Among the many contributions of Peter Heylyn’s book ‘Ecclesia Restaurata: The History of the Reformation of the Church of England’ (1661) is an etymological one also: an attempt to trace the origin of the popular phrase ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’. The expression was coined at a time when almost all English people were Christian and they would have been well used to hearing Peter and Paul paired together. They were both apostles of Christ, both martyred in Rome and shared the Feast Day on June 29. There are many churches of saints Peter and Paul in England and throughout Europe. Heylyn asserted that the phrase arose from the borrowing of money from one church to fund another, a rising trend those days. While all etymologists don’t agree with Heylyn’s argument, similarities between the two saints are generally believed to have led to the phrase’s origin.

The purpose of devoting an entire paragraph on the phrase’s origin is justifiable because of its relevance and exactitude in another country and century. Exactly 350 years later, in Indian politics, we are left with just these two choices: Peters and Pauls. I know the analogy necessitates a disclaimer. So, let me clarify that it is strictly lingual, and any inference of a purported profanity is merely coincidental and surely unintended.

Dichotomy of the two cases apart, this is the dilemma that Team Anna faces when they go campaigning against the Congress party candidates in the upcoming assembly polls in five states. They will be robbing Peters to pay Pauls. A quick dekko at the unintended beneficiaries of Team Anna’s well-intentioned campaign will bring to fore the travesty of this entire exercise.

Let’s take the case of Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati who is on a minister-sacking spree hours before she is out on the hustings. Reams of papers are flying out of Lokayukta justice NK Malhotra’s office every other day and a seemingly-high-on-truth-serum CM is sacking ministers in batches. If you can forget for a moment the upcoming elections, it is so picture-perfect. Almost Ram Rajya. But then, the truth is always prickly. Malhotra was appointed in March 2006 and his office ran without those reams for many years. Mayawati believes sending aides to purgatory will conveniently camouflage her monumental corrupt practices and ensure her another term. While her beliefs might not be all right, she will undoubtedly be a beneficiary of Team Anna’s campaign. Ditto goes for her archrival Mulayam Singh Yadav, the Samajwadi Party chief, who is largely credited with criminalisation of the state’s politics and is candid about his achievement. In Punjab, things are no different either and the Badals who have too many of their own troubles — other than anti-incumbency — to hide from the electorate will benefit from this negative campaign against the Congress. 

But this is not the flipside of Hazare’s resolution. The veteran Gandhian has every right to campaign against any candidate or party. This in fact is the flipside of our politics. In the last many elections at least in Uttar Pradesh, people have not voted Mulayam Singh or Mayawati in power: they have instead voted either of the two out of power. The other’s victory of course could not have been stopped. When the electorate just wanted to rob Peter, Paul was automatically paid. This time it is going to be no different either.