Mandate public disclosure

There is a saying in Urdu, "Is hamaam mein hum sab nange hain" (we are all naked in the bath), which applies very well to the candidates in the forthcoming Presidential election. The dirt-digging started when the UPA announced Pratibha Patil's candidature, and this soon had the UPA digging for dirt about the Opposition candidate, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat. It turns out to everyone's huge embarrassment (for the candidate happens to be the Vice-President and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha) that Mr Shekhawat had been suspended from his post as a sub-inspector in 1947 for accepting bribes by the well-known method of not giving receipts for money received at the check-post. He was posted at the time at a police station on the border of the princely states of Bikaner and Jodhpur. Much later, there was some underhand stuff on compensation for land involving his son-in-law, which was later sought to be covered up in the Rajasthan Assembly by dissembling on the facts, which too has now been exposed. So even as the UPA has questioned the factual basis of some of the Opposition charges against Ms Patil, and contended further that no court has brought any charge against its candidate, it is telling the NDA: Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The embarrassed Opposition now seeks to move away from the mudslinging.

What about the candidates themselves, who have been shredded publicly in this fashion? Mr Shekhawat has been as circumspect as Ms Patil in answering the specific charges. Instead, he has sought to regain some of the high ground by promising to reveal his assets, a demand that the Opposition had first made with regard to Ms Patil. But he has not actually done so, nor has he clarified his position on the charge that he misled the Rajasthan Assembly. And since the media has lost interest, there is the usual denouement after serious charges are aired: the accused maintain a studied silence, their cohorts toss up some technicalities, and life goes on as though nothing has happened.

There has been some hand-wringing, though, caused by the perception that this has become the dirtiest presidential election till date. That may well be so as a matter of historical fact. But is it necessarily a bad thing? People are complaining that once a candidate has been selected, the prestige of the office alone should be reason enough not to make a fuss about his or her antecedents. If we accept this logic, even Shibu Soren would qualify, as indeed he did for becoming a minister. A better way to look at what has happened is to view it as a long overdue corrective. There cannot and should not be a "boys-will-be-boys" argument when it comes to high office.

The solution at this stage of the system's overall development has to be formal disclosure, so that the system catches the problem before it gets left to the media and public opinion. Every presidential (and, for that matter, vice-presidential) candidate should be required formally to declare assets and how they were financed, a record of the cases pending against him/her and close relatives, any past arraignments that are on the records, financial defaults, etc. Even asking for such disclosure will help to keep out dodgy candidates who fear the risk of exposure. If Mr Shekhawat had known in advance that his life-history would be examined with a fine tooth-comb, he may well have decided not to contest.