Shekhar Gupta wrote in his piece "The power to one", that a hero will be a person with no past and no greed for the future. He cited the cases of TN Seshan and JM Lyngdoh as election commissioners. However, their past records were not that good. They used their powers creatively. Manmohan Singh is a man without a past and no greed for the future. He is not able to work the way he would like to, writes K Subrahmanyam in The Indian Express.
Read the whole article here.
Excerpts:
"In his piece, ‘The power of one’ (IE, July 31), Shekhar Gupta has highlighted the role of heroes in public service. When he argues that all it takes to transform an institution is one person with no past and no greed for the future, he is seeking people who will emerge from anonymity to perform the necessary act of heroism, and then disappear into noble obscurity."
"He has cited the examples of T.N. Seshan and J.M. Lyngdoh as election commissioners, and how they built and ensured the credibility and impartiality of the election commission. Certainly, the country owes them an enormous debt of gratitude. At the same time, one should not overlook the way the executive has tried to ensure that there will be no future Seshans, by expanding the commission into a three-person body, and making sure that no chief election commissioner gets a long enough term to strengthen the commission further."
"The same is true of our Supreme Court. While the US has had 17 chief justices in 221 years of its history, India has seen 36 chief justices in 63 years since Independence, with an average tenure of a mere 21 months. "
"The entire Indian political, administrative and judicial system has been structured to maintain the status quo."
"When T.N. Seshan and James Lyngdoh were appointed chief election commissioner and member of the three-person election commission respectively, the calculations of the powers-that-be, based on their past records could not have been that they would carry out their tasks in the spirit and style they did. "
"This interpretation of the personalities and roles of the two election commissioners is not intended to diminish the sterling roles they played. But election commissioners and the judiciary operate in constitutional enclaves which provide them a splendid autonomy, and which these two officers used creatively."
"The posts of central vigilance commissioner and director of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, to call the CBI by its appropriate name, do not enjoy that constitutionally-guaranteed autonomy. The enactment governing the CVC clarifies the limits of his supervisory functions. "
"Let us look at the irony of the situation today.That qualification of a man without a past and one without any greed about the future will not fit anyone more aptly than our prime minister, Manmohan Singh. Is he able to make the office of the prime minister what he himself would like it to be? He had to threaten to resign to get his way on the Indo-US nuclear deal, a threat he cannot hold up for every issue he wants to promote. As an accidental PM with no career in the party, his powers and ability to innovate are circumscribed. It is highly doubtful, if he had risen through the party hierarchy, whether he would have still been a man without a past or greed for the future."
"In spite of all this, there is no denying that the role of the individual is very important in day-to-day good governance. An index of good governance is the average tenure of people in important offices. Shuffling people in high offices and ensuring they do not stay long enough to assert their autonomy is the surest way of ensuring centralisation and stunting institutions. That is the state of Indian misgovernance today. "
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Surat: Citizens not eager to sign up for e-voting
Surat Citizens are not eager to sign up for e-voting. Only 30 voters came forward to fill forms to register themselves for e-voting at city civic centres of Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) in last five days.The State Election Commission (SEC) will go ahead with its plan for e-voting during the municipal corporation elections, reports The Times Of India.
Read the whole article here.
It seems there are no takers for e-voting system in the upcoming civic body polls. Reason: Only 30 voters have come forward to fill up special form to register themselves for e-voting at city civic centres of Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) in last five days.
Official sources said the distribution of special application forms for e-voting started on August 2 and the last date of form submission is August 16. Till now, only 30 forms have been filled in different municipal zones for online or e-voting in the civic polls.
The State Election Commission (SEC) will go ahead with its plan for e-voting during the municipal corporation elections in Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Jamnagar this year.
Sources said as per instruction from SEC, the e-voting centres will be set up in Adajan and other places for facilitating the electorates to cast e-votes. Others having internet facilities at home or office can avail the e-vote facilities as well.
"All those who register as e-voters can come and e-vote from these centres, irrespective of wards to which they belong," a senior SMC officer said.
He added, "We are planning to launch a drive in the city to include more and more electorates in the e-voting project. It is for their own benefit as they do not have to visit the polling booths to cast their votes, but just have to click a button on their personal computers."
Read the whole article here.
It seems there are no takers for e-voting system in the upcoming civic body polls. Reason: Only 30 voters have come forward to fill up special form to register themselves for e-voting at city civic centres of Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) in last five days.
Official sources said the distribution of special application forms for e-voting started on August 2 and the last date of form submission is August 16. Till now, only 30 forms have been filled in different municipal zones for online or e-voting in the civic polls.
The State Election Commission (SEC) will go ahead with its plan for e-voting during the municipal corporation elections in Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Jamnagar this year.
Sources said as per instruction from SEC, the e-voting centres will be set up in Adajan and other places for facilitating the electorates to cast e-votes. Others having internet facilities at home or office can avail the e-vote facilities as well.
"All those who register as e-voters can come and e-vote from these centres, irrespective of wards to which they belong," a senior SMC officer said.
He added, "We are planning to launch a drive in the city to include more and more electorates in the e-voting project. It is for their own benefit as they do not have to visit the polling booths to cast their votes, but just have to click a button on their personal computers."
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
EC asks Jharkhand to file FIR in the cash for votes allegations
The Election commission of India asked Jharkhand Government to file an FIR in the cash for vote allegations. The sting operation was carried out by a telivision channel. The ECI discussed the ramifications of the telivision report. The guilty could be punished with imprisonment up to five years, reports The Hindu.
The Election Commission on Tuesday directed the Jharkhand government to file a First Information Report against the MLAs allegedly involved in the ‘cash-for-Rajya Sabha vote' sting carried out by a television channel.
The Commission took serious note of the news report and discussed its ramifications. It pointed out that the channel had shown a few MLAs as saying that on payment, they could get their and their colleagues' first and second preference votes (in the Rajya Sabha poll) in the manner desired by the payer. “This amounts to offence of bribery at an election under Section 171-B of the IPC and also Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, if the offence is proved, the guilty could be punished with imprisonment of up to five years and fine.
The Election Commission on Tuesday directed the Jharkhand government to file a First Information Report against the MLAs allegedly involved in the ‘cash-for-Rajya Sabha vote' sting carried out by a television channel.
The Commission took serious note of the news report and discussed its ramifications. It pointed out that the channel had shown a few MLAs as saying that on payment, they could get their and their colleagues' first and second preference votes (in the Rajya Sabha poll) in the manner desired by the payer. “This amounts to offence of bribery at an election under Section 171-B of the IPC and also Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, if the offence is proved, the guilty could be punished with imprisonment of up to five years and fine.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Jharkhand MLAs bargain a price for voting in Rajya Sabha election
A joint sting operation conducted by CNN-IBN and Cobrapost exposed the sale of votes for an amount as little as 50 Lakhs. The Congress has issues notice to all the MLA's who were caught in the camera. Political parties have demanded strong action against all the MLA's who were exposed.
This article was published in IBN politics on August 3rd 2010.
A day after a joint sting operation conducted by CNN-IBN and Cobrapost exposed Jharkhand MLAs who were willing to take as little as Rs 50 lakh to sell their votes in Rajya Sabha polls, the Congress has issued show-cause notice to its MLAs caught on camera.
All India Congress Committee member Keshav Rao, who is also in-charge of Jharkhand has written letters to its MLAs - Rajesh Ranjan, Sawan Lakda and Yogendra Sao - who were shown brokering a deal, in the sting operation.
Rao had earlier assured that the Congress would take action on the issue.
On Monday, within hours of airing the sting operation, political parties demanded strong action against those exposed by the operation.
Senior CPI-M leader and Politburo member Brinda Karat said it was sickening to see elected MLAs of national parties stooping so low for money.
Member of Parliament from Jharkhand and senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, whose party colleague Uma Shankar Akela was implicated in the action, too demanded action from the ethics commmittee of the Rajya Sabha.
"It is completely illegal to buy your way through the Rajya Sabha. I think the BJP leadership in the state and at the centre should ask him to explain his remarks," Sinha told CNN-IBN.
Besides political parties, India's Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi has also assured action against those involved. Quraishi said that the Election Commission will seek legal opinion on the way forward.
This article was published in IBN politics on August 3rd 2010.
A day after a joint sting operation conducted by CNN-IBN and Cobrapost exposed Jharkhand MLAs who were willing to take as little as Rs 50 lakh to sell their votes in Rajya Sabha polls, the Congress has issued show-cause notice to its MLAs caught on camera.
All India Congress Committee member Keshav Rao, who is also in-charge of Jharkhand has written letters to its MLAs - Rajesh Ranjan, Sawan Lakda and Yogendra Sao - who were shown brokering a deal, in the sting operation.
Rao had earlier assured that the Congress would take action on the issue.
On Monday, within hours of airing the sting operation, political parties demanded strong action against those exposed by the operation.
Senior CPI-M leader and Politburo member Brinda Karat said it was sickening to see elected MLAs of national parties stooping so low for money.
Member of Parliament from Jharkhand and senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, whose party colleague Uma Shankar Akela was implicated in the action, too demanded action from the ethics commmittee of the Rajya Sabha.
"It is completely illegal to buy your way through the Rajya Sabha. I think the BJP leadership in the state and at the centre should ask him to explain his remarks," Sinha told CNN-IBN.
Besides political parties, India's Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi has also assured action against those involved. Quraishi said that the Election Commission will seek legal opinion on the way forward.
Parliament impasse ends, Lok Sabha to discuss, without voting, price rise
The parliament will discuss price rise under rule 342.BJP opposed a debate not followed by voting. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added. Both sides claimed victory.
This article was published in The Economic Times on 3rd August 2010.
The weeklong impasse in Parliament over the nature of discussion on price rise ended on Monday, with both the government and the Opposition yielding some ground and agreeing to hold the debate under a rule that will be followed by the passage of a resolution conveying the sense of the House.
The Lok Sabha, thus, will hold the discussion under Rule 342, a clause rarely used by the House, on Tuesday. After the conclusion of the debate, Speaker Meira Kumar will move a resolution “expressing concern over inflationary pressure in the economy, and calling upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”. The Rajya Sabha will witness a similar debate on Wednesday.
It was clear that the two sides, in their anxiety to end the stalemate in Parliament and get down to discussing serious, burning issues confronting the nation, had to climb down from the intransigent positions they had adopted so far. A breakthrough was clinched this morning at the breakfast meeting convened in his parliamentary office by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee.
BJP, which had been insisting on a discussion under Rule 184 that entailed voting, made it plain that they would not be amenable to the idea of a simple debate that would not be followed by voting. “After all, as many as nine discussions had been held in the Lok Sabha on price rise in the last six years. What has been their outcome? The issue, on the contrary, has become more serious,” Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses, Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Arun Jaitley said. Their contention was backed by the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added.
A way-out was found, with the two sides agreeing to hold the discussion, to be followed by the Chair reading out a resolution conveying the sense of the House. The government’s draft, which said that “this House expresses its concern on the inflationary pressure in the economy and calls upon the government to contain its adverse impact”, was found to be too soft
The Opposition parties, which included BJP, Left and JD(U), suggested three changes in the draft resolution — replacing inflationary pressures with price rise, adding “further action” and aam aadmi (common man) to the concluding part so that it’d have read “....calls upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”.
Government managers rejected the first suggestion, contending that no finance minister could agree to the idea of replacing inflationary pressures with a specific mention of price rise, but agreed to the latter two changes. As the deadlock ended, both sides claimed victory. While the ruling coalition managers, having thwarted the Opposition’s attempts to force a voting on price rise, heaved a sigh of relief, BJP, which had formulated its response in consultation with the other Opposition parties, expressed satisfaction over the fact that even Congress would be joining in the Opposition’s efforts to ask the government to take more steps to reverse the trend and provide relief to the common man, in whose name it had come to power at the Centre.
This article was published in The Economic Times on 3rd August 2010.
The weeklong impasse in Parliament over the nature of discussion on price rise ended on Monday, with both the government and the Opposition yielding some ground and agreeing to hold the debate under a rule that will be followed by the passage of a resolution conveying the sense of the House.
The Lok Sabha, thus, will hold the discussion under Rule 342, a clause rarely used by the House, on Tuesday. After the conclusion of the debate, Speaker Meira Kumar will move a resolution “expressing concern over inflationary pressure in the economy, and calling upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”. The Rajya Sabha will witness a similar debate on Wednesday.
It was clear that the two sides, in their anxiety to end the stalemate in Parliament and get down to discussing serious, burning issues confronting the nation, had to climb down from the intransigent positions they had adopted so far. A breakthrough was clinched this morning at the breakfast meeting convened in his parliamentary office by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee.
BJP, which had been insisting on a discussion under Rule 184 that entailed voting, made it plain that they would not be amenable to the idea of a simple debate that would not be followed by voting. “After all, as many as nine discussions had been held in the Lok Sabha on price rise in the last six years. What has been their outcome? The issue, on the contrary, has become more serious,” Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses, Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Arun Jaitley said. Their contention was backed by the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added.
A way-out was found, with the two sides agreeing to hold the discussion, to be followed by the Chair reading out a resolution conveying the sense of the House. The government’s draft, which said that “this House expresses its concern on the inflationary pressure in the economy and calls upon the government to contain its adverse impact”, was found to be too soft
The Opposition parties, which included BJP, Left and JD(U), suggested three changes in the draft resolution — replacing inflationary pressures with price rise, adding “further action” and aam aadmi (common man) to the concluding part so that it’d have read “....calls upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”.
Government managers rejected the first suggestion, contending that no finance minister could agree to the idea of replacing inflationary pressures with a specific mention of price rise, but agreed to the latter two changes. As the deadlock ended, both sides claimed victory. While the ruling coalition managers, having thwarted the Opposition’s attempts to force a voting on price rise, heaved a sigh of relief, BJP, which had formulated its response in consultation with the other Opposition parties, expressed satisfaction over the fact that even Congress would be joining in the Opposition’s efforts to ask the government to take more steps to reverse the trend and provide relief to the common man, in whose name it had come to power at the Centre.
Citizens expose malpractice by Goa election officers
Citizen's forum claims to have exposed malpractices by Goa election officers. The election officers were found to adopt procedures different from guidelines issued by Election Commission Of India. PCF had pointed to such malpractices in the past too, like enrolling foreigners in the election rolls, reports Daily News And Analysis.
Goa-based Citizens' Forum today claimed to have exposed malpractices by the state election officers while revising the electoral rolls.
Data collected by Pilerne Citizens Forum (PCF) under Right to Information (RTI) shows that election officers in Goa adopt procedures which are different from the guidelines issued by Election Commission of India (ECI).
"All the eleven talukas are following guidelines different from ECI to enroll new names or shift the name from one constituency to another," PCF chairman Prakash Bandodkar told reporters here.
PCF's allegations are based on the data collected from various offices after one-year-long procedure of getting information under RTI.
Bandodkar said ten out of eleven mamlatdars responded to their queries and all were found following procedures which were diverse from the ECI guidelines.
Also, each mamlatdar differed with other in the procedure complicating the matter further, he said.
Moreover, joint election commissioner's office in Panaji does not even have the copy of prescribed guidelines required to be followed vis-a-vis change or addition in the electoral rolls.
"The information sought by the applicant is not held by this office," a reply by joint election commissioner's office reads.
PCF's legal advisor Yatish Naik said that they have filed a formal complaint with ECI by attaching all the documents procured under RTI seeking their intervention in the matter.
PCF, in past, had raised the issue of foreigners being enrolled in the electoral rolls. They had also pointed out that the foreigners were illegally getting entry into ration cards of locals by bribing district administration officers.
A foreign couple in their 70s was shown as a son and daughter of Goan couple in their mid
Goa-based Citizens' Forum today claimed to have exposed malpractices by the state election officers while revising the electoral rolls.
Data collected by Pilerne Citizens Forum (PCF) under Right to Information (RTI) shows that election officers in Goa adopt procedures which are different from the guidelines issued by Election Commission of India (ECI).
"All the eleven talukas are following guidelines different from ECI to enroll new names or shift the name from one constituency to another," PCF chairman Prakash Bandodkar told reporters here.
PCF's allegations are based on the data collected from various offices after one-year-long procedure of getting information under RTI.
Bandodkar said ten out of eleven mamlatdars responded to their queries and all were found following procedures which were diverse from the ECI guidelines.
Also, each mamlatdar differed with other in the procedure complicating the matter further, he said.
Moreover, joint election commissioner's office in Panaji does not even have the copy of prescribed guidelines required to be followed vis-a-vis change or addition in the electoral rolls.
"The information sought by the applicant is not held by this office," a reply by joint election commissioner's office reads.
PCF's legal advisor Yatish Naik said that they have filed a formal complaint with ECI by attaching all the documents procured under RTI seeking their intervention in the matter.
PCF, in past, had raised the issue of foreigners being enrolled in the electoral rolls. They had also pointed out that the foreigners were illegally getting entry into ration cards of locals by bribing district administration officers.
A foreign couple in their 70s was shown as a son and daughter of Goan couple in their mid
Former Speaker of Lok Sabh, Somnath Chatterjee, talks about the state of Indian politics
One comrade had said that Manmohan Singh will get up when we ask him to get up, he must sit down when we ask him to. There is no generation gap in CPM.But they have their own ideas about their own importance, about their thinking or their inevitably being right, says Somnath Chatterjee to Shekhar Gupta.
Read the whole article here.
Excerpts:
Shekhar Gupta: My guest this week is a titan of Indian politics, Mr Somnath Chatterjee. Congratulations for your forthcoming book, Keeping the Faith: Memoirs of a Parliamentarian.
Somnath Chatterjee: You know I have been a member of the Lok Sabha 10 times. So many things have happened, I have met so many people and I have delivered over 500 major speeches.
So you did become a Communist at heart.
Well, I became and I still am, though I may not meet all the requirements that probably a hardcore Communist feels I should have.
Such as?
You have rubbed shoulders with so many great Communist leaders. Name some of the leaders who influenced you the most.
Jyoti Basu, Pramod Dasgupta, Benoy Chowdhury, Hare Krishna Konar, Harkishan Singh Surjeet, EMS (EMS Namboodiripad) and AKG (A K Gopalan). They all influenced me a lot. AKG was a perfect Communist leader.
On the nuclear deal, you have written that you were closer to the Left. But you didn’t feel so strongly that you would pull down the government for this?
It was not in my authority to pull down but I felt that the party should consider the situation. The (nuclear) agreement had not been entered into. Just because they had gone to Vienna or IAEA for discussion, they thought enough is enough.
But you also say in the book that the proximity (CPM leaders) had with the Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi gave them an exaggerated sense of their image.
Yes, because they came to realise that their ‘yes’ was essential for the government to take a decision, their ‘no’ was enough to put it in cold storage. Somebody had said—I am not naming that very important comrade—that Manmohan Singh will get up when we ask him to get up, he must sit down when we ask him to. What is the mentality behind it?
Did the CPM suffer from a generation gap with suddenly much younger leaders coming in?
No, I don’t think there should be any generation gap. But they have their own ideas about their own importance, about their thinking or their inevitably being right.
In the book, you talk about what you describe as the ‘other big mistake’, of trying to form a third front coalition with Mayawati, Mulayam Singh and others.
It was disastrous. It was a comic attempt.
And Mayawati as the likely prime minister?
One of the Left leaders said she was the fittest candidate to be the Prime Minister.
And that was a blunder?
I think that was contrary to the CPM’s political formulation, ideas and understanding. You can’t just join anybody and everybody.
Do you think you would have made a good President?
I don’t know. Probably I would have made a mess of it, that is why I was not allowed.
But was it ever explained to you why that nod was not given?
No. He came and said we have decided not to suggest any candidate for President. That was fair enough. I asked him, ‘Why have you come to me? Have I told you to make me President? Have I told anybody in this world?’ This upsets me, this type of insinuation.
But you are a political analyst. Can you guess or analyse why the nod was not given?
I don’t know. I don’t want to bring it up because it concerns me.
So that is not something that rankles you?
Not at all. What rankles me is not giving me a show-cause (notice) and that my people have been let down. The people who built up the party... the party workers.
Read the whole article here.
Excerpts:
Shekhar Gupta: My guest this week is a titan of Indian politics, Mr Somnath Chatterjee. Congratulations for your forthcoming book, Keeping the Faith: Memoirs of a Parliamentarian.
Somnath Chatterjee: You know I have been a member of the Lok Sabha 10 times. So many things have happened, I have met so many people and I have delivered over 500 major speeches.
So you did become a Communist at heart.
Well, I became and I still am, though I may not meet all the requirements that probably a hardcore Communist feels I should have.
Such as?
You have rubbed shoulders with so many great Communist leaders. Name some of the leaders who influenced you the most.
Jyoti Basu, Pramod Dasgupta, Benoy Chowdhury, Hare Krishna Konar, Harkishan Singh Surjeet, EMS (EMS Namboodiripad) and AKG (A K Gopalan). They all influenced me a lot. AKG was a perfect Communist leader.
On the nuclear deal, you have written that you were closer to the Left. But you didn’t feel so strongly that you would pull down the government for this?
It was not in my authority to pull down but I felt that the party should consider the situation. The (nuclear) agreement had not been entered into. Just because they had gone to Vienna or IAEA for discussion, they thought enough is enough.
But you also say in the book that the proximity (CPM leaders) had with the Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi gave them an exaggerated sense of their image.
Yes, because they came to realise that their ‘yes’ was essential for the government to take a decision, their ‘no’ was enough to put it in cold storage. Somebody had said—I am not naming that very important comrade—that Manmohan Singh will get up when we ask him to get up, he must sit down when we ask him to. What is the mentality behind it?
Did the CPM suffer from a generation gap with suddenly much younger leaders coming in?
No, I don’t think there should be any generation gap. But they have their own ideas about their own importance, about their thinking or their inevitably being right.
In the book, you talk about what you describe as the ‘other big mistake’, of trying to form a third front coalition with Mayawati, Mulayam Singh and others.
It was disastrous. It was a comic attempt.
And Mayawati as the likely prime minister?
One of the Left leaders said she was the fittest candidate to be the Prime Minister.
And that was a blunder?
I think that was contrary to the CPM’s political formulation, ideas and understanding. You can’t just join anybody and everybody.
Do you think you would have made a good President?
I don’t know. Probably I would have made a mess of it, that is why I was not allowed.
But was it ever explained to you why that nod was not given?
No. He came and said we have decided not to suggest any candidate for President. That was fair enough. I asked him, ‘Why have you come to me? Have I told you to make me President? Have I told anybody in this world?’ This upsets me, this type of insinuation.
But you are a political analyst. Can you guess or analyse why the nod was not given?
I don’t know. I don’t want to bring it up because it concerns me.
So that is not something that rankles you?
Not at all. What rankles me is not giving me a show-cause (notice) and that my people have been let down. The people who built up the party... the party workers.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The grammar of anarchy
Who can say how the people of India and their political parties will behave? A bad constitution can work well, if the people involved are good, and a good constitution will turn out to be bad if the people working on it are bad. An excerpt of the concluding speech B R Ambedkar delivered as Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee on the floor of the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949. It is our contribution on the occasion of the forthcoming 63rd anniversary of India's Independence-Published in the August 2010 edition of Pragati.
As much defence as could be offered to the Constitution has been offered by my friends Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr T T Krishnamachari, I shall not therefore enter into the merits of the Constitution. Because I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave? Will they uphold constitutional methods of achieving their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.
The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say ‘no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalise or socialise all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticise, but also to overthrow the State.
No right to bind succeeding generations
These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:
“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”
In another place, he has said:
“The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living;”
I admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true. There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution…I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public.
The danger of divisive politics
[But] my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon. On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country. What would happen to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their king. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Ghori to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput kings were fighting the battle on the side of Mughul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.
Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realisation of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.
The importance of constitutional methods
On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again. This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.
It is not that India did not know what is democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or parliamentary procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments—for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments—but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of parliamentary procedure known to modern times…Although these rules of parliamentary procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the political assemblies functioning in the country in his time.
This democratic system India lost. Will she lose it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India—where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new—there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.
If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
The politics of pedestals
The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions.” There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
Social democracy
The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.
We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has to laboriously built up.
The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity. What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve.
To build a nation
I remember the days when politically-minded Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.” I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realise that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realise the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realising the goal. The realisation of this goal is going to be very difficult…The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.
These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realisation in the down-trodden classes must not be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for the realisation of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so much stresses on them.
I do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy. But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.?
As much defence as could be offered to the Constitution has been offered by my friends Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr T T Krishnamachari, I shall not therefore enter into the merits of the Constitution. Because I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave? Will they uphold constitutional methods of achieving their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.
The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say ‘no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalise or socialise all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticise, but also to overthrow the State.
No right to bind succeeding generations
These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:
“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”
In another place, he has said:
“The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living;”
I admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true. There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution…I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public.
The danger of divisive politics
[But] my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon. On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country. What would happen to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their king. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Ghori to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput kings were fighting the battle on the side of Mughul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.
Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realisation of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.
The importance of constitutional methods
On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again. This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.
It is not that India did not know what is democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or parliamentary procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments—for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments—but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of parliamentary procedure known to modern times…Although these rules of parliamentary procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the political assemblies functioning in the country in his time.
This democratic system India lost. Will she lose it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India—where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new—there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.
If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
The politics of pedestals
The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions.” There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
Social democracy
The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.
We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has to laboriously built up.
The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity. What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve.
To build a nation
I remember the days when politically-minded Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.” I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realise that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realise the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realising the goal. The realisation of this goal is going to be very difficult…The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.
These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realisation in the down-trodden classes must not be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for the realisation of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so much stresses on them.
I do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy. But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.?
A time to Party! and part with socialism
Political ideologies are simple tools by which people decide on the general direction they think society ought to take. In a true democracy, different political ideals have to compete to win the support of the people. The authors of the Indian Constitution had specifically debated and rejected the idea of binding the country to socialism. Yet, the Preamble to the Constitution was amended in 1976, and the election law in 1989, requiring all political parties to affirm to the Constitution, and to socialism. Now, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are valid questions on the issue of socialism, though academic, at this point in time. So it is a time to form a Party, and part with socialism! , writes Barun Mitra in Pragati.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that questioned the validity of the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution, which among many other things, added the terms “socialist, secular” to qualify the democratic republic in the Preamble. The amendment dates back to 1976, to the dark days of Emergency. Later, the Representation of the People Act, the law governing political parties and elections, was further amended to include the section 29A, making it mandatory for all political parties in India to affirm to “socialism” if they were to be registered by the Election Commission of India for the purpose of participating in the electoral process.
The courts always dismiss petitions before them once they pronounce a particular judgment. In this case, however, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “academic” question raised in the petition, but felt that since no political party has so far objected to it, there are perhaps no really aggrieved parties. So it allowed the petitioner to “withdraw” the petition. This withdrawal, however, means that the Court has not ruled against the issue, but considers it to be valid, and has kept it open for a future occasion.
The champions of individual freedom in economic and political spheres have long bemoaned the fact that there is no political platform in India that truly reflects their aspirations. No doubt there are liberals of different shades in almost all political parties, but still there are no avowedly liberal political parties.
Political parties are plentiful, with around 50 parties represented in the national parliament, and hundreds of parties operating at state and local levels. They represent a diverse range of interests: national, state, regional or local. They claim to represent varied sections of society based on national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, caste, and other identities. Yet, the political ideals on offer are very limited, as all parties are bound by socialism if they are to participate in electoral politics. Incidentally, independent candidates are not required to affirm to socialism, and if elected have only to take oath to uphold the Constitution. One of the reasons for this limited range of political options in the largest and the most vibrant democracy in the world, is the law that requires affirmation to socialism.
By legally restricting the political ideology to “socialism”, a couple of serious anomalies have been created. Having introduced “socialism” through the political and constitutional process, it is now being implied that “socialism” cannot be opposed and removed by the very same constitutional process. How can one mount a political campaign calling for the removal of “socialism” in the election law or in the Constitution, after having affirmed to “socialism” as a political ideal?
Secondly, what does socialism mean? The Constitution does not define it. The judges hearing the PIL commented that the meaning could vary. But could “socialism” include feudalism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism (national socialism), communism, capitalism, and everything else? If it does have such a wide range of meanings, why have it at all? The judiciary spends a lot of effort on interpreting the law by trying to precisely define the words in it. Justice would come to an end if words were given such variable meanings.
The Supreme Court has seen this as an “academic” exercise. But the impact of “socialism” in the Constitution and in the election law raises questions about possible violation of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and basic structure doctrine. If democracy is among the sacrosanct elements articulated in the judgments on basic structure, then what good is democracy where political discourse is limited exclusively to one political ideology?
Political ideologies matter in shaping public opinion and policies. The stated goal of all political action may be to improve general welfare; but, it is the ideology that provides the vision, and determines the direction and nature of the policies that are designed. Policy decisions whether to nationalise an industry or economic sector, or to privatise it, are shaped much more by political ideologies, than by hard core technical analysis of the merits of the proposed policy measures. In a democracy, people and leaders are not experts in all fields. Political ideologies come as a simple tool by which people decide on the general direction they think society ought to take, and the merits of specific public policies.
There is no functioning democracy in the world which restrains the space for peacefully competing political ideologies, except perhaps Germany, where there is some restriction on propagation of Nazi ideology. In every major democracy, the political ideology that is most successful in reflecting the aspirations of the large number of people at any given time, changes the political dynamics during elections. From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, the fortunes of political leaders and their parties have swung with the popular perception of the political ideologies of the time. This is what makes democracy such a potent political tool, and ensures the political survival of the society through the various competing ideologies.
The Constituent Assembly had deliberated at length on this very question of “socialism” in 1949. Even while acknowledging that there are many provisions in the Constitution that are socialistic in nature, the constitution makers had decided not to tie the hands of the future generations to a particular political idea. No less a person than Dr B R Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee had then said,“What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether …”If democracy is one of the basic features of the Constitution, then restricting it to on political ideology, is clearly a violation of the basic feature doctrine. What would be a democracy, where political parties are not free to fly their particular ideologies, and compete with each other in an attempt to peacefully persuade the citizens to one vision or another?
Swatantra Party Maharashtra—the inheritors of the mantle of the Swatantra Party, founded by stalwarts like C Rajagopalachari, Minoo Masani and others in 1959—had written to the Election Commission of India in 1994, noting their opposition to the ideas of socialism, and their inability to affirm to socialist ideals. The Commission had replied by pointing at the amendment to the section 29A of the Representation of the People Act which mandates affirmation to socialism. It thus acknowledged that its role is to implement the law as it stands, not to change or reinterpret it.
By acknowledging the “academic” nature of the question in the PIL, the Supreme Court has actually opened a door for the political liberals to come out of the woodwork. Now is the time for the liberals to come together and form a political party, with the sole objective of registering their opposition to the affirmation to socialist ideal. After forming the political party, an application to the Election Commission for registration needs to be filed, even though it is likely to be rejected for not meeting the legal requirement. That would enable the party to go to the Supreme Court and seek redressal of a legitimate and real grievance.
Liberals may not yet be a political force to have an electoral impact in India, but by forming a party with this narrow objective, can leave a permanent imprint on the political future of democratic republic of India. This is a not an exclusively liberal cause, though, and it is open to all shades of political opinion. If one ideology enjoys legal sanction today, then tomorrow another could very easily be banned. Putting democracy in a straitjacket will signal the end of political freedom.
All are welcome to the Party of the free and the brave! If the political space can be legitimately opened up, then the political agenda would have to change too, and then the electoral space will inevitably follow.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that questioned the validity of the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution, which among many other things, added the terms “socialist, secular” to qualify the democratic republic in the Preamble. The amendment dates back to 1976, to the dark days of Emergency. Later, the Representation of the People Act, the law governing political parties and elections, was further amended to include the section 29A, making it mandatory for all political parties in India to affirm to “socialism” if they were to be registered by the Election Commission of India for the purpose of participating in the electoral process.
The courts always dismiss petitions before them once they pronounce a particular judgment. In this case, however, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “academic” question raised in the petition, but felt that since no political party has so far objected to it, there are perhaps no really aggrieved parties. So it allowed the petitioner to “withdraw” the petition. This withdrawal, however, means that the Court has not ruled against the issue, but considers it to be valid, and has kept it open for a future occasion.
The champions of individual freedom in economic and political spheres have long bemoaned the fact that there is no political platform in India that truly reflects their aspirations. No doubt there are liberals of different shades in almost all political parties, but still there are no avowedly liberal political parties.
Political parties are plentiful, with around 50 parties represented in the national parliament, and hundreds of parties operating at state and local levels. They represent a diverse range of interests: national, state, regional or local. They claim to represent varied sections of society based on national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, caste, and other identities. Yet, the political ideals on offer are very limited, as all parties are bound by socialism if they are to participate in electoral politics. Incidentally, independent candidates are not required to affirm to socialism, and if elected have only to take oath to uphold the Constitution. One of the reasons for this limited range of political options in the largest and the most vibrant democracy in the world, is the law that requires affirmation to socialism.
By legally restricting the political ideology to “socialism”, a couple of serious anomalies have been created. Having introduced “socialism” through the political and constitutional process, it is now being implied that “socialism” cannot be opposed and removed by the very same constitutional process. How can one mount a political campaign calling for the removal of “socialism” in the election law or in the Constitution, after having affirmed to “socialism” as a political ideal?
Secondly, what does socialism mean? The Constitution does not define it. The judges hearing the PIL commented that the meaning could vary. But could “socialism” include feudalism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism (national socialism), communism, capitalism, and everything else? If it does have such a wide range of meanings, why have it at all? The judiciary spends a lot of effort on interpreting the law by trying to precisely define the words in it. Justice would come to an end if words were given such variable meanings.
The Supreme Court has seen this as an “academic” exercise. But the impact of “socialism” in the Constitution and in the election law raises questions about possible violation of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and basic structure doctrine. If democracy is among the sacrosanct elements articulated in the judgments on basic structure, then what good is democracy where political discourse is limited exclusively to one political ideology?
Political ideologies matter in shaping public opinion and policies. The stated goal of all political action may be to improve general welfare; but, it is the ideology that provides the vision, and determines the direction and nature of the policies that are designed. Policy decisions whether to nationalise an industry or economic sector, or to privatise it, are shaped much more by political ideologies, than by hard core technical analysis of the merits of the proposed policy measures. In a democracy, people and leaders are not experts in all fields. Political ideologies come as a simple tool by which people decide on the general direction they think society ought to take, and the merits of specific public policies.
There is no functioning democracy in the world which restrains the space for peacefully competing political ideologies, except perhaps Germany, where there is some restriction on propagation of Nazi ideology. In every major democracy, the political ideology that is most successful in reflecting the aspirations of the large number of people at any given time, changes the political dynamics during elections. From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, the fortunes of political leaders and their parties have swung with the popular perception of the political ideologies of the time. This is what makes democracy such a potent political tool, and ensures the political survival of the society through the various competing ideologies.
The Constituent Assembly had deliberated at length on this very question of “socialism” in 1949. Even while acknowledging that there are many provisions in the Constitution that are socialistic in nature, the constitution makers had decided not to tie the hands of the future generations to a particular political idea. No less a person than Dr B R Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee had then said,“What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether …”If democracy is one of the basic features of the Constitution, then restricting it to on political ideology, is clearly a violation of the basic feature doctrine. What would be a democracy, where political parties are not free to fly their particular ideologies, and compete with each other in an attempt to peacefully persuade the citizens to one vision or another?
Swatantra Party Maharashtra—the inheritors of the mantle of the Swatantra Party, founded by stalwarts like C Rajagopalachari, Minoo Masani and others in 1959—had written to the Election Commission of India in 1994, noting their opposition to the ideas of socialism, and their inability to affirm to socialist ideals. The Commission had replied by pointing at the amendment to the section 29A of the Representation of the People Act which mandates affirmation to socialism. It thus acknowledged that its role is to implement the law as it stands, not to change or reinterpret it.
By acknowledging the “academic” nature of the question in the PIL, the Supreme Court has actually opened a door for the political liberals to come out of the woodwork. Now is the time for the liberals to come together and form a political party, with the sole objective of registering their opposition to the affirmation to socialist ideal. After forming the political party, an application to the Election Commission for registration needs to be filed, even though it is likely to be rejected for not meeting the legal requirement. That would enable the party to go to the Supreme Court and seek redressal of a legitimate and real grievance.
Liberals may not yet be a political force to have an electoral impact in India, but by forming a party with this narrow objective, can leave a permanent imprint on the political future of democratic republic of India. This is a not an exclusively liberal cause, though, and it is open to all shades of political opinion. If one ideology enjoys legal sanction today, then tomorrow another could very easily be banned. Putting democracy in a straitjacket will signal the end of political freedom.
All are welcome to the Party of the free and the brave! If the political space can be legitimately opened up, then the political agenda would have to change too, and then the electoral space will inevitably follow.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
CEC wants celebrities to help boost voter turn out
The brand Dhoni was successful in pushing up the voter turnout in Jharkhand. The Election commission of India has plans to come up with other ambitious plans involving celebrities.‘Pappu pass ho gaya’ campaign worked really well in Delhi.Quraishi aid that not voting is a fashion statement in big cities.
This report was published in Hindu on August 1 2010:
After the success of brand M. S. Dhoni in pushing up the voter turnout in Jharkhand, the Election Commission plans to rope in celebrities in an ambitious move to encourage people to vote in large numbers.
Newly appointed Chief Election Commissioner S. Y. Quraishi is upbeat about the voter education campaigns through celebrities following success of his experiments in Delhi and Jharkhand.
Voter percentage in Jharkhand rose from 51 to 58 per cent after cricketer M. S. Dhoni batted for the cause of democracy shortly before the 2009 assembly polls there, he told PTI in an interview.
‘Pappu pass ho gaya’ campaign worked wonders in Delhi, he said, suggesting the exercise of right to vote be made a proud duty of a citizen.
Mr. Quraishi, who would be conducting assembly polls in Bihar this year and those of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam and Puducherry next year, said the EC plans to focus on the youth and would rope in celebrities to reach out to them.
Asked which all celebrities would the EC approach, he said details are not yet decided.
“In big cities, people not only not vote but make fashion statement (of not voting),” Mr. Quraishi said, adding the EC would go the extra mile to ensure that the holiday for exercising the franchise is not misused by people by going in for family vacation.
“We will ensure that the poll day will not be Monday or Friday,” he said.
Talking about his immediate task of conducting assembly elections in Bihar, he said the full Commission will be visit the state for two days next week to oversee preparations for the assembly polls due in October.
The Commission would hold discussions with senior officials of the state on August 8 and 9 as part of reviewing progress in preparation of photo electoral rolls, distribution of Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) and cleaning up of the rolls.
Attaching “high priority” to the conduct of assembly polls in Bihar, Mr. Quraishi said “we are satisfied with our last visit to the state. The election in Bihar is very important.”
The CEC said special efforts will be made to ensure that every single eligible voter is on the rolls. The Commission will consider factors like examination, monsoon, festivals, law and order and force requirement before finalizing the poll schedule.
Mr. Quraishi said the Commission would visit West Bengal this month to review preparedness in the state where assembly polls are due by June next.
Replying to a question on Maoists problem in the state, he said every state has its own character and own set of problems and the EC would evaluate the situation and come out with its “response”.
“We hope there will be good and peaceful elections in West Bengal,” he said.
Ruling out advancing of assembly polls in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, the CEC said the EC would come into the picture only six months before the due date.
Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee has been insisting on early polls in the Left-ruled state citing “breakdown” of law and order there.
This report was published in Hindu on August 1 2010:
After the success of brand M. S. Dhoni in pushing up the voter turnout in Jharkhand, the Election Commission plans to rope in celebrities in an ambitious move to encourage people to vote in large numbers.
Newly appointed Chief Election Commissioner S. Y. Quraishi is upbeat about the voter education campaigns through celebrities following success of his experiments in Delhi and Jharkhand.
Voter percentage in Jharkhand rose from 51 to 58 per cent after cricketer M. S. Dhoni batted for the cause of democracy shortly before the 2009 assembly polls there, he told PTI in an interview.
‘Pappu pass ho gaya’ campaign worked wonders in Delhi, he said, suggesting the exercise of right to vote be made a proud duty of a citizen.
Mr. Quraishi, who would be conducting assembly polls in Bihar this year and those of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam and Puducherry next year, said the EC plans to focus on the youth and would rope in celebrities to reach out to them.
Asked which all celebrities would the EC approach, he said details are not yet decided.
“In big cities, people not only not vote but make fashion statement (of not voting),” Mr. Quraishi said, adding the EC would go the extra mile to ensure that the holiday for exercising the franchise is not misused by people by going in for family vacation.
“We will ensure that the poll day will not be Monday or Friday,” he said.
Talking about his immediate task of conducting assembly elections in Bihar, he said the full Commission will be visit the state for two days next week to oversee preparations for the assembly polls due in October.
The Commission would hold discussions with senior officials of the state on August 8 and 9 as part of reviewing progress in preparation of photo electoral rolls, distribution of Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) and cleaning up of the rolls.
Attaching “high priority” to the conduct of assembly polls in Bihar, Mr. Quraishi said “we are satisfied with our last visit to the state. The election in Bihar is very important.”
The CEC said special efforts will be made to ensure that every single eligible voter is on the rolls. The Commission will consider factors like examination, monsoon, festivals, law and order and force requirement before finalizing the poll schedule.
Mr. Quraishi said the Commission would visit West Bengal this month to review preparedness in the state where assembly polls are due by June next.
Replying to a question on Maoists problem in the state, he said every state has its own character and own set of problems and the EC would evaluate the situation and come out with its “response”.
“We hope there will be good and peaceful elections in West Bengal,” he said.
Ruling out advancing of assembly polls in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, the CEC said the EC would come into the picture only six months before the due date.
Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee has been insisting on early polls in the Left-ruled state citing “breakdown” of law and order there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
