At some point of time the Indian public must let Parliamentarians know what it thinks of them in the plainest words. There are things that the press cannot say. There are lines that it cannot pass. There are laws that need to be obeyed. But having accepted these necessary restrictions, the citizen must be free to make his views known. Consider the latest sting operations when some MPs were caught taking bribes for asking questions in Parliament. We do not know - and cannot possibly say - whether this a new development or whether MPs, in the past, have been quietly accustomed to take money for asking inconvenient questions on behalf of certain groups, parties or organisations, in Parliament. It is true that the Lok Sabha, at Question Hour, is almost half empty. That is a pity.

One has to watch the televised proceedings to realise the extent of Parliamentarians' indifference to an important democratic function. Question: Can Parliamentarians arbitrarily absent themselves from proceedings? Should not they be present in full force at all times when Parliament is in session? What were they elected for, in the first place? The normal presumption is that an MP is honest and incorruptible. A minister may be suspect, but not the average MP. Now we learn that our friendly MP, too, is not above trying to make some money on the sly. The recent sting operations have shown that moral discipline is sadly lacking at least in a section, however small, of our elected representatives.

Now we are told that there is a strong demand in Parliament for an inquiry into the motives behind the media expose. One member, Prabhu Nath Singh, JD-U) is reported to have asked for action against the media which, according to him, has no business to intrude into MP's homes with cameras, and present the MPs in 'a distorted way' to 'lower the dignity of the House'. To say the least, this is a remarkable statement to make. In the first place no member of the media can barge into any home uninvited. An MP can immediately summon the police and have the intruder thrown out.

If a member of the media has entered the living room of an MP, one can only believe that he has done so after being specifically invited in. The relevant question is whether he can indulge in sting operations, like surreptitiously taking pictures or recording private conversations. This is for the law to decide. And if the law says that this is illegal, surely, the law will take care of it in its own way and nobody in his senses will object to it. With that conceded, may one ask our MPs whether their behaviour is in any sense justifiable? Is it right for them to ask for cash to raise questions in Parliament? According to Mr Prabhu Nath Singh, "no institutions can be above the law". Granted. No institution is or should be. But may one respectfully ask Mr Singh whether Parliamentarians should be above the law? And if some of them tend to be above the law, is it not the duty of the media to expose them? And how, pray, can one expose them? By talking sweetly to them? Had there been no sting operations, the public would have been blissfully unaware of what was going on behind its back. It would greatly help the media if our MPs will kindly enlighten it on the best way to get to the truth about their moral sensitivity that would make 'Operation Duryodhana' totally unnecessary.

One begins to wonder whether our MPs ever realise that they command so little respect among vast sections of the public. How, for instance, can they justify getting into the well of the House and behaving atrociously? Is throwing microphones and chairs at each other acceptable norms in a democratic society? Is the public to accept all this stoically? When will our MPs learn to behave like gentlemen and not street rowdies? Parliament, as the Speaker of the Lok Sabha correctly noted, "is the most important body in the whole country". How right he is. In the circumstances, said the Speaker, MPs must "maintain its dignity". Again, how right he is. But how many MPs listen to him? And listen to what Speaker Somnath Chatterjee said further. What he said needs to be engraved in letters of gold. Said Mr Chatterjee: "If there are some self-corrections that are necessary, we should also do that. But we must try to see that the dignity of this House is never affected or prejudiced whether inside or outside. Therefore, we should do some introspection." Mind the words.

The Speaker was careful to point out that the dignity of the House should never be affected whether inside or outside. We may take it to mean a silent suggestion to MPs that at all times their behaviour should be above board. And that in effect means that taking money whether one calls it a bribe or whatever is utter misuse of one's status. If this is not clear to our MPs, nothing will be. Meanwhile, let us ask this question: If there was not enough evidence of MPs misusing their power, what would be the necessity for a sting operation? It is clear that the media had got wind of the propensities of certain MPs to make money discreetly on the sly. Should the media turn a blind eye to the information it has on hand? Should it seek a magistrate's permission in an effort to find the truth? That, it will be claimed, is the job of the police and those in charge of law and order. This presumes that the media has implicit trust in the police.

That, alas, does not necessarily follow. Snooping, in the circumstances, seems to be the only way out. If a citizen finds that his privacy is being endangered by the media, he or she is fully entitled to seek the protection of the police but then the question arises: can one arrest anyone merely for carrying a hidden camera? To arrest someone merely for carrying out a sting operation, he must be caught in the act. Is that what Mr Prabhu Nath Singh is suggesting? This means that if an MP is suspecting a member of the media of indulging in a sting operation, he will then have to seek the cooperation of the police to surreptitiously take pictures of the operator. All this leads to some interesting possibilities.

A sting operator can be caught in the act of 'stinging' and the Court may then be asked to judge the stinger. But the larger question remains unanswered, which is expectation of utter incorruptibility of the elected Member of the House.

One can catch a 'stinger' in the act of stinging, but who is to teach the elected member to uphold the highest traditions of an elected Parliament? Aren't we all aware of legislators with criminal records? Who should be held responsible for their behaviour? The parties that offered them their candidacies? The public who elected them in a free and fair election? This, too, calls for a great deal of introspection. Some of our parties have in the past behaved most atrociously. They have chosen their candidates with utter disregard to public morality. They have shown scant respect for the feelings of the average citizen. They have to be told that, in future, this just would not do.

The behaviour of some of our political leaders has been atrocious. The saddest part of it all is that such behaviour has gone largely unchallenged. And for that everyone from the average citizen to the party organisations, the Election Commission and the media has to take the rap. It is easy to damn sting operations.

Let us admit that they are unethical. But will some one kindly enlighten the media on how else to catch wrong doers? The dilemma of the media is genuine. The duty of the media is to look after the interests of the people. That goes without saying. In the process of wishing to undertake its obligations, how far can the media go? Can it tap telephones? Can it resort to planting hidden devices in order to ferret out the truth? Where does one draw the line? Perhaps this issue should be discussed in Parliament itself in great detail. Is carrying out a sting operation within the scope of empowering India? Hasn't the time come for the Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all?

In the case of the last sting operation that received such nationwide attention, it is possible that the sting operator made a small fortune in selling his findings to the media. But then one might as well ask the question: If the operation was strictly intended to ferret out the truth, why shouldn't its commercial aspect be acceptable? If the intention is to let the whole world know what wrongs are being done, hasn't the media the moral right to sell truth? Questions, questions.

Courtesy: www.samachar.com, March 16, 2007