The Delhi state law minister, Jitender Singh Tomar, it turns out lied about his qualifications. Two universities, one in Bihar and one in Uttar Pradesh have attested in Delhi High Court that they have not awarded him the degrees he claims to have from them. Not surprisingly the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party want him kicked out. Tomar is not the first politician to lie about his degrees. But in the cut and thrust of politics in India, cultivated amnesia is the chief qualification.



Sonia Gandhi’s qualifications were at issue in the early 2000s, because her election affidavit had claimed that the language school she attended in the town of Cambridge was part of the University of Cambridge. It was not. Subramanian Swamy pursued this case to the Supreme Court, in the expectation that it would lead to her election being overturned, but it was dropped for being a “stale issue”.



The BJP’s Human Resources Development Minister minister, Smriti Z Irani twice lied about her qualifications in election affidavits. Questioned about these claims on television she lied again: “In that kitty where people call me anpadh, I do have a degree from Yale as well… which I can bring out and show how Yale celebrated my leadership capacity.’ A Metropolitan Magistrates court in Delhi is set to hear a complaint against her on Thursday.



No bar to entry



The Indian parliament has no educational qualification requirement for entry. Winning a free and fair election is all that is required to enter parliament. The Election Commission, however, can scrap an election if a candidate is found to have filed a false affidavit. However, the commission has no mechanism to check the veracity of affidavits and recently, inundated with complaints, has told complainants to go to court directly.



The need to invent or inflate educational qualifications, for a job that does not require any, reflects an anxiety about capabilities. Gandhi’s many detractors asked what her qualifications were to lead a political party apart from being the foreign widow of former prime minister. One might conjecture that claiming a connection to one of the world’s top universities was a response to this. But it was a lie and a lie that revealed capability anxiety. Irani’s lie it would appear may stem from the same cause. For despite her success as a TV actor and the fact that she entered politics out of choice and made a mark in her party prior to her election, she felt the lack of formal higher education so keenly that she repeatedly lied about it.



Stark paradoxes



Irani’s and Tomar’s particular difficulty is that they each hold a cabinet portfolio that draws attention to their lies. Tomar was made Delhi’s law minister in the new Aam Admi Party government. He claimed to be a qualified lawyer. In the shallow pool of talent in the AAP his familiarity with the law may have had something to do with his getting the job. But, in truth, he appears to have little regard for the law and could be before the courts for misrepresentation or fraud.



Irani, charged with responsibility for the country’s education, has shown a callous disregard for what a formal education entails. By claiming to have earned a Yale University degree in six days, in mitigation of her earlier lies about her qualifications, Irani seemed to suggest that everyone who spends anything longer than that at university is a fiendishly stupid time-waster. It is not for her lack of formal qualifications but because of her persistent lies and supporting bluster that questions continue to be raised about her abilities.



Tomar’s and Irani’s lies will also eventually be declared a “stale issue”. Just as opposition protests about Irani’s lies died down, so the demands for Tomar’s head will also end. The media too will move. For, like politicians, on matters of political morality and people in high office, we are all cultivated amnesiacs.



