English language. Jaya Jaitley who has herself suffered snide patriarchal barbs all her life had a point when she suggested that before para-shooting into electoral politics Moitra should have done due diligence. Even in the precincts of Parliament, she would not be mingling with ‘people like her’.
Lest it appear that this case is being overplayed, let us recall other such cases not long ago. Sashi Tharoor had courted controversy with his air travel in ‘cattle class’ remark and spending months in a five-star hotel when his sarkari accommodation was being refurbished to his taste. Incidentally, this is also one of the allegations against Moitra. Why blame the country bumpkins who browbeat the CPWD for altering their bungalows in Delhi’s Lutyens Zone to accommodate a cowshed or recreate a rustic rural ambience? How can one forget the tale of the adorable dog who was lovingly, maybe absentmindedly, fed biscuits by RaGa from the plate offered to Himanta Biswa Sarma? It isn’t only the dynasts or those born rich who dress and behave differently.
Those who have risen from the ranks acquire the same tastes and attitudes as soon as they are elected or nominated to serve the people. Who can deny them the control of the gentlemen’s game of cricket or the princely sport of polo? Why can’t those ‘not to privilege born’ aspire to designer clothes, expensive exotic perfumes and elegant dark glasses to shield their eyes from the glare of strong sun or flashbulbs? At times this becomes a habit. There may be a clouded sky and no paparazzi in sight. The elite—rulers or aspiring rulers—must appear and act differently from their subjects. The use of English without any Indian accent and arrogance to hide ignorance are as important as bespoke tailoring and bloodthirsty guard dogs for contested pets.
Pushpesh Pant
Former professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
pushpeshpant@gmail.com