Though Indian politicians talk a lot about reform, they are good at spending tax payers money, mostly because they are socialists. Every political party in India should swear allegiance to socialism, according to the 42nd amendment to constitution.There are around 50 parties represented in the parliament, but people of India do not have much of a choice as there is no liberal political party. The petition filed by Sanjiv Agarwal is a case in point. The petition was withdrawn on the grounds that no political part has opposed the insertion of the word 'Socialism".Political parties should take up this cause, writes Barun Mitra in The wall Street Journal.
India's politicians love to talk about "reform," but if the recent past is any indication, most of them like spending money more. There's the $22 billion annual bill for food and fertilizer subsidies; the billions spent every year on the rural employment guarantee scheme; plentiful government-subsidized loans; and on, and on. The lack of debate over the virtues of these wasteful policies is striking in the world's most vibrant democracy. A big reason is because all Indian politicians are—officially—socialists.
That's not a typo. During the height of Indira Gandhi's Emergency Rule in 1976, policy makers passed the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which added the words "socialist" and "secular" to the preamble. Then in 1989, the Representation of People Act, the law which governs elections and political parties, was amended to make it mandatory for all political parties seeking registration with the Election Commission to affirm not only the general constitution but also socialism. Since then all political parties have sworn to socialism without any hesitation, without bothering to define what it means.
These are more than just semantics. Political parties are plentiful in India, with around 50 parties represented in the national parliament, and hundreds of parties operating at state and local levels. Yet, the political ideals on offer are very limited, and there are no avowedly liberal political parties. The "socialist" pledge, as it turns out, has created a serious legal anomaly and a damaging precedent.
Look no further than the recent case of Sanjiv Agarwal, the head of the Good Governance India Foundation in Calcutta. In 2007, Mr. Agarwal, whose nongovernment organization fights for property rights and the rule of law, filed a public-interest petition to the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the 42nd Amendment and the relevant section of the Representation of People Act. The petition argued both provisions violated the basic premise of democracy and political freedom enshrined in the Constitution.
Two years later, the Election Commission filed a response and acknowledged that the 1989 law required all parties to affirm their loyalty to socialism. In other words, although the word "socialism" was included in the Constitution through the political and constitutional process, it cannot be opposed and removed by the very same process. The Government of India did not file a reply.
When the petition was first heard by the Supreme Court in January 2008, Mr. Agarwal's lawyer pointed out that the anomaly in the election law had been questioned in 1995 by the Swatantra Party Maharashtra, a small political party located in Maharashtra State. Unfortunately the Mumbai High Court still has not heard the petition—even though 15 years have passed since its filing.
Mr. Agarwal couldn't legally substantiate the details of the old case, and the judges on the bench observed that while it was a valid point, it was also an "academic" one, since no political party in the country had actually opposed it. So the petition was withdrawn on July 12.
The fight isn't over, however. The Supreme Court did not reject the petition outright. Instead, the three-judge bench implied the court would prefer to deal with it when a political party actually is aggrieved, or refused registration because of its refusal to affirm socialist beliefs. The Court's statement also implies there is merit in Mr. Agarwal's arguments.
As it should: India's founders debated the question of socialism at length in 1949. The chairman of the constitutional drafting committee, B.R. Ambedkar, said: "What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organized 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."
Fixing India's foray into socialism will take time. None of the serious political parties engaged in the electoral fray in the past 20 years has objected to the socialism clause, including nominally conservative parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena. All see great political benefits from large public-spending programs that cement political patronage, even if those policies ultimately create more dependence, higher unemployment and lower future economic growth.
Yet India is changing slowly but surely since the "big bang" economic reform of the early 1990s. Today, the economy is poised to enter into a 10% annual GDP growth phase. Foreign multinationals have purchased two of the biggest Indian pharmaceutical companies at record prices, and rather than raising fear, many Indians feel proud that Indian assets could fetch such high values in the global marketplace. The recent auction of third-generation telecommunication spectrum raised a phenomenal $20 billion.
All political parties need to take up this cause. If the political space is legitimately opened up, then the political agenda would have to change too—and then the electorate may inevitably follow. India's free-market liberals then might find their rightful place in the political mosaic of the country. Just as India's diversity has sustained her democracy, political diversity will only strengthen the foundation of the republic.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Keeping up the acts
The Monsoon session of the parliament will be held from July26th to August 27th. The Government failed to meet its legislative targets in the last sessions. The UPA Government intended to introduce several bills, including the ones on Judicial accountability, four bills on university education, women's reservation and biotechnology regulator.UPA failed to fully utilize these sessions, writes MR Madhavan in The Indian Express.
Excerpts:
"The monsoon session of Parliament will be held from July 26 to August 27. The UPA government has not been able to meet its legislative targets in the last couple of sessions. The government had planned to pass 27 bills and introduce 64 bills in the budget session; it managed only to pass six and to introduce 28 bills."
"A few months after the UPA government was formed, the law minister stated his intention to introduce the Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill. During the last year, issues related to the appointment and conduct of judges have cropped up. "
"If this committee submits the report soon and finds cause for removal of the judge, we may witness the rare case of the removal motion being debated in Parliament. "
"The education minister had introduced four bills related to university education, which addressed the entry of foreign universities, prohibition of capitation fees, establishment of education tribunals and setting up a system of agencies that would provide quality ratings to all courses and institutions. These bills are being examined by the standing committee. Other possible bills include those recognising new IITs, IISERs, and recasting the Distance Education Council. The ministry has also planned a new law that combines into a new regulator the regulatory powers of bodies such as UGC, AICTE, and the Bar Council."
"The trajectory of the Women’s Reservation Bill is difficult to guess. The nuclear liability bill is being examined by the standing committee, which is scheduled to submit its report on the second day of the session. If the committee submits the report in time — reports indicate otherwise — the bill may be taken up for discussion. It would be interesting to see the committee’s recommendations on the contentious issues."
" the last session, the government had planned to introduce the Biotechnology Regulator Bill. Given the fracas over permitting Bt brinjal, it is important to institutionalise mechanisms for permitting and regulating biotechnology including genetically modified organisms."
"Three ordinances have been issued since the last session, and these need to be ratified. The first ordinance replaces the Medical Council of India with a board of directors for one year. This step followed the arrest of the MCI president on corruption charges. The second ordinance followed the row between SEBI and IRDA over the regulation of unit linked insurance products. A new mechanism has been set up to resolve inter-regulator issues. The third ordinance declares that any enemy property will remain with the custodian even if the status of the original owner changes or the legal heir is an Indian citizen."
Every Parliament session is an opportunity for the government to further its legislative agenda. The UPA has not fully utilised earlier sessions. We hope this session is used fruitfully by both treasury and opposition members to fulfil their parliamentary responsibilities.
Excerpts:
"The monsoon session of Parliament will be held from July 26 to August 27. The UPA government has not been able to meet its legislative targets in the last couple of sessions. The government had planned to pass 27 bills and introduce 64 bills in the budget session; it managed only to pass six and to introduce 28 bills."
"A few months after the UPA government was formed, the law minister stated his intention to introduce the Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill. During the last year, issues related to the appointment and conduct of judges have cropped up. "
"If this committee submits the report soon and finds cause for removal of the judge, we may witness the rare case of the removal motion being debated in Parliament. "
"The education minister had introduced four bills related to university education, which addressed the entry of foreign universities, prohibition of capitation fees, establishment of education tribunals and setting up a system of agencies that would provide quality ratings to all courses and institutions. These bills are being examined by the standing committee. Other possible bills include those recognising new IITs, IISERs, and recasting the Distance Education Council. The ministry has also planned a new law that combines into a new regulator the regulatory powers of bodies such as UGC, AICTE, and the Bar Council."
"The trajectory of the Women’s Reservation Bill is difficult to guess. The nuclear liability bill is being examined by the standing committee, which is scheduled to submit its report on the second day of the session. If the committee submits the report in time — reports indicate otherwise — the bill may be taken up for discussion. It would be interesting to see the committee’s recommendations on the contentious issues."
" the last session, the government had planned to introduce the Biotechnology Regulator Bill. Given the fracas over permitting Bt brinjal, it is important to institutionalise mechanisms for permitting and regulating biotechnology including genetically modified organisms."
"Three ordinances have been issued since the last session, and these need to be ratified. The first ordinance replaces the Medical Council of India with a board of directors for one year. This step followed the arrest of the MCI president on corruption charges. The second ordinance followed the row between SEBI and IRDA over the regulation of unit linked insurance products. A new mechanism has been set up to resolve inter-regulator issues. The third ordinance declares that any enemy property will remain with the custodian even if the status of the original owner changes or the legal heir is an Indian citizen."
Every Parliament session is an opportunity for the government to further its legislative agenda. The UPA has not fully utilised earlier sessions. We hope this session is used fruitfully by both treasury and opposition members to fulfil their parliamentary responsibilities.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Supreme Injustice!
The judges of the Indian Supreme court felt that the insertion of socialism in the constitution, though important is only an academic issue,and the petition challenging it, should be withdrawn. Only socialist parties can be registered with India's Election Commission.The Swatantra party of S V Raju failed to swear by Socialism they had no option but to take the issue to the court, writes Manuwant Choudhary in Indiavikalp.
India’s Supreme Court falters once again….this time on a petition challenging the oath of allegiance by political parties to the word `socialism’…recently the petition had to be withdrawn as the judges felt that while it was an important issue it was only of `academic’ interest presently and that they would hear the case as and when the time came.
In effect what this means is that the world’s largest democracy is not a democracy…since only socialist political parties can be registered with India’s Election Commission and hence only they can contest elections. A liberal cannot have a political party.
The petition was filed by Good Governance Foundation India and individually by Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal and their lawyer was constitutional expert Fali Nariman.
So I called up Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal to find out his understanding of the Supreme Court view and he said, “There are two aspects. One is that our case was not thrown out at the first instance and we were heard. The Supreme Court also recognized that the issue we were raising was an important one but that it was only of `academic’ interest right now. I am happy with this part of the view but the Supreme Court goes on to say that we will hear it when the time comes. God forbid but I fear that when the time comes it may be too late…a despot will do what he wants in such a scenario…”
There are again two interpretations to this court view …one is that the judges want liberals to first form a political party and seek registration and when they are denied registration they can come back to it and file a fresh appeal. The second part is more serious in that the present view means that citizens and NGOs who file public interest petitions have no bona-fide to do so vis-à-vis democracy and that only a political party who has been denied registration has a cause of action.
This latter view worries me ….but Mr. Agarwal says, “Its one interpretation but who can question the highest court in the land? The Supreme Court in India is not as great as western courts but its still better than Africa or many Asian courts. Although I do not agree with their view that a citizen cannot question the preamble.”
Mr. Agarwal has challenged both the 42nd and 44th amendments to India’s constitution. “By introducing the word socialism to the constitution and then by quietly removing private property from a citizens fundamental rights our politicians have destroyed the very constitution we gave ourselves at independence. You see whats happening in Bengal it is the small farmers who are suffering because their land is being taken over by the State and given to private industry.”
He said, “At least I have succeeded in raising the issue.”
My own association with this campaign goes longer…as a student at St. Paul’s School Darjeeling I came across an interview of Mr. Minoo Masani in Imprint magazine. A photograph of Mr. Masani sitting on Marine Drive looking at the sea and a para saying…`I have always swum against the tide…’ caught my attention. I said to myself if I ever go to Bombay I would like to meet this man…
Living away from the heat and dust of the plains amidst the majestic Himalayas with the sun rise and sunset over Kanchenjunga one would normally forget the mess India was in…but coming from backward Bihar I always felt education is worthless if one cannot bring about any change.
So while most of my colleagues aimed to go to America I had a different dream…my dream was to find a link to India’s past..to its greatness…to Mahatma Gandhi.
Chance took me to Bombay and as a student of history at St. Xavier’s College I was assigned a history project. I picked up a telephone directory and searched for Mr. Minoo Masani, found a number and called. The voice at the other end said, “Yes, this is Masani speaking”. I introduced myself and asked for an appointment as I wanted to interview him.
Mr. Masani, “Whats the issue?”
I replied, “Economic Policies of Jawahar Lal Nehru.”
Mr. Masani, “Disastrous. Come and see me tomorrow at 10 a.m..”
I recall three of going to the Army & Navy Building 15 minutes before 10 and Mr. Masani spoke extempore for more than an hour and it was an education that one cannot get at India’s best educational institutions.
My association with liberals begins and my years in Bombay working with a youth association and then accidently walking up a rickety stairs at Kala Ghoda and discovering a Swatantra Party office…
Its only later that I met Mr.S.V. Raju and 15 years ago when Mr. Raju and others tried to register the Swatantra Party Maharashtra they were faced with a roadblock…they were asked to swear by socialism and which Mr. Raju rightly refused. So going to court was the only option which the party did.
I remember in those early days calling oneself a liberal was not yet fashionable and in fact there were very few liberal NGOs although we believed that India’s people are by and large liberal and if a credible liberal party is offered to the Indian people..Indians would vote for it.
But as things stand the Bombay High Court has not heard the case even once in 15 years! The Swatantra Party lawyer is now a judge of the Bombay High Court!
Another brave attempt was made by the veteran Shetkari Sangathana leader Mr. Sharad Joshi who appealed to Mr.T.N. Seshan, the then Election Commissioner of India, to at least give him a common symbol to contest but Mr. Seshan refused and said he would only get that if he swore allegiance to a socialist constitution.
Mr. Joshi refused and fielded some 180 or more candidates all contesting as independents with different symbols. Two won the elections.
Mr. Joshi is now a Rajya Sabha member and he has placed a private member bill challenging this very clause that makes it mandatory for political parties to swear by the socialist constitution.
This Supreme Court view in effect means, `Where is the party?"
For the past five years I have been speaking to liberals individually to form a party but the response has been poor. There are many many more liberals in India today than there were 15 years ago..most run successful NGOs...but at best they are competitive and at worst self-centred ..happy to run NGOs instead of running India. Liberals lack unity.
If India fails I would blame us liberals.
India’s Supreme Court falters once again….this time on a petition challenging the oath of allegiance by political parties to the word `socialism’…recently the petition had to be withdrawn as the judges felt that while it was an important issue it was only of `academic’ interest presently and that they would hear the case as and when the time came.
In effect what this means is that the world’s largest democracy is not a democracy…since only socialist political parties can be registered with India’s Election Commission and hence only they can contest elections. A liberal cannot have a political party.
The petition was filed by Good Governance Foundation India and individually by Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal and their lawyer was constitutional expert Fali Nariman.
So I called up Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal to find out his understanding of the Supreme Court view and he said, “There are two aspects. One is that our case was not thrown out at the first instance and we were heard. The Supreme Court also recognized that the issue we were raising was an important one but that it was only of `academic’ interest right now. I am happy with this part of the view but the Supreme Court goes on to say that we will hear it when the time comes. God forbid but I fear that when the time comes it may be too late…a despot will do what he wants in such a scenario…”
There are again two interpretations to this court view …one is that the judges want liberals to first form a political party and seek registration and when they are denied registration they can come back to it and file a fresh appeal. The second part is more serious in that the present view means that citizens and NGOs who file public interest petitions have no bona-fide to do so vis-à-vis democracy and that only a political party who has been denied registration has a cause of action.
This latter view worries me ….but Mr. Agarwal says, “Its one interpretation but who can question the highest court in the land? The Supreme Court in India is not as great as western courts but its still better than Africa or many Asian courts. Although I do not agree with their view that a citizen cannot question the preamble.”
Mr. Agarwal has challenged both the 42nd and 44th amendments to India’s constitution. “By introducing the word socialism to the constitution and then by quietly removing private property from a citizens fundamental rights our politicians have destroyed the very constitution we gave ourselves at independence. You see whats happening in Bengal it is the small farmers who are suffering because their land is being taken over by the State and given to private industry.”
He said, “At least I have succeeded in raising the issue.”
My own association with this campaign goes longer…as a student at St. Paul’s School Darjeeling I came across an interview of Mr. Minoo Masani in Imprint magazine. A photograph of Mr. Masani sitting on Marine Drive looking at the sea and a para saying…`I have always swum against the tide…’ caught my attention. I said to myself if I ever go to Bombay I would like to meet this man…
Living away from the heat and dust of the plains amidst the majestic Himalayas with the sun rise and sunset over Kanchenjunga one would normally forget the mess India was in…but coming from backward Bihar I always felt education is worthless if one cannot bring about any change.
So while most of my colleagues aimed to go to America I had a different dream…my dream was to find a link to India’s past..to its greatness…to Mahatma Gandhi.
Chance took me to Bombay and as a student of history at St. Xavier’s College I was assigned a history project. I picked up a telephone directory and searched for Mr. Minoo Masani, found a number and called. The voice at the other end said, “Yes, this is Masani speaking”. I introduced myself and asked for an appointment as I wanted to interview him.
Mr. Masani, “Whats the issue?”
I replied, “Economic Policies of Jawahar Lal Nehru.”
Mr. Masani, “Disastrous. Come and see me tomorrow at 10 a.m..”
I recall three of going to the Army & Navy Building 15 minutes before 10 and Mr. Masani spoke extempore for more than an hour and it was an education that one cannot get at India’s best educational institutions.
My association with liberals begins and my years in Bombay working with a youth association and then accidently walking up a rickety stairs at Kala Ghoda and discovering a Swatantra Party office…
Its only later that I met Mr.S.V. Raju and 15 years ago when Mr. Raju and others tried to register the Swatantra Party Maharashtra they were faced with a roadblock…they were asked to swear by socialism and which Mr. Raju rightly refused. So going to court was the only option which the party did.
I remember in those early days calling oneself a liberal was not yet fashionable and in fact there were very few liberal NGOs although we believed that India’s people are by and large liberal and if a credible liberal party is offered to the Indian people..Indians would vote for it.
But as things stand the Bombay High Court has not heard the case even once in 15 years! The Swatantra Party lawyer is now a judge of the Bombay High Court!
Another brave attempt was made by the veteran Shetkari Sangathana leader Mr. Sharad Joshi who appealed to Mr.T.N. Seshan, the then Election Commissioner of India, to at least give him a common symbol to contest but Mr. Seshan refused and said he would only get that if he swore allegiance to a socialist constitution.
Mr. Joshi refused and fielded some 180 or more candidates all contesting as independents with different symbols. Two won the elections.
Mr. Joshi is now a Rajya Sabha member and he has placed a private member bill challenging this very clause that makes it mandatory for political parties to swear by the socialist constitution.
This Supreme Court view in effect means, `Where is the party?"
For the past five years I have been speaking to liberals individually to form a party but the response has been poor. There are many many more liberals in India today than there were 15 years ago..most run successful NGOs...but at best they are competitive and at worst self-centred ..happy to run NGOs instead of running India. Liberals lack unity.
If India fails I would blame us liberals.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
67 Bihar opposition MLAs suspended, slipper flung at speaker
67 MLA's in Bihar were suspended for unruly behaviour. Even a slipper was flung at the speaker. A woman member, Jyoti Kumari threw flower pots around.Several RJD MLA's were
marshalled out of the Assembly, reports DNA.
Sixty seven opposition MLAs in Bihar were suspended for unruly behaviour and marshalled out as utter chaos prevailed inside and outside the Assembly today during which a slipper was flung at the speaker and a woman member threw several flower pots around.
marshalled out of the Assembly, reports DNA.
Sixty seven opposition MLAs in Bihar were suspended for unruly behaviour and marshalled out as utter chaos prevailed inside and outside the Assembly today during which a slipper was flung at the speaker and a woman member threw several flower pots around.
The slogan-shouting members who included 42 RJD MLAs were suspended by Assembly speaker Udai Narain Choudhry for the rest of the monsoon session with both the Assembly and the legislative council in the poll-bound state witnessing turmoil for the second straight day. They were marshalled out one by one by the watch and ward staff.
More drama prevailed outside the legislative council when a suspended Congress MLC Jyoti Kumari animatedly threw flower pots and created a ruckus when the watch and ward staff tried to prevent her from entering the house. A hysterical Kumari was dragged a few feet by three women watch and ward staff from the council premises.
The scene inside was no better when RJD MLC Sanjay Prasad removed a microphone and hurled it triggering angry responses from the treasury benches.
RJD MLA RC Paswan, who was marshalled out of the Assembly, reportedly fainted at the gate of the house. He was taken in an ambulance to a government hospital.
The suspension of the MLAs came shortly after around 80 opposition members taking a cue from their opposition counterparts in Karnataka spent the night in the well of the two houses of the state legislature.
The opposition who are on a dharna is demanding the resignation of Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar over a CAG report which alleged financial irregularities in the state.
As the watch and ward staff lifted RJD MLA Bablu Dev, his colleagues rushed to his rescue. In the melee, a slipper was thrown towards the speaker's podium. It was not immediately known who had flung the footwear which, however, did not hit the speaker.
State RJD president Abdul Bari Siddiqui and RJD deputy leader in the Assembly Shakeel Ahmed Khan were among those suspended.
Besides the 42 RJD MLAs who were suspended from the Assembly, the other members who faced action included 11 from LJP.
Opposition members yesterday overturned desks and chairs, broke microphones and virtually came to blows with ruling BJP-JD(U) alliance MLAs on the floor of the houses.
Today's action against the MLAs came after they disobeyed the directive of the Speaker to let the House function.
A resolution for the suspension of the MLAs was brought in the House by state parliamentary affairs in-charge Brijendra Prasad Yadav, which was passed by voice vote amid protests by opposition members.
Later, the speaker ordered that all MLAs protesting in the well of the House be marshalled out of the House.
The opposition MLAs and MLCs said they would continue their dharna in both the Houses till their demand is met.
"We will not lift the agitation till this corrupt government resigns", RJD deputy leader in the Assembly Shakeel Ahmad Khan told PTI.
Council chairman TK Jha had yesterday suspended 14 opposition MLCs for the day. following unruly scenes in the House.
Monday, July 19, 2010
We, of the Preamble
No one objects to socialism if it is about equity concerns. But, it makes sense to oppose it if it means public ownership of means of production. State and the public are not synonymous. Amending the constituion makes sense in certain circumstances, but not always. The insertion of the worsd Socialist is not an acasdemic question. Sharasd Joshi refused to register his political party as of the clause, writes Bibek Debroy in The Indian Express.
Excerpts:
"If socialism is about equity concerns, no one will object, though there can be debates about whether that equity should be on inputs (access to health, education, credit and so on) or outcomes (incomes). But if socialism is interpreted as public ownership of means of production, as it often is, there is every reason to object. Economists typically classify means of production as land (natural resources is a broader concept), labour, capital and entrepreneurship. While there is no reason to equate public ownership with state ownership, de facto, that equation is the norm. Both theoretically and empirically, public ownership of means of production like land, labour and capital is inefficient, especially if combined with monopoly. And no one has yet figured out how the state can be entrepreneurial. "
"Today’s Constitution is not the one we inherited in 1950. The Constitution is a living document, there is no reason for it to be cast in stone. There is a process for amending the Constitution. But that doesn’t necessarily mean every amendment to the Constitution has been desirable. "
"The Preamble to the Constitution now makes India a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. That wasn’t the original Preamble. Socialist and secular were added through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Let’s focus on the socialist part. First, every constitutional expert says since 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati case) the basic structure can’t be changed. But isn’t this a change in basic structure? Second, one might argue the Preamble isn’t really law, it isn’t enforceable in a court. Therefore, it doesn’t change the basic structure. However, that’s only half true. In that same case (Kesavananda Bharati), the Supreme Court held the Preamble is important in interpreting law. Third, if the Preamble was unimportant, what was the need to amend it? There are several other provisions in the Constitution (including Directive Principles) to drive goals of equity. "
"Fourth, it is not that framers of the Constitution were unfamiliar with the concept of “socialism”. It was consciously kept out, for very cogent reasons. In Constituent Assembly debates, Dr Ambedkar was prescient in opposing such an amendment (to the draft)"
"Fifth, from late-’60s to mid-’70s, several undesirable changes were introduced in economic policy and laws. The 42nd Amendment is part of that. If we are changing other elements, why not the Preamble?"
"But for the Preamble, we wouldn’t have had Section 29-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951, inserted in 1989, specifically Clause (5), requiring the political party to abide by “principles of socialism”. This would have been understandable in 1976. In 1989, the year in which the Berlin Wall collapsed (effectively, so did the Soviet system), this socialism bit in Clause (5) probably got inserted without a great deal of thought, because of the other elements of Section 29-A. Hence, a political party has to be “socialist” for it to be registered."
"The NGO Good Governance Foundation rightly challenged this — that is, challenged both amended Preamble and Section 29-A(5). In 2008, the Supreme Court ducked. It allowed the challenge to Section 29-A(5), but not the Preamble. Now, on the challenge to Section 29-A(5), the Supreme Court has ducked again, calling the issue “academic and hypothetical”. Why is it academic and hypothetical? Because no registered political party has refused to swear allegiance to socialism? And because the Election Commission (EC) hasn’t so far refused registration to a proposed political party on grounds of non-adherence to socialism. Let that situation crop up, and then we (the Supreme Court) shall see. "
"Sharad Joshi (Shetkari Sangathana) once told me he refused to register a proper political party because of this offensive clause. Therefore, we do have a problem."
...
Excerpts:
"If socialism is about equity concerns, no one will object, though there can be debates about whether that equity should be on inputs (access to health, education, credit and so on) or outcomes (incomes). But if socialism is interpreted as public ownership of means of production, as it often is, there is every reason to object. Economists typically classify means of production as land (natural resources is a broader concept), labour, capital and entrepreneurship. While there is no reason to equate public ownership with state ownership, de facto, that equation is the norm. Both theoretically and empirically, public ownership of means of production like land, labour and capital is inefficient, especially if combined with monopoly. And no one has yet figured out how the state can be entrepreneurial. "
"Today’s Constitution is not the one we inherited in 1950. The Constitution is a living document, there is no reason for it to be cast in stone. There is a process for amending the Constitution. But that doesn’t necessarily mean every amendment to the Constitution has been desirable. "
"The Preamble to the Constitution now makes India a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. That wasn’t the original Preamble. Socialist and secular were added through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Let’s focus on the socialist part. First, every constitutional expert says since 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati case) the basic structure can’t be changed. But isn’t this a change in basic structure? Second, one might argue the Preamble isn’t really law, it isn’t enforceable in a court. Therefore, it doesn’t change the basic structure. However, that’s only half true. In that same case (Kesavananda Bharati), the Supreme Court held the Preamble is important in interpreting law. Third, if the Preamble was unimportant, what was the need to amend it? There are several other provisions in the Constitution (including Directive Principles) to drive goals of equity. "
"Fourth, it is not that framers of the Constitution were unfamiliar with the concept of “socialism”. It was consciously kept out, for very cogent reasons. In Constituent Assembly debates, Dr Ambedkar was prescient in opposing such an amendment (to the draft)"
"Fifth, from late-’60s to mid-’70s, several undesirable changes were introduced in economic policy and laws. The 42nd Amendment is part of that. If we are changing other elements, why not the Preamble?"
"But for the Preamble, we wouldn’t have had Section 29-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951, inserted in 1989, specifically Clause (5), requiring the political party to abide by “principles of socialism”. This would have been understandable in 1976. In 1989, the year in which the Berlin Wall collapsed (effectively, so did the Soviet system), this socialism bit in Clause (5) probably got inserted without a great deal of thought, because of the other elements of Section 29-A. Hence, a political party has to be “socialist” for it to be registered."
"The NGO Good Governance Foundation rightly challenged this — that is, challenged both amended Preamble and Section 29-A(5). In 2008, the Supreme Court ducked. It allowed the challenge to Section 29-A(5), but not the Preamble. Now, on the challenge to Section 29-A(5), the Supreme Court has ducked again, calling the issue “academic and hypothetical”. Why is it academic and hypothetical? Because no registered political party has refused to swear allegiance to socialism? And because the Election Commission (EC) hasn’t so far refused registration to a proposed political party on grounds of non-adherence to socialism. Let that situation crop up, and then we (the Supreme Court) shall see. "
"Sharad Joshi (Shetkari Sangathana) once told me he refused to register a proper political party because of this offensive clause. Therefore, we do have a problem."
...
End To Regression
India is experiencing a sudden mushrooming of self-styled keepers of public morality and traditions. They usually target the weaker sections of the society.The Government ignores such atrocities and anti-democratic procedures. Semu Bhatt writes on the atrocious diktats of traditional torch bearers – Khap Panchayats – in the latest issue of SouthAsia Magazine.
Excerpts:
"Khap is a geographical entity comprising a cluster of villages, prevalent in parts of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Western Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The Khap Panchayat – a distinct entity from the Gram Panchayat (elected village council) – is an age-old caste council for upholding caste norms. While these Panchayats do play a role in settling the community disputes, they are more known, rather feared, for forceful imposition of their diktats in the name of preserving community honor and traditions. The Khaps are synonymous to rich Jat landowners, who use these bodies as instruments to perpetuate their hold on land, women and customs. People from the marginalized sections and women have no place in the Khap bodies. It is no coincidence then that most of the Khap atrocities are committed against the weaker sex and sections of the society. "
"Sa-gotra marriages, intra-village marriages, marriages in bordering villages, or those where one’s village enjoys relation of brotherhood – are all prohibited as incestuous. Inter-caste marriages are also a taboo to maintain caste purities. The couples who violate these norms are forced to annul their marriage and accept the spouse as a sibling. Those who do not comply are expelled from the village, their families are publicly humiliated, heavily fined and economically and socially ostracized. In many instances, Khap Panchayats even order rapes and executions."
"The state establishment and police ignore such criminal diktats and undemocratic ways of functioning, as Khaps represent the collective strength of nearly 30% of the electorate. The promptness with which prominent politicians from across the spectrum jumped in to take up the case of sa-gotra marriage ban, shows their readiness to appease communities for votes, even if such communities are regressive and act contrary to the laws and ethos of our nation."
`
"The real reason behind the recent surge in Khap activities is to arrest the decline in their power and relevance, and to prove that they can still flex political muscle. This massive consolidation of Khap Panchayats is to reassert their authority as the torch-bearers of the Jat customs – a position that is being challenged in the current socio-economic scenario by educated youth and political ascension of Dalits and women in gram panchayats thanks to reservations. The neofeudal, patriarchal mindset of the Khap leaders makes it impossible for them to accept Dalits and women as having any rights or standing, let alone being their equals or superiors. Khap Panchayats have always been severe on Dalits and have meted out barbaric punishments – including lynching, public gang rape and naked parading of women, burning of their houses, etc. – in cases where they were found to have violated the Khap norms."
"Agreed that it is imperative that the State respects the traditions of various communities – and the Indian Constitution and laws do have extensive provisions to take care of the heterogeneity of Indian cultures and customs – but no traditional institute has the right to assume extra-Constitutional powers and defy the rule of law. "
"Even the Naxalites, who see things mainly from economics purview, agree that caste inequalities have caused massive subjugation and injustice to the ribals, Dalits and deprived of the nation – many of whom now are Naxalite cadres or supporters. For these socially discriminated classes of people, Naxalism brings hope – which government fails to, and also a shred of dignity – which is otherwise denied to them by the upper castes and classes. No wonder, India is finding it hard to quell this menace that has spread to 40% of India’s geographical area; after all, there is no dearth of oppressed poor in this vast country."
"India is witnessing a lot of political mobilization on the basis of limited identity. There has been a sudden mushrooming of self-styled keepers of public morality and traditions in India. They tell what to wear, watch, celebrate; what language to communicate and do business in; where to live; whom to marry. In a time and age where multiculturalism is under tremendous strain worldwide, a heterogeneous country like India can ill afford to let such divisive politics and narrow chauvinism erode the composite social, religious and cultural fabric of the nation. Good governance, inclusive development and democracy and effective rule of law are required to win back the confidence of the people in the Indian national identity. In the past, India has successfully withstood many challenges to her pluralistic ideals. It is time to extend this inclusive ethos of the nation beyond the constitutional realm and into social, political and economic spheres with full effect, if India is to become a truly glorious example of “unity in diversity” to the whole world."
Excerpts:
"Khap is a geographical entity comprising a cluster of villages, prevalent in parts of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Western Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The Khap Panchayat – a distinct entity from the Gram Panchayat (elected village council) – is an age-old caste council for upholding caste norms. While these Panchayats do play a role in settling the community disputes, they are more known, rather feared, for forceful imposition of their diktats in the name of preserving community honor and traditions. The Khaps are synonymous to rich Jat landowners, who use these bodies as instruments to perpetuate their hold on land, women and customs. People from the marginalized sections and women have no place in the Khap bodies. It is no coincidence then that most of the Khap atrocities are committed against the weaker sex and sections of the society. "
"Sa-gotra marriages, intra-village marriages, marriages in bordering villages, or those where one’s village enjoys relation of brotherhood – are all prohibited as incestuous. Inter-caste marriages are also a taboo to maintain caste purities. The couples who violate these norms are forced to annul their marriage and accept the spouse as a sibling. Those who do not comply are expelled from the village, their families are publicly humiliated, heavily fined and economically and socially ostracized. In many instances, Khap Panchayats even order rapes and executions."
"The state establishment and police ignore such criminal diktats and undemocratic ways of functioning, as Khaps represent the collective strength of nearly 30% of the electorate. The promptness with which prominent politicians from across the spectrum jumped in to take up the case of sa-gotra marriage ban, shows their readiness to appease communities for votes, even if such communities are regressive and act contrary to the laws and ethos of our nation."
`
"The real reason behind the recent surge in Khap activities is to arrest the decline in their power and relevance, and to prove that they can still flex political muscle. This massive consolidation of Khap Panchayats is to reassert their authority as the torch-bearers of the Jat customs – a position that is being challenged in the current socio-economic scenario by educated youth and political ascension of Dalits and women in gram panchayats thanks to reservations. The neofeudal, patriarchal mindset of the Khap leaders makes it impossible for them to accept Dalits and women as having any rights or standing, let alone being their equals or superiors. Khap Panchayats have always been severe on Dalits and have meted out barbaric punishments – including lynching, public gang rape and naked parading of women, burning of their houses, etc. – in cases where they were found to have violated the Khap norms."
"Agreed that it is imperative that the State respects the traditions of various communities – and the Indian Constitution and laws do have extensive provisions to take care of the heterogeneity of Indian cultures and customs – but no traditional institute has the right to assume extra-Constitutional powers and defy the rule of law. "
"Even the Naxalites, who see things mainly from economics purview, agree that caste inequalities have caused massive subjugation and injustice to the ribals, Dalits and deprived of the nation – many of whom now are Naxalite cadres or supporters. For these socially discriminated classes of people, Naxalism brings hope – which government fails to, and also a shred of dignity – which is otherwise denied to them by the upper castes and classes. No wonder, India is finding it hard to quell this menace that has spread to 40% of India’s geographical area; after all, there is no dearth of oppressed poor in this vast country."
"India is witnessing a lot of political mobilization on the basis of limited identity. There has been a sudden mushrooming of self-styled keepers of public morality and traditions in India. They tell what to wear, watch, celebrate; what language to communicate and do business in; where to live; whom to marry. In a time and age where multiculturalism is under tremendous strain worldwide, a heterogeneous country like India can ill afford to let such divisive politics and narrow chauvinism erode the composite social, religious and cultural fabric of the nation. Good governance, inclusive development and democracy and effective rule of law are required to win back the confidence of the people in the Indian national identity. In the past, India has successfully withstood many challenges to her pluralistic ideals. It is time to extend this inclusive ethos of the nation beyond the constitutional realm and into social, political and economic spheres with full effect, if India is to become a truly glorious example of “unity in diversity” to the whole world."
Friday, July 16, 2010
A democracy can’t have a fixed ideology
Sanjiv Agarwal's article titled "A democracy can’t have a fixed ideology" was published in The Economic Times on 16th July 2010.
Excerpts:
The largest multi-party democracy in the world cannot have a fixed ideology of the state. That is the view taken by founding fathers of the Indian Constitution. There were debates in the constituent assembly on whether the word ‘socialist’ should be included in the preamble.
...
Our founding fathers were great social democrats. They could not bind future generations to one ideology even if it was their own. What went wrong then? What was the need to put the socialist tag on India by later politicians? The question is open. How does it matter? Well, it does, because it is about our Constitution. We may become an Orwellian Animal Farm if we don’t care about it. The 42nd amendment provision that inserted the word socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 was challenged in the Supreme Court. The court ruled that though it was an important question, it would be looked into as and when the situation demanded.
As the situation stands today, talking against socialism could be high treason and it takes only a despotic ruler to do the rest. History is proof of that. The present situation is that every political party in India swears by socialism before being allowed to register. That takes away space for ideas and opinions. Worst of all, it legitimises curbs on essential freedoms. For example, the fundamental right to property was eliminated in the 44th amendment of 1978. No one noticed because we were already a socialist country! The safety belt that saved us from being taken over by the state was lost. That is why it should matter.
Excerpts:
The largest multi-party democracy in the world cannot have a fixed ideology of the state. That is the view taken by founding fathers of the Indian Constitution. There were debates in the constituent assembly on whether the word ‘socialist’ should be included in the preamble.
...
Our founding fathers were great social democrats. They could not bind future generations to one ideology even if it was their own. What went wrong then? What was the need to put the socialist tag on India by later politicians? The question is open. How does it matter? Well, it does, because it is about our Constitution. We may become an Orwellian Animal Farm if we don’t care about it. The 42nd amendment provision that inserted the word socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 was challenged in the Supreme Court. The court ruled that though it was an important question, it would be looked into as and when the situation demanded.
As the situation stands today, talking against socialism could be high treason and it takes only a despotic ruler to do the rest. History is proof of that. The present situation is that every political party in India swears by socialism before being allowed to register. That takes away space for ideas and opinions. Worst of all, it legitimises curbs on essential freedoms. For example, the fundamental right to property was eliminated in the 44th amendment of 1978. No one noticed because we were already a socialist country! The safety belt that saved us from being taken over by the state was lost. That is why it should matter.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
UPSC topper from Kashmir credits Indian Constitution for his success
The All india topper in civil services exam, Dr Shah Faisal attibuted his success to the equality guaranteed by the Indian constitution. "One should never forget the fact that he is an Indian irrespective of his religion. No body can stop you from achieving the goal, if you are capable", he said, reports Expressindia.
All India topper at UPSC civil services exam Dr Shah Faisal has attributed his success to the provision of equality for all enshrined in the Indian constitution.
"Indian constitution provides for giving equal rights to everyone irrespective of caste, religion, region and my success in the UPSC exam is a result of that," Faisal, who hails from Kashmir, said at a felicitation function here last night.
Stating that there was no better country than India, Faisal said, "We create controversies over pity things like caste, religion, region and language."
"There is no reason to get upset if someone doubts your Indianness because you are a Muslim. There is no need for a certificate from anybody that you are an Indian. Practise any religion in your home or society but outside, do not ever forget that you are an Indian and learn to respect people from other religions," he said.
"In pursuit of your goal, you will find people who will trouble you because you belong to a particular religion, caste, region but if you have the capability, then nobody can stop you from overcoming these hurdles and reach your goal, Faisal added.
All India topper at UPSC civil services exam Dr Shah Faisal has attributed his success to the provision of equality for all enshrined in the Indian constitution.
"Indian constitution provides for giving equal rights to everyone irrespective of caste, religion, region and my success in the UPSC exam is a result of that," Faisal, who hails from Kashmir, said at a felicitation function here last night.
Stating that there was no better country than India, Faisal said, "We create controversies over pity things like caste, religion, region and language."
"There is no reason to get upset if someone doubts your Indianness because you are a Muslim. There is no need for a certificate from anybody that you are an Indian. Practise any religion in your home or society but outside, do not ever forget that you are an Indian and learn to respect people from other religions," he said.
"In pursuit of your goal, you will find people who will trouble you because you belong to a particular religion, caste, region but if you have the capability, then nobody can stop you from overcoming these hurdles and reach your goal, Faisal added.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Opportunity Lost
Mayawati, the controversial queen of the Dalits, is in the news for all the wrong reasons ever since her crowning in 2007. Hers is the typical story of grit and determination to win against all odds. It is also the story of success of Indian democracy that opened the doors for an underclass woman to lead India's biggest state, Uttar Pradesh. Sadly, however, it is also the story of misusing public money for self-glorification and much ink has been spilt on that. Media and opposition parties have been crying hoarse over this politician, who champions causes of the poor, for her vulgar display of wealth - be it her lavish birthday parties, her diamond jewellery and real estate acquisitions or her statues and parks.
What her critics do not understand is that these outlandish acts are tactical moves on her part for the consumption of her Dalit supporters. For them, Mayawati's riches and power are symbols of collective Dalit power and wealth; her statues, Dalit entry into community space; and her birthday parties, their right to celebrations - all of which was forbidden for the underclass by the upper castes for centuries. So, while her critics find the sight of Mayawati getting a multi-million 1000 rupee note garland obscene, her underprivileged supporters get ecstatic by the same.
...
Three years into power and she has been too busy acquiring - so much so that she pays advance tax of rupees 140 million - to have found time for positive policy making. She says it's all gifted to her by her impoverished supporters! The queen moves with a convoy of 34 vehicles to the great inconvenience of people - and commoners are not even allowed to look at her grand march. She transfers and suspends high ranking officials who do not toe her line, or who are suspected of being close to Mulayam. She unabashedly and deliberately ambushes welfare schemes of the Central government for the fear of Congress regaining foothold in her Dalit fort. While 26,000 vacancies remain unfilled in the police force in UP, Mayawati bends rules to create a special force at a staggering cost of 90 million rupees to protect her statues. This at a time when the state has the highest number of atrocities against the Dalits, not to mention highest crime rates in India. The same day, she refuses to implement Right to Education under the pretext of lack of funds.
...
The problem with the Mayawati government is that indulgence in symbolism is all that is there on the cards. When a Dalit CM takes to the office for the fourth time in a state - this time with a clear mandate - it is strange to find her lacking a definite agenda for uplifting masses from the clutches of underdevelopment. But, like her previous stints as CM, this time too Mayawati has chosen to please her Dalit voters through symbolism and not through any structural changes for their socio-economic emancipation. Mayawati needs to understand that Dalits are no fools.
...
Mayawati has not only squandered away the goodwill reposed in her by the Dalits, but also a chance to rise above the identity politics and project herself as a visionary leader. Being a Dalit who came to power by forging an unlikely coalition with upper castes and Muslims, Mayawati was presented with a historic opportunity to move beyond the narrow caste considerations that had plagued the UP politics since the post-Mandal times and leverage this trust displayed in her by various segments of the society, to bridge social divides.
... ... ...
Dr. Ambedkar had an opportunity to write the Indian Constitution. He created history by introducing reservations as a way forward to make all Indians equal. Mayawati, on the other hand, misused all the opportunities that democracy offered her, by doing precious little for the underclass. She was the mother goddess to her people; their savior who was expected to liberate them from social and economic subjugation. In the end, she turned out to be just another mortal; just another rebel with all lost causes.
Read the full article by Semu Bhatt here in Southasia Online.
What her critics do not understand is that these outlandish acts are tactical moves on her part for the consumption of her Dalit supporters. For them, Mayawati's riches and power are symbols of collective Dalit power and wealth; her statues, Dalit entry into community space; and her birthday parties, their right to celebrations - all of which was forbidden for the underclass by the upper castes for centuries. So, while her critics find the sight of Mayawati getting a multi-million 1000 rupee note garland obscene, her underprivileged supporters get ecstatic by the same.
...
Three years into power and she has been too busy acquiring - so much so that she pays advance tax of rupees 140 million - to have found time for positive policy making. She says it's all gifted to her by her impoverished supporters! The queen moves with a convoy of 34 vehicles to the great inconvenience of people - and commoners are not even allowed to look at her grand march. She transfers and suspends high ranking officials who do not toe her line, or who are suspected of being close to Mulayam. She unabashedly and deliberately ambushes welfare schemes of the Central government for the fear of Congress regaining foothold in her Dalit fort. While 26,000 vacancies remain unfilled in the police force in UP, Mayawati bends rules to create a special force at a staggering cost of 90 million rupees to protect her statues. This at a time when the state has the highest number of atrocities against the Dalits, not to mention highest crime rates in India. The same day, she refuses to implement Right to Education under the pretext of lack of funds.
...
The problem with the Mayawati government is that indulgence in symbolism is all that is there on the cards. When a Dalit CM takes to the office for the fourth time in a state - this time with a clear mandate - it is strange to find her lacking a definite agenda for uplifting masses from the clutches of underdevelopment. But, like her previous stints as CM, this time too Mayawati has chosen to please her Dalit voters through symbolism and not through any structural changes for their socio-economic emancipation. Mayawati needs to understand that Dalits are no fools.
...
Mayawati has not only squandered away the goodwill reposed in her by the Dalits, but also a chance to rise above the identity politics and project herself as a visionary leader. Being a Dalit who came to power by forging an unlikely coalition with upper castes and Muslims, Mayawati was presented with a historic opportunity to move beyond the narrow caste considerations that had plagued the UP politics since the post-Mandal times and leverage this trust displayed in her by various segments of the society, to bridge social divides.
... ... ...
Dr. Ambedkar had an opportunity to write the Indian Constitution. He created history by introducing reservations as a way forward to make all Indians equal. Mayawati, on the other hand, misused all the opportunities that democracy offered her, by doing precious little for the underclass. She was the mother goddess to her people; their savior who was expected to liberate them from social and economic subjugation. In the end, she turned out to be just another mortal; just another rebel with all lost causes.
Read the full article by Semu Bhatt here in Southasia Online.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The political fallout of the battle of the sexes
The women’s reservation bill will disempower the voter, and reduce the incentive for the elected representative to be seriously concerned with the issues affecting the constituencies.
Barun S Mitra
Pragati: The Indian National Interest Review
April 2010
http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2010/04/the-political-fallout-of-the-battle-of-the-sexes/
Symbolism plays a very important role in politics. So it was symbolic that on Monday, March 8th, 2010, the centenary of the International Women’s Day, the governing UPA coalition wanted to present the country with a constitutional amendment to empower women, by reserving 33 percent of the seats for women in national and state legislatures. And it was also indicative of things to come when, at the end of the day, the law minister acknowledged that it was national day of shame, as a few unruly MPs, particularly in the Rajya Sabha, created such a ruckus that the house had to be adjourned six times without conducting much business.
The bill was adopted in the Rajya Sabha the next day, with a overwhelming majority of 186 to 1, out of a total strength of 225, with some of the opposition parties staging a walkout. The government promised to bring further amendments to the bill, and also decided to wait till after the passing of finance bill in the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament, rather than undertake the adventurous constitutional amendment immediately in the Lok Sabha.
While hardly anyone is opposed to the idea of greater political participation by women, yet the political and intellectual divide over the bill can hardly be papered over. Its implementation would have grave consequences for the quality of governance and political culture in the country.
With the major political parties from the governing and opposition sides having expressed their support for the bill, the passage of this constitutional amendment should have been a simple matter. Yet it has not been a smooth sailing for this bill, illustrating the political hypocrisy that underscores the apparent sense of unanimity that surrounds the bill.
The bill had been pending for about 14 years, and many political parties routinely vouched for it in their election manifesto over the past decade. Despite the obvious divide over this issue, there had hardly been any attempt to seriously discuss and explore the implications of this proposal, even within the political parties.
First, it shows that party leaders responsible for drafting their manifestos rarely take that document seriously enough, and therefore do not feel the need to consult even their own party candidates about the key provisions. The candidates take the cue, and focus only on winning elections, not on the policy agenda. There are major political parties that have given up preparing election manifestos altogether.
Secondly, the hollowness of the political consensus stood exposed from the fact that without the fear of disobeying the party whip and attracting the penalty of disqualification from the house under the anti-defection law, the women’s reservations bill could not be passed in parliament. There was no substantive debate on any of the real clauses of the bill in the Rajya Sabha, except perfunctory commitment to gender equality. Afghanistan and Rwanda were presented as models of women’s empowerment in the India’s temple of democracy.
So, the third point that emerges is that under the anti-defection law, parliamentary debate itself has become a casualty. After all, what is the purpose of a debate if under the discipline of the party whip, parliament is turned only in to a number counting chamber. Should it come as a surprise, then, that debates have been increasingly displaced by disruptions in the supreme debating chamber of the country?
Fourth, if there was genuine widespread political and social support for reservation of seats for women in legislatures, would such a constitutional amendment be necessary at all. Nothing prevents the political parties from choosing more women candidates, and nominating more women from constituencies where they have strong presence, thereby enabling more women to enter the legislatures. Parties do not give too many tickets to women because they do not see women as being able to win election on their own strength.
Fifth, it is argued that putting more women in legislatures will somehow change the status of women in the country. It is another matter that having one of the first women prime ministers in the world, in the mid-1960s, did not really change the fortunes of most women in India. Some of the worst forms of discrimination and deprivation of women continue to take place, with not many politically active women raising their voice against the daily atrocities.
Sixth, there are women leaders like Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, and Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, who have been able to rise on their own on the political map of the country through persistence and political acumen. Others like Sushma Swaraj, Vasundhara Raje and Brinda Karat have been vocal and visible. And there is Sonia Gandhi, who despite the family name, had to struggle to revive the political fortunes of her party. None of these women needed political reservations to find their own space. So, in the name of empowering women, this bill perpetuates the belief that women cannot make it in politics on their own.
Seventh, the bill raises a fundamental question about the nature of India’s representative democracy. If the reservation of constituencies for SC and STs were considered a temporary anomaly necessary to correct some historical wrongs, the reservation for a section of the population, the women, inevitably undermines the first past the post (FPTP) election system that India had adopted. The bill raises the prospect of fundamentally moving India towards a proportional representation system dividing the population on sectoral lines. The clamour for caste and minority quota within the women’s quota is a logical step in that direction. This would be a fundamental change from the basic design of the constitution, and the debates in the constituent assembly, when the notion of separate electorates was debated and rejected.
Eighth, from the past political experience, it is clear that reserving seats for SC and STs did not lead to the development of authentic political leadership within those communities. Indeed, it led to the creation of a generation of leaders who were pliable and dedicated more to their parties than to the people. The leadership among some of the other historically oppressed sections of society emerged only as the newer leaders mobilised politically, and not because of any reservation, and created their own political territories.
Ninth, it is said that there is a potential political dividend by giving greater space for women, and women as a class would vote en masse for parties that support that section. This is not only vote bank politics at its worst but is completely futile. Sectional mobilisation has rarely worked politically, and could never be sustained. There is no national constituency for women, just as there is none for men.
This of course raises the question, if the social and political context is not conducive why do we have such a demand for reservation for women in legislature.
Everyone agrees that the proposal will significantly change the political contour of India. At one stroke, by rotating the constituencies reserved for women, an enormous political churning will be triggered. Powerful political leaders, legislators who may have nurtured their constituencies seriously for years, will be undermined at a stroke. In effect this will disempower the voter, and reduce the incentive for the elected representative to be seriously concerned with the issues affecting the constituencies. This alone could be a ground for testing the constitutionality of this amendment, because it dilutes the idea of political accountability and representative democratic character, it could fall foul of the basic feature doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court.
In a system where the voters are not in a position to assess the performance of their representative, the parties have to constantly search for new candidates and where there is no inner party democracy there will be one set of of beneficiaries. The proposal to reserve and rotate a third of the legislative seats for women is mainly an attempt by entrenched party leaders to hide behind the fairer sex, to further empower their own authority over the lesser members of the party in the legislature. In an era of coalition politics and fragmentation of the polity this is a misguided attempt by party leaders to keep control over their flock.
Ironically, the bill has also exposed the weakness of the political leadership in all the major parties. No one doubts that Mrs Gandhi’s writ runs in the Congress party. But even she is counting on the anti-defection law to get her will enforced among her party MPs. And despite all her authority within her party, she will not find it easy to replace so many of her MPs and aspiring candidates with women of her choice, without the force of law behind her. The situation is the same within all parties, which is the main reason why entrenched party leaders are supporting this bill.
If the anti-defection law has undermined democracy within the legislative chambers, the rotational reservation for women, with its attendant political turnover, will undermine the democratic process outside.
Barun S Mitra
Pragati: The Indian National Interest Review
April 2010
http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2010/04/the-political-fallout-of-the-battle-of-the-sexes/
Symbolism plays a very important role in politics. So it was symbolic that on Monday, March 8th, 2010, the centenary of the International Women’s Day, the governing UPA coalition wanted to present the country with a constitutional amendment to empower women, by reserving 33 percent of the seats for women in national and state legislatures. And it was also indicative of things to come when, at the end of the day, the law minister acknowledged that it was national day of shame, as a few unruly MPs, particularly in the Rajya Sabha, created such a ruckus that the house had to be adjourned six times without conducting much business.
The bill was adopted in the Rajya Sabha the next day, with a overwhelming majority of 186 to 1, out of a total strength of 225, with some of the opposition parties staging a walkout. The government promised to bring further amendments to the bill, and also decided to wait till after the passing of finance bill in the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament, rather than undertake the adventurous constitutional amendment immediately in the Lok Sabha.
While hardly anyone is opposed to the idea of greater political participation by women, yet the political and intellectual divide over the bill can hardly be papered over. Its implementation would have grave consequences for the quality of governance and political culture in the country.
With the major political parties from the governing and opposition sides having expressed their support for the bill, the passage of this constitutional amendment should have been a simple matter. Yet it has not been a smooth sailing for this bill, illustrating the political hypocrisy that underscores the apparent sense of unanimity that surrounds the bill.
The bill had been pending for about 14 years, and many political parties routinely vouched for it in their election manifesto over the past decade. Despite the obvious divide over this issue, there had hardly been any attempt to seriously discuss and explore the implications of this proposal, even within the political parties.
First, it shows that party leaders responsible for drafting their manifestos rarely take that document seriously enough, and therefore do not feel the need to consult even their own party candidates about the key provisions. The candidates take the cue, and focus only on winning elections, not on the policy agenda. There are major political parties that have given up preparing election manifestos altogether.
Secondly, the hollowness of the political consensus stood exposed from the fact that without the fear of disobeying the party whip and attracting the penalty of disqualification from the house under the anti-defection law, the women’s reservations bill could not be passed in parliament. There was no substantive debate on any of the real clauses of the bill in the Rajya Sabha, except perfunctory commitment to gender equality. Afghanistan and Rwanda were presented as models of women’s empowerment in the India’s temple of democracy.
So, the third point that emerges is that under the anti-defection law, parliamentary debate itself has become a casualty. After all, what is the purpose of a debate if under the discipline of the party whip, parliament is turned only in to a number counting chamber. Should it come as a surprise, then, that debates have been increasingly displaced by disruptions in the supreme debating chamber of the country?
Fourth, if there was genuine widespread political and social support for reservation of seats for women in legislatures, would such a constitutional amendment be necessary at all. Nothing prevents the political parties from choosing more women candidates, and nominating more women from constituencies where they have strong presence, thereby enabling more women to enter the legislatures. Parties do not give too many tickets to women because they do not see women as being able to win election on their own strength.
Fifth, it is argued that putting more women in legislatures will somehow change the status of women in the country. It is another matter that having one of the first women prime ministers in the world, in the mid-1960s, did not really change the fortunes of most women in India. Some of the worst forms of discrimination and deprivation of women continue to take place, with not many politically active women raising their voice against the daily atrocities.
Sixth, there are women leaders like Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, and Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, who have been able to rise on their own on the political map of the country through persistence and political acumen. Others like Sushma Swaraj, Vasundhara Raje and Brinda Karat have been vocal and visible. And there is Sonia Gandhi, who despite the family name, had to struggle to revive the political fortunes of her party. None of these women needed political reservations to find their own space. So, in the name of empowering women, this bill perpetuates the belief that women cannot make it in politics on their own.
Seventh, the bill raises a fundamental question about the nature of India’s representative democracy. If the reservation of constituencies for SC and STs were considered a temporary anomaly necessary to correct some historical wrongs, the reservation for a section of the population, the women, inevitably undermines the first past the post (FPTP) election system that India had adopted. The bill raises the prospect of fundamentally moving India towards a proportional representation system dividing the population on sectoral lines. The clamour for caste and minority quota within the women’s quota is a logical step in that direction. This would be a fundamental change from the basic design of the constitution, and the debates in the constituent assembly, when the notion of separate electorates was debated and rejected.
Eighth, from the past political experience, it is clear that reserving seats for SC and STs did not lead to the development of authentic political leadership within those communities. Indeed, it led to the creation of a generation of leaders who were pliable and dedicated more to their parties than to the people. The leadership among some of the other historically oppressed sections of society emerged only as the newer leaders mobilised politically, and not because of any reservation, and created their own political territories.
Ninth, it is said that there is a potential political dividend by giving greater space for women, and women as a class would vote en masse for parties that support that section. This is not only vote bank politics at its worst but is completely futile. Sectional mobilisation has rarely worked politically, and could never be sustained. There is no national constituency for women, just as there is none for men.
This of course raises the question, if the social and political context is not conducive why do we have such a demand for reservation for women in legislature.
Everyone agrees that the proposal will significantly change the political contour of India. At one stroke, by rotating the constituencies reserved for women, an enormous political churning will be triggered. Powerful political leaders, legislators who may have nurtured their constituencies seriously for years, will be undermined at a stroke. In effect this will disempower the voter, and reduce the incentive for the elected representative to be seriously concerned with the issues affecting the constituencies. This alone could be a ground for testing the constitutionality of this amendment, because it dilutes the idea of political accountability and representative democratic character, it could fall foul of the basic feature doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court.
In a system where the voters are not in a position to assess the performance of their representative, the parties have to constantly search for new candidates and where there is no inner party democracy there will be one set of of beneficiaries. The proposal to reserve and rotate a third of the legislative seats for women is mainly an attempt by entrenched party leaders to hide behind the fairer sex, to further empower their own authority over the lesser members of the party in the legislature. In an era of coalition politics and fragmentation of the polity this is a misguided attempt by party leaders to keep control over their flock.
Ironically, the bill has also exposed the weakness of the political leadership in all the major parties. No one doubts that Mrs Gandhi’s writ runs in the Congress party. But even she is counting on the anti-defection law to get her will enforced among her party MPs. And despite all her authority within her party, she will not find it easy to replace so many of her MPs and aspiring candidates with women of her choice, without the force of law behind her. The situation is the same within all parties, which is the main reason why entrenched party leaders are supporting this bill.
If the anti-defection law has undermined democracy within the legislative chambers, the rotational reservation for women, with its attendant political turnover, will undermine the democratic process outside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
