A POLITICIAN’S HEALTH MUST BE MADE PUBLIC
Do we, as citizens of a democracy, have the right to be fully informed of the health of those who govern us as well as the amount spent by the exchequer on their treatment? In any other democracy the answer would be an unequivocal yes. In India, unfortunately, we have equivocation. Even the media is in two minds.
In America, details of not just a president’s health but those of all contenders for the job are made fully public. In Britain, when Tony Blair needed hospital treatment, the British public was immediately informed. Indeed, much the same happened in India when Manmohan Singh underwent heart surgery in 2009.However, a curtain of silence was drawn around Sonia Gandhi’s hospitalisation in 2011 and the same is true of Manohar Parrikar’s illness today. Yet in both cases this is not a private matter nor can their families have the last word on the subject.
In Sonia Gandhi’s case, Ambika Soni, then Information and Broadcasting Minister, actually told the media: “Only that much information would be shared which they (the Gandhis) would want to share.” She even suggested the government was not fully briefed when she added “you will get all the information as soon as it’s made available to us”.In Manohar Parrikar’s case, when he was first admitted to the Lilavati Hospital, his office variously called it a “routine check-up” and “mild pancreatitis”. The hospital, whilst denying unspecified “malicious and misleading reports/rumours” only added that the “Hon. Chief Minister of Goa is being treated and is responding well to the treatment” without bothering to state what the treatment was for!
Since then he’s flown to America three times for treatment and news reports suggest a fourth visit is likely. Yet even now all we’re told is he’s suffering from a “pancreatic ailment”.
Now, if India was a western democracy our media would have thrown all the resources it could muster to find out the truth about Sonia Gandhi and Manohar Parrikar and ensure it was fully revealed to the public. They would also have found out or accurately estimated the cost and published that as well. The reason is simple: in a democracy the people’s right to information about their leaders, which can and does affect their politics and gov- ernance, takes priority over the individual’s right to privacy. This is because the stability of UPA-2 or the present Goa government is contingent upon the healthy functioning of its most important leader.
Instead, our media is divided between those who believe these details, both medical and financial, must be fully revealed and others who argue that respect for the individual’s privacy must be maintained and that it would be intrusive to follow western precedents. However, that wasn’t the case when Manmohan Singh underwent heart surgery but, perhaps, he insisted on complete disclosure. Other politicians have, sadly, not lived up to his exemplary standards.
So now we have a genuine debate. Am I right in my view that we must be fully informed and that this takes priority over the concerned individual’s privacy? Or should we value and protect the restraint with which we treat such matters? After all, if the media doesn’t reveal the love lives of our leaders, why should it reveal the details of their health and treatment?
Manohar Parrikar’s illness has brought this issue to the fore. It gives us another chance to decide one way or the other. Surely that would be better than just muddling along?