At about 10 am on September 24, 1951, Hucheshwar Gurusidha Mudgal stood up to clear his name in Parliament. Mudgal was a member of the Provisional Parliament, the national legislature that preceded the first elected Lok Sabha in 1952.
September had been a busy month for this law-making body. It had been discussing key legislation, like the Hindu Code Bill, among other legislative and parliamentary business.
But for Mudgal, who had turned 53 earlier that month, the debate in the chamber was not a priority. For the last four months, he had been preparing for the day when he could reply to the accusations made by his colleagues that he had taken money to raise issues in Parliament. That morning, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru led the charge against Mudgal and it was possible that Mudgal could become the first legislator expelled from Parliament.
Mudgal’s name invariably comes up whenever there is any discussion about ethics in Parliament. During the debate on the expulsion of Mahua Moitra, an MP mentioned his name. There are also references to Mudgal in the ethics committee report that examined Moitra’s conduct in her parliamentary work. He is usually identified in parliamentary discourse only for his unbecoming actions as a parliamentarian.
Mudgal had an interesting career before he came to Parliament. He was born in 1899 in Hubli, Karnataka. He reached America sometime around 1920 and got a degree from New York college and then an MA from Columbia University. During his time in America, by some accounts, he amassed degrees and also became a feature writer. He ended up becoming the editor of Negro World, a weekly newspaper that the Universal Negro Improvement Association published in Harlem.
After 17 years in America, Mudgal returned to India and used his experience to start several publications. In his parliamentary biography, he mentions that he was the editor and publisher of Indian Market, a weekly journal on economics, among others. Mudgal also involved himself in public life. In 1950, along with Dr B R Ambedkar, G V Mavalankar, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Mudgal became a member of the Provisional Parliament representing Bombay. Shortly afterwards, his colleagues elected him to the prestigious Public Accounts Committee of the House. But his role as an editor and publisher brought him into parliamentary focus.
After becoming an MP, he circulated a pamphlet to the subscribers of his journal that stated: “Your Spokesman in the Parliament — H G. Mudgal. Industrialists and businessmen, can depend on Mr. Mudgal to use his knowledge of modern economics , industry and business to shape our national economic policy on the basis of realism. They can always rely on his enlightened co-operation in fighting for establishing a dynamic and free economy.”
In March 1951, a government nominee on the board of the Bombay Bullion Association reached out to the Central government with some information. He told the government that in a board meeting, the association’s president had informed the members that an MP had agreed to canvas support for the association in Parliament for a payment of Rs 20,000. The board sanctioned Rs 5,000 for this activity and later, the association paid Rs 1,000 to Mudgal. This information reached Nehru, who sought clarifications from Mudgal twice but was unsatisfied with his responses.
Nehru brought the matter before Speaker G V Mavalankar, and both agreed that it was a matter for the House to consider. Accordingly, in June 1951, Nehru moved a motion in Parliament to set up a committee to investigate Mudgal’s conduct.
Nehru informed the House about Mudgal trying to set up a meeting for the leadership of the Bombay Stock Exchange with the Finance Minister and how he had asked a question connected with the Bullion Association. Nehru also elaborated on how the minutes of the Bullion Association board meeting had recorded the work that Mudgal would do for the association.
Nehru had sent a draft of the motion to Mudgal in advance, who was ready with his preliminary response. He welcomed the move to set up the committee. Mudgal stated that the purpose of his journal was to encourage the industrialists to cooperate with the government and to urge the government to adopt policies for the country’s rapid rise. On the issue of questions, he responded that all members got information from various sources, and if something caught their eye, they would send it as questions.
The House agreed with Nehru’s motion and set up a committee headed by T T Krishnamachari and four other members to investigate the charges against Mudgal. But some MPs expressed their reservations, including Pandit Govind Malviya, the youngest son of Madan Mohan Malviya. His apprehension was that if the government could deal “arbitrarily with any member of this House, if he does something which may not seem to be quite correct, but about which there may be room for doubt”, then such a process was prone to abuse by future governments.
After extensive examination of officers of the Bullion Association and staffers from Mudgal’s journal, the committee came out with its report indicting Mudgal in August 1951. A month later, on September 24, 1951, Nehru moved a motion for Mudgal’s expulsion from the House.
The contents of the report were damming. Part of the report was a letter that Mudgal wrote to a staffer stating, “See if you can persuade the Bullionities to pay Rs. 7,000 for memorandum, arrangements for delegation, and other parliamentary contacts for the rest of this Session. Tell them they should have vision and even if half of what they want is accomplished the directors alone will earn an extra Rs. 25,000 in one day.”
Mudgal put up a spirited defense. He explained every letter, used evidence in the report to contradict claims, walked the House through the evidence, attacked Nehru, Krishnamachari and played the regional card. And at one point, he highlighted the conflicts that parliamentarians face.
He said, “All of us never come to this House with a blank mind. We carry ideas, experiences, opinions, contacts, and influences with us. They act and interact on us. That is in fact part of true democratic processes … we also must try to do is to balance our ideas, experiences and opinions with public duty. Each Member will have to learn to balance them for quite some time to come through his own trial and error methods.” He ended by stating that whatever he did was a bona fide business with no malafide intentions.
And before the House could expel him, Mudgal walked over to the presiding officer and handed over his resignation.
The writer looks at issues through a legislative lens and works at PRS Legislative Research
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Abbas Juma
Michael Kwet
visit website
