Question for cash – not the first time – a little history

By Vijay Kumar

Way back in 1951, Parliament was faced with such an embarrassing incident, but before that a little farther into history. When Clive won the Battle of Plassey, the East India Company carried away a treasure of £ 800,000. Clive received £ 234,000 as his share of the booty. On his return to England he used the money to set up in the Parliament a caucus of his nominees, who were to vote as he bade; entered the House of Commons, and engaged in the tremendous corruption of men’s consciences.. Impeached before the Parliament, he defended himself with an air of righteous indignation, “when I think of the marvellous riches of that country and the comparatively small part which I took away, I am astonished at my own moderation.”

Coming back to our 1951 story, Mr. H.G. Mudgal, an MP was charged with raising issues in Parliament on behalf of Bombay’s bullion merchants. A Special Committee of Parliament found him guilty of impairing the dignity of the highest forum of democracy and recommended action against him. He was a Congress member but that did not prevent Jawaharlal Nehru from moving a motion to expel him from the House. But even Parliament could not expel him as he resigned before the motion could be passed. Then a question arose whether the House could expel a person who was no longer a Member of the House. Then the Prime Minister moved an amendment that for the words "and resolves that Shri Mudgal be expelled from the House", the following be substituted: "and resolves that Shri Mudgal deserved expulsion from the House and further that the terms of the resignation letter he gave to the Deputy Speaker at the conclusion of his statement constitute a contempt of this House which only aggravates his offence."

Nehru told the house,

The purpose of expulsion is not so much disciplinary as remedial, not so much to punish members as to rid the House of persons who are unfit for membership. It may just as well be regarded as an example of the House’s power to regulate its own constitution.

Writing to the Chief Ministers later Nehru observed,

Parliament viewed the conduct of Mr. Mudgal with extreme disfavour. There has been a tendency in the past not only in Parliament but probably in the State Legislatures also, not to keep to proper standards of behaviour. The Mudgal case is an example and a warning and there must be no laxity shown when any such matter arises. If once the reputation of our legislatures goes down, then democracy itself will be in peril. Therefore the reputation of these legislatures as also of our services, must be strictly guarded and any misbehaviour should lead to enquiry and action.

Unfortunately we now have no more Nehrus but have many Mudgals!