:: Editorial

A first-class political debate

Sep 13 : The way the Congress party’s internal debate on the austerity issue has moved, and the manner in which UPA ministers of diverse hues have reacted to Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s suggestion of eschewing extravagance in a time of possible drought, clearly show that the spirit of the proposal has been lost on the top shots of our ruling establishment. If the external affairs minister and the junior foreign office minister staying in five-star digs (although not at the taxpayers’ expense — a saving grace) wasn’t bad enough, other long-time politicians, who ought to have known better since at least a few of them were weaned in an earlier era, raised objections to projecting at least a sense of austerity in government that would make even middle school students blush. Another generation of Congressmen had come through an anti-colonial revolution and spun and wore khadi. Clearly, that act is impossible of emulation in our day. But those who wish to be regarded as authentic political leaders (therefore community guides, by implication) in a poor country ought surely to appreciate the downside of hedonistic practice in their chosen trade. Public spirited people are not expected to live poor if they wish to be of use to the poor, but they’ll be making a laughing stock of themselves if they were to put their high life on display even as they shed tears for the needy. In the end, it was left to a political novice, Rahul Gandhi, to place the issue in perspective for the benefit of his contemporaries. He put it quite simply, saying those in public life ought to live relatively simply, and that it wasn’t a question of the present phase (talk of drought) or any other phase.

Mahatma Gandhi wore a dhoti. He didn’t have to. There might be a hint in that life for today’s politicians. Why political actors and some leading industrialists — Ratan Tata, Aziz Premji, N.R. Narayana Murthy — of the country also shun lavish living, though they can easily afford it. Perhaps it is a question of ethics, not morality. The notion in the capitalist age that one may do what one may want with one’s money is fine. But that applies to private citizens, not to community or political actors. This rule of thumb will cease to apply to politicians if everyone around them were a Croesus. But we are not there yet. It is a trite argument that not much may be expected by way of savings to the exchequer if ministers flew economy and not business, and that insisting on a simple life is only a bit of hypocrisy. The larger issue is not of pennies saved but of giving the poor the feeling that those in the business of helping them and shaping the society are not wholly cut off from their reality.