Last-minute truce
THE now postponed election of the Deputy Speaker had all the thrill and (anti-)climax of a cheap novel because the script was prepared shoddily in the first place.
Gill on poll reforms
THAT the Representation of the People Act in its present form is largely responsible for giving the system of parliamentary democracy a bad name is a point on which there should be little disagreement.
Saviours or killers?
IF one hears about police personnel indulging in acts of harassment and intimidation, one would not be surprised.

DAMAGING DEMOCRACY
by K. F. Rustamji
WE are so full of pride that democracy has worked well in India that we are unable to see the damage being done.
The curse called
entrance tests
by Mangu Ram Gupta
ALMOST all universities and technical and medical colleges have come to be plagued by “entrance tests”.

‘Not system, but parties have failed’ By K. Vaidiyanathan SOMNATH Chatterjee, leader of the CPM group in the Lok Sabha, is a highly pragmatic Marxist theoretician who does not cling to dogma and resists change. Case of mistaken identity by Iqbal Singh Ahuja SEASONS are God-made but their utilisation is purely human. Man is fidgety by nature. Too much of rain or too much of heat means holidays.

75 Years Ago

Support for Nagpur Satyagraha
AT a meeting of the Delhi Provincial Congress Committee held last night resolutions were passed expressing sympathy with the Satyagraha movement in the Central Provinces and promising to send a batch of volunteers to keep alive the national flag agitation in Nagpur and Jabbulpore districts.

Last-minute truce

THE now postponed election of the Deputy Speaker had all the thrill and (anti-)climax of a cheap novel because the script was prepared shoddily in the first place. Even half an hour before the deadline for filing nominations on Monday, nobody was sure what was happening or what was going to happen. Nothing surprising in that, because that is how the government has been functioning almost from the start. In the end, the trial of strength was averted and an uneasy truce signed. This was not exactly the sign of sagacity on either side. The actual reasons were less noble. The basic one was that neither side was sure of victory and thus did not want to precipitate a crisis. The Congress was particularly worried about its numerical strength, what with 20 of Opposition MPs being away from Delhi. Moreover, it was also keen to send a positive signal to Ms Mamata Banerjee. And as far as the Bharatiya Janata Party was concerned, it had been let down by its allies so many times that it was hardly in a position to risk another scuffle with the Bengal tigress. Ms Banerjee had her own reasons to resent the nomination of Ms Rita Verma, the major one being personal pique. She was cut up because she was not consulted before the name of the three-time MP from Dhanbad was announced. In her view, she is too junior and too non-descript to be fit for this elevation. Then there were many state-level considerations. Her Trinamul Congress has annoyed the Muslim voters over the issue of the treatment meted out to people from Bangladesh (which many from Bengal claim are Bengalis) in Maharashtra. She could not have afforded to oppose the candidature of Mr P.M. Sayeed. Muslim voters comprise a sizeable chunk in Bengal and have a history of voting en bloc. The defeat in Bowbazar was too fresh to stop hurting. Similarly, the AIADMK had its Tamil Nadu-centric compulsions.

While the Biju Janata Dal was firmly for a contest, the BJP was concerned that many in its own ranks, including those from north-eastern states, were opposed to the fight. The party knows that the Opposition is bent upon embarrassing it and the contest for Deputy Speakership could have come in handy. That is why it backed out despite earlier brave postures. The country will have to do without a Deputy Speaker for quite a few months to come. Current indications are that when the issue is taken up again during the winter session of Parliament, the name of a third "consensus candidate" might emerge. Both sides have thus come out with honours intact but the episode does nothing to enhance the reputation of the government. The "rollback" not only underlines how precariously it is positioned but also speaks volumes about its "far-sightedness". Insisting on getting the post of Deputy Speaker was ill-advised. Not being able to foresee the reaction of its coalition partners to the candidature of Ms Verma was an even bigger mistake. The party will do well to realise that it is riding a jalopy which makes mountains even out of molehills. Under such circumstances, it would be best to avoid each and every pebble. In his own interest, the Prime Minister should start asserting himself. At one stage, he is believed to have indicated to the Congress that he was ready to allow the latter to have its nominee as Deputy Speaker but he later buckled under the pressure of his party hardliners. The result of that policy is before the party.

Gill on poll reforms

THAT the Representation of the People Act in its present form is largely responsible for giving the system of parliamentary democracy a bad name is a point on which there should be little disagreement. It was effective in strengthening the roots of democracy because the political class followed the philosophy of good faith. But the evil winds of change in the current political culture have made the Act virtually redundant and the sooner it is replaced by a new set of laws to bring at least a semblance of method in “political madness,” the better it would be for those who have lost faith in the present system of election of representatives to the country’s legislatures. Chief Election Commissioner M.S. Gill’s suggestions for radical reforms in the election laws deserve serious discussion. However, to expect the political class to take the initiative of discussing the Gill agenda for electoral reforms is to expect the impossible to happen. Although most political parties are publicly in favour of reforms in the electoral laws, they know that a foolproof system would hurt their sectarian interests. After the fiasco in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly, during Chief Minister Kalyan Singh’s infamous exercise of seeking a trust vote, the political parties recognised the infirmities in the anti-defection laws. They should have closed their ranks on this issue to help facilitate the passing of an amendment in the anti-defection laws providing for automatic disqualification of any member or group of members in the event of the member or the group walking out of the party on whose symbol the member or the group contested the election.

Everyone recognises that the laws in their present form encourage wholesale defection. But no steps have been taken to plug the loopholes. Crocodile tears have been shed by the political class on the visible nexus between crime and politics. Mr Gill’s attempt to secure affidavits from candidates stating that no criminal cases are pending against them will not work for the simple reason that the law of the land recognises everyone to be innocent unless one is convicted by the court. The suggestion that special courts should be set up for disposing of criminal cases against the elected representatives within a specified time-frame has few takers among the current stock of politicians. The proposal that the Constitution should be amended to ensure that the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies complete their full term of five years too has received only a lukewarm response from most political parties. Why? Because such an amendment would take away from the Sitaram Kesris and the Jayalalithas the power of political blackmail. Mr Gill understands the flaws in the present system and the suggestions he has made in the course of an interview to a private television network are sound and should be implemented — after the necessary debate — for saving parliamentary democracy from the clutches of the political class which refuses to see the writing on the wall. For close to three years the country is in a state of drift because the governments at the Centre have had no time to devote to matters of state, dependent as they were (and are) on other factors for survival. Only the glue of radical reforms in the election laws can help plug the leaks in the ship of parliamentary democracy.

Saviours or killers?

IF one hears about police personnel indulging in acts of harassment and intimidation, one would not be surprised. Over the years the police has earned this dubious reputation. One comes across any number of stories about policemen having behaved in this manner during those dark days of terrorism in Punjab. But armed forces personnel have had an entirely different image. Whenever and wherever the situation goes out of control and the police is no match to the threatening scenario, the Army is called to come to the rescue of the people in distress. It is not without reason that defence forces personnel are known as the ultimate saviours, at least in a democratic set-up like the one in India. But what do we do when saviours turn into killers, and that too in an insurgency-infested area?

Reports have it that after Manipur, it is the turn of Assam where Army and paramilitary forces personnel have started playing the role of insurgents — coercing people into accepting their unjust demands. A recent case is that of a Colonel, Commandant of 21 Assam Rifles at Lairowching. The Principal of a public school at Maran in Assam has mentioned in a letter he wrote to the institution’s Controlling Provincial House that the Colonel came to the school premises on the evening of July 19 and threatened him and his deputy, the Vice-Principal, to deprive them of their right to live if the students of classes X and XI of the Assam Rifles School at Maran were refused the permission to study at their private institution — Don Bosco School. The Principal and the Vice-Principal were made to understand it clearly that no excuses were to be entertained. Either say “yes” or lose your life! The school head’s plea that they could not take such a decision without consulting the managing committee members carried no meaning for the power-drunk officer, not used to such argumentation. He reminded the Don Bosco head of the cold-blooded murder of the earlier Principal of the same school when he had declined to yield to the pressure tactics of the Army officer. The late Principal had to pay with his life for being upright and unrelenting even under extremely adverse circumstances.

Where do we go from here? It is a highly serious matter and demands urgent action. The image of the Army must not be allowed to be sullied by its own men and officers, misusing the power they happen to exercise because of an extraordinary situation. If people lose their faith in the armed forces too, as is the case with the police, that will be the worst day for India. This must not be allowed to happen. The Army authorities at the higher level must keep vigil over the activities of errant officers. This is as significant a national duty for them as is protecting the country’s borders.

DAMAGING DEMOCRACY
Why this tolerance to uproar?
by K. F. Rustamji

WE are so full of pride, and some surprise, that democracy has worked well in India for 50 years that we are unable to see the damage being done to our system by the tactics of some of the country’s politicians. Today we watch their hooliganism, their defiance of the Speaker, their unmannerly behaviour in interruptions, with stupified amazement. We are so mesmerised that we do not even ask why the Speaker shows such kindly tolerance to uproar.

There are people who say that Indian democracy need not copy the democracies of the West. Our legislators represent many who are illiterate, many who are hungry, and many who want an instant change. They are not interested in the finer points of debate, they say. But let us be clear on one point — they have placed their faith completely in democratic government, not in party squabbles. Should that faith be betrayed?

Our politicians, I suppose, need not follow the conventions of Westminster or Capitol Hill, or go by the conventions which have been established over the years in other countries. It is true we are different and have to improvise. We have to develop a system by which the anguish and needs of the people can be brought up, in a dramatic way if required. Whether this is justification for hooliganism is doubtful. In fact, to believe that the electorate wants disturbances instead of results is itself wrong. We are becoming crude and vulgar in our behaviour, calling it the new politics, blaming the voter for it. Few in the land are prepared to condemn it because it was used in our freedom struggle as part of the freedom of speech.

If Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav want to hold up the proceedings of Parliament in brash and noisy demonstrations, they are two against a thousand million people, certainly two against the whole House elected by those millions. Why does the Speaker allow such an insult to the dignity, traditions and honour of the House and, therefore, the people? I am sure he can see that the methods used by these two members will be followed by other legislators in the land, and will percolate down to the people because it has been accepted in Parliament. It is a method that is totally undemocratic, and needs to be dealt with severely. But who can do it in a phase in our history when all punishment seems to be British in concept: even discipline is at a discount. It is this acceptance of uproar that is the real danger to our democracy. We will be destroyed by the votaries of free speech and extra lung power unless the Speaker stands up fearlessly to stop such tactics. He must insist on obedience: or else put the members out. Pandemonium is not democracy.

Was the withdrawal of the Women’s Reservation Bill, owing to an uproar in Parliament, not the very negation of democracy? It could not be introduced, debated, modified or voted on.

Let us assume for a moment that in a democracy like ours a certain amount of slogan-shouting, police-pushing and stone-throwing are needed to secure a hearing. Then we have to concede that those who suffer the most injustice (and they are 400 million living in poverty) have the right to shatter everything to bits in case they do not get a hearing. That is the chaos we seem to be drifting into, and it can only lead to a dictatorship.

We do not seem to find any sense in reason, or in orderly debate, or in the compromises of a democracy, or in the flowering of the national spirit that comes up in a united democracy. We will remember all this when we have lost it, and come under the heel of some brutish dictator.

Was the uproar in the UP Assembly some months ago an example of an orderly democracy? Can we even think without dismay of the Speaker removing mikes and movable furniture from the House so that it may not be thrown by indignant members at each other? Is this the type of democracy that our founding fathers wanted? Would this have warmed the heart of Mahatma Gandhi? On the other hand there is talk all over the world about the tantrums of our legislators, who have not learnt how to behave and respect each other and the Speaker, which is the first principle of democracy. I think decorum in a democracy ought to be one of the responsibilities of the President. He is the foremost authority in the land, respected, above politics, and yet a part of it, and this is so vital a subject that he cannot avoid taking notice of it. Politicians always seem to mess up politics. At present their only interest is toppling. They love the “kursi”, and keep chanting “Ab uske siva jeena bhi manzoor nahi hai”.

The condition of our nation is so precarious today that we need all the unity that we can muster and take the bashings and the taunts of America with quiet dignity, as the Chinese did for years. It is a feature of all valiant nations that they need someone to bully. We too did that in the 17th century.

The limit in decorum was certainly crossed in Bihar where Janata Dal MLAs hounded the Speaker out of his own assembly, demanding security and housing for a member. The Speaker retreated from the House and locked himself up in his room. The MLAs occupied his office and refused to let the Speaker attend the House. The “gherao” was lifted when security and accommodation were promised. Is there no provision in our codes that would punish such conduct? The incident raises another question: can security be given to those who demand it by a show of hooliganism? Is accommodation also to be provided that way? If we go on at this rate we will be demanding “dulhans” (brides) by “hangama” (disorder).

What is the public reaction to the “hangama” or uproar which is a common feature of our legislatures. The legislators seem to think that it shows how effective they are to the voters. Disorderly behaviour pleases nobody. The majority who respect manners are shocked. The rest of us show disbelief, bordering on alarm. The common man never approves of disorder in the House. Let that be clear to all politicians. Indian culture does not permit uncouth behaviour.

Whenever democracy was derailed by the military, the excuse was disorder in the House and public disgust with it, which made a dictatorship appear to be a better alternative. Ayub Khan forced his way into a dictatorship only on the basis of rowdy behaviour in the legislature, which he said was a threat to the security of Pakistan. Zia-ul-Haq, on the other hand, used religion to suppress politics because he felt it was substandard, and etched a chapter in its history with the blood of his victims, which included his own Prime Minister. All the dictators of Africa rose by making out that politicians were ruining their country by their shouting and shoddy ways, and suppressed them with deadly punishment. Millions perished to remove dictators like Idi Amin.

We miss the old-time debates in our Parliament, the skill of people like G.B. Pant and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the studied interventions of Nehru, even those silent pauses in speeches to make us think. We recall all the orders of the Speaker which were instantly obeyed. We still have good debates on vital subjects. The Pokhran debate, for instance, would do credit to any House anywhere in the world. Let us have many views, more differences, even the most radical of opinions, but let them be put forward politely.

Is it not funny that on both sides, in India and Pakistan, we have Defence Ministers with similar characteristics. Mr George Fernandes is undoubtedly a man of guts. He ought to have been a soldier. His life has been one long battle. If he were a General, he would blaze through the most formidable defences. And like a good soldier he dislikes the calm of his adversaries. He has to contend with a General on the Chinese side who seems to weigh every word with care and grace, and then make sure that he is not misunderstood. In Pakistan, Mr Gohar Ayub is another Major Saab. In a white “band” collar coat with his face having the burnished colour of a good soldier baked in the sun, he seems to have been given the position he occupies only to irritate Indians. And what a good job he does. One way of getting peace would be to shift the Defence Ministers on both sides as Army Chiefs, and give their jobs to anyone who can soothe the nerves of the establishment, even the Army Chiefs who have seen the horrors of war.

It is strange that but for the short accounts of discussions in Parliament given by Doordarshan, we would never know the extent and diversity of the subjects that our members mention in Parliament.

Democracy is the only form of government that can work in a country so vast, so over-populated, so diverse, and so poor. It has proved its worth for the past 50 years in keeping us together in sickness and in health. Every election has shown the faith the people have placed in it. We must not allow politicians to introduce uproar and insult into our legislatures, or damage the decorum of the House with vulgarity and mannerless ways which will gradually penetrate into our daily lives. Every man and woman in India looks up to Parliament for succour and guidance. Our faith in it must be preserved and expanded by the Speakers and by the President.

Case of mistaken identity
by Iqbal Singh Ahuja

SEASONS are God-made but their utilisation is purely human. Man is fidgety by nature. Too much of rain or too much of heat means holidays. And to enjoy them is an art. We also planned a holiday to go to a far away place. The journey included train, air and other different modes of transport.

Somehow whenever we go out on a holiday, we are always in odd numbers. Odd number means I am always left out to sit alone on a separate seat. And, most of the time, my companion is very boring.

This time when we were travelling by a train, I again occupied an odd seat. Many persons came and asked whether that seat was vacant. I looked at their faces and said: “No”. I wanted the companion of my choice. I closed my eyes and prayed for a better companion. After some time I felt as if someone had occupied the seat next to me. I did not want to open my eyes but the fragrance of a particular scent compelled me to open my eyes. “Oh you are here!”

“Why, you did not want me to be over here,” said my wife.

“No I did not mean that.” The train journey ended peacefully.

The next leg was by air. It was supposed to be a Royal Airline but it did not seem like one. The aeroplane and the decor of the plane lacked royalty. Again I was destined to sit on the odd seat. I kept a magazine on my side seat. I could see all sorts of would-be companions. Some people had walkmen with microphone covering their ears, and their eyes covered with dark glasses. I wondered how they saw the passage and listened to the instructions of the air hostess. Probably they believed in the dictum, “See no evil, hear no evil!”

Everybody was in his seat and I thought I will be having a relaxed journey with my side seat vacant. I thought my children would be able to come and sit with me whenever they liked, or exchange their seats at will.

I started reading the magazine and almost dozed off. Suddenly, I realised that somebody had slipped quietly in my next seat. I looked towards my companion. I was astonished, “Hi, I am Sylvia. I hope you don’t mind my sitting with you,” she said politely.

“It is alright,” I told her after having a stealthy look towards my wife from the corner of my eyes.

I got lost in writing again till I was disturbed by the air hostess: “Would you like to have a cup of coffee or tea?”

We started sipping tea.

The chief air hostess happened to be my classfellow. She came, winked and said, “Have a nice company, sir.” In the same breath she told my seat-mate that I am a VIP passenger — a renowned personality. That opened the Pandora’s box.

My seat-mate, Sylvia, had a close look at me and blurted, “I have seen you somewhere”. I told her that I am a small-time writer and write a few articles for my favourite paper. She shrieked, “Oh! I have recognised you. You are a writer of world fame. I have read your articles in various magazines. I have read your books. Oh, you are a genius — a greatman. I am lucky to be here with you today.”

Before I could tell her that it was a case of mistaken identity, she said, “I have seen you on Zee TV, the BBC and the Star TV.” I wanted to get up from the seat, but my safety belt did not allow me to do so. “Now I know you. I can’t pronounce your actual name, but I think you are a Happy Singh.”

I told her “yes, I am a very happy person. God has given me everything in life, name, fame and love from people around.” Only a little bit was left like appearing on Star, Zee and the BBC.

“Sylvia, God is great. He makes us meet persons from different cultures and nations. You know medically the human body is absolutely similar. It is only the dress code and language which makes us different. When we go to God, we will be the same — in similar uniforms whether we are European, American, Russian or Indian,” I sermonised.

“You are a very intellectual person and I am lucky to be with you.” Meanwhile the air hostess came to collect cups and plates, and our discussion stopped for a while.

I was lost in thoughts. I knew it was a case of mistaken identity. “Whom was she thinking about?” I asked myself. I started thinking about various personalities who could fit in with her verdict.

The plane was going to land and she took out a novel. “Mr Singh, look this is your novel, ‘Train to Pakistan’, a down-to-earth and very emotional piece.” The truth had dawned upon me — it was Khushwant Singh, whom she had been referring to.

The plane had landed in the meantime. I walked out hurriedly to disappear in the crowd. Thank you, Khushwant Singh.

75 YEARS AGO
Support for Nagpur Satyagraha

AT a meeting of the Delhi Provincial Congress Committee held last night resolutions were passed expressing sympathy with the Satyagraha movement in the Central Provinces and promising to send a batch of volunteers to keep alive the national flag agitation in Nagpur and Jabbulpore districts. The committees were instructed to enrol volunteers for the purpose.

A committee was appointed to enquire into the excesses committed by the Police at Dhariwala in Muzaffarnagar district and a subscription of Rs 5,000 for the relief of the suffering inhabitants was agreed to.

It was also resolved to appoint a committee consisting of members of the Provincial Congress Committee to tour round the Province aiming at Hindu-Muslim unity.

Individual civil disobedience

Madras: A Madurai message says that the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee has passed a resolution allowing individual defensive civil disobedience by the volunteers and Congress workers of orders under Section 144 and other repressive orders in the course of the propaganda.

The curse called entrance tests
by Mangu Ram Gupta

ALMOST all the universities and technical and medical colleges have come to be plagued by “entrance tests”. One may be seeking admission to any course, one must go through the rigours of an “entrance test”. There is hardly any subject at the university level where an “entrance test” is not a “must”. The contagion of such “tests” is spreading its tentacles far and wide and very fast, and the day when it will reach the portals of schools even and completely envelop them, does not seem to be far off.

There were no such “tests” in the past, and things went on very smoothly. The persons at the top in the hierarchy of the universities and the colleges in question alone know how “these tests” came to be introduced. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of “these entrance tests”, they are surely a reprehensible reflection on the assessment of the merit of the students, made by the universities on the basis of a regular examination, entitling the students to seek admission to the next class. In other words, this means that the assessment of the merit of the students was bad, defective and inadequate, and that it necessitated the holding of “these entrance tests”. If the assessment was not correct, where is the guarantee that the assessment of the merit of the students, as now made on the basis of “these entrance tests”, is the only correct one? It may be even worse than the one made on the basis of a regular examination. This will obviously necessitate yet another “entrance test” and so on. Absolutely futile are, accordingly, “these entrance tests”, and the admissions in question need to be made on the basis of a regular examination held by a university.

Universities are generally starved of funds. “Entrance tests” are certainly a fine source of income to them. “These tests” fill up the coffers of the universities and boost their financial position and economy. Nevertheless, exorbitant as “the entrance tests fee” is, “these tests” are a great burden on the parents of the students, who have to pay not only “the entrance tests fee” but also arrange for the private coaching for their wards which costs them a hell of an amount. The wit’s wise words that education should be cheap and within the easy reach of an ordinary citizen thus stand totally belied by “these tests”.

Another point that needs to be closely considered in this connection is that whereas the admissions, made on the basis of the marks obtained by students in an examination, held by a university, almost totally eliminate all chances of favouritism, it is very difficult to make such an assertion vis-a-vis the admissions made on the basis of the merit of the students, determined by an “entrance test”. I have thus seen the wards of very high-ups being refused admission on account of the lesser marks obtained by them in a university examination but the chances of an admission being manoeuvred in the case of an “entrance test” cannot altogether be ruled out. “Entrance tests” can as such be termed as a means to an end which is anything but noble. They have thus a bad odour about them and an accusing finger pointed at them.

Another snag that mars “these tests” is that no well-defined syllabus has been prescribed by the universities for “these tests”. General ability, awareness, and aptitude are apparently very vague terms and have a tremendously wide connotation and denotation. It is obviously awfully difficult for the students to cover the whole gamut of these terms. They accordingly find themselves terribly handicapped in preparing for “these tests” and are always at the mercy of the paper-setter. And, then, if the paper-setter happens to be a teacher of sociology, the paper abounds in questions on sociology; if of history, in questions on history; if of English, in questions on English literature; so on and so forth.

All this certainly makes things doubly difficult for the students, and luck comes in to play an important and vital role in “these tests”. In such a syndrome, what some times happens is that some of those who had done extremely well in the university examination are unable to acquit themselves so well as some of those who had not done so well in the aforesaid examination. The latter thus come to have better chances of admission than the former. The real merit or worth is thus derecognised and placed at a disadvantage. In such an absurd position “these tests” can land one.

In the context of these facts, it will not at all be inapt to conclude that the “entrance tests” are more a bane than a blessing and are ruefully redundant, sadly superfluous, and woefully unwarranted. The sooner they go, lock, stock and barrel, the better it will be for the entire student community.

‘Not system, but parties have failed’
By K. Vaidiyanathan

SOMNATH Chatterjee, leader of the CPM group in the Lok Sabha, is a highly pragmatic Marxist theoretician who does not cling to dogma and resists change. The way he responds to liberalisation leaves no one in doubt that he represents the pro-change faction of the Communists who are in favour of interpreting Marxism to suit the prevailing global situation. A debater of the highest order and a parliamentarian of proven merit, Somnath Chatterjee evokes respect even from outside the ranks of the Left Front.

Born on July 25, 1929, in Tezpur, presently in Assam, he had a meritorious educational record. After obtaining his post-graduation from Calcutta University, he went to England and joined Cambridge University to study Law. Having become a Barrister, Chatterjee returned to Calcutta to set up practice as a lawyer. Though he was involved in the Communist movement and trade union activities, he plunged headlong into active political life only from 1968 when he became a member of the CPM. His electoral debut was in 1971 when he got elected to the fifth Lok Sabha and he has been representing the Bolpur constituency without an interruption since then.

Affable and outspoken Somnath Chatterjee has remained Jyoti Basu’s man Friday in New Delhi and has carved out a niche for himself in the national politics, not without reason. “He is one Communist with whom you can reason out things”, say even his political opponents. Let that be Narasimha Rao, Deve Gowda or, Gujral, for all of them Somnath Chatterjee is the first person to be consulted before pushing through any controversial or complicated legislation.

A potential successor to Jyoti Basu as the Chief Minister of West Bengal and the most respected CPM leader in the capital circles, Somnath Chatterjee never disappoints the media when approached for an interview or for his comments. He is blunt and to the point but at the same time caustic and sarcastic in his comments.

Here are excerpts from an interview this correspondent conducted in Somnath Chatterjee’s Parliament House Chamber recently:

Q: What in your opinion will be the fate of the women’s reservation Bill tabled by the BJP-led government?

A: Unfortunately, except in the parties belonging to the Left Front, every party seems to be divided on the issue. Although whips were issued by both the BJP and the Congress, there appears to be a lot of dissensions among themselves. This is what the government has taken advantage of.

Q: Do you think the Bill will eventually gather dust in the committee rooms.

A: There is no idea of referring the matter to any committee as of now. Unfortunately some political parties took up a position of total obstruction to the Bill, even before taking it up for the consideration of its merits. But, we can’t keep this pending for months and years. Everybody knew what were the provisions of the Bill that was to be presented since it has been pending for nearly two years. Every political party has taken a decision on it and hence, it cannot be kept pending perpetually.

Q: When every party is divided on the way the Bill should be passed, how is it possible to pilot the Bill and get it passed.

A: It is a question of their commitment to the cause of women in this country. Although the Congress says that there is no question of diluting the provisions of the Bill, the attitude of some of their leaders give different messages. The ruling party has naturally taken advantage of the situation. The BJP was never committed to the Bill and it has its way. It is also trying to gain the credit for piloting the Bill and pass the blame of not getting it passed on others.

Q: Don’t you agree with the contention of the RJD and the Samajwadi Party that the Bill in its present form will only help society women and upper elite of the weaker sex.

A: I don’t think so. That is totally a baseless assumption with all my respect to the leaders of the two parties you mention. There is no reservation at all now and the representation of women is very very small. The question is whether we feel that the women in this country deserve certain special consideration and are we happy with the way women are being treated in this country? It is imperative that we give more attention to the position of women in this country.

Q: By reserving seats in the Lok Sabha and other elected bodies, do you expect the status and position of women in the country to improve.

A: If the Bill is passed 33% women candidates will get elected to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. That will only be the beginning and there will be a sea change in the status and stature of women in society. The very fact that they have equal rights and responsibilities in the running of the administration will definitely have a far reaching effect in our society.

Q: Will it not result in only the wives of the politicians and society women walking away with the majority of the reserved seats.

A: How can you say, only the rich and upper caste women will dominate the reserved seats for women? There are so many OBC men in the elected bodies and how have they got elected? After reservations, why can’t these parties which vociferously support the cause of the OBCs minorities and others give nomination to those sections of women? Who stops them from doing it?

Q: If all the political parties are so much interested in reserving seats for women in elected bodies, how come that they do not nominate more women candidates instead of seeking reservation for them? Who and what stops them from doing so.

A: Such a reservation is necessary because there will be a compulsion on them to set aside certain percentage of seats for women in the list of candidates. Because we find that there is commitment but not the necessary will on the part of the political parties and that is all the more reason for a constitutional provision to enforce it. It is always difficult for women to contest against their male opponents. When all the candidates in a particular seat are women it will ensure that only a woman from one of these parties getting elected. In the present situation, most women are unwilling to contest because they are afraid of matching the money and muscle power of their male opponents. We want more and more women to come into the political life of the country. Reservation of seats for women will hasten the process and accelerate it.

Q: Is it not a fact that most of the women members of Parliament are from the upper castes or at least from the affluent section of the society?

A: Now there are only 37 women members in the Lok Sabha. If the Bill gets passed at least 180 members will be there in the House. I am not prepared to accept that all the 180 members will only be from the rich and sophisticated sections. That cannot be so. From the rural constituencies how many rich and sophisticated women will get elected? There is an experience in West Bengal, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and some other states where there is one-third reservation for women in the panchayats and municipalities. How many rich and sophisticated women are there?

Q: Don’t you agree that there is concern for the OBC women among those who are opposed to the passing of the Bill in the present form.

A: I am very sorry to say that the attitude taken by certain leaders is not in favour of women or because of their concern for the OBC women. Their fear is that they will be losing their clout and seats. It appears to me that to a large extent it is the gender bias that is in the back of their minds. Let the Bill be placed for debate in the House and if the majority feel that way, let the Bill get defeated. Why should anybody prevent discussion on the merits of the Bill, I don’t understand. Let them make proposals and make amendments. If something is not supported by the majority and if somebody tries to stop it physically, there is no use of Parliament or purpose in democracy. Let us then have the law of the streets.

Q: Are you also afraid that if reservations are allowed within the women’s reservation Bill, there will be demands for reservation of seats for the OBCs and others in the unreserved sector?

A: There is no question of fear. Obviously that will be the next thing to be raised. Some people have started talking about communal representation. It will eventually result in caste and religion based reservations. We had to concede the division of the country in 1947 because of the communal electorate.

Q: How would you assess the performance of the BJP-led coalition at the Centre.

A: There is no performance at all. This is a government which is busy only with its own survival. It is true that our scientists achieved a great technological feat. But we still feel that it was an unnecessary exercise, especially when the country is passing through various economic crisis which have now got more and more accentuated. No area of the government has any functioning which is aimed at the benefit of the people. Now the Mandir issue is being revived. Due to their jingoistic attitude, we have lost most of our friends in the international arena. Ours economic situation is very critical with inflation shooting up day after day. Neither Swadeshi industry nor the foreign industry is thriving. We are passing through a grave crisis, according to me.

Q: “Are you in favour of the Government’s decision to have more States?”

A: “With more and more division and new States coming up, other demands have started. The militancy is not minimised. There is a very well coordinated attempt to infiltrate into various spheres of governmental machinery by the Sangh Parivar. They are also trying to destabilise State governments which are not ruled by them. The way they are trying to usurp and interfere with the powers of the state governments is unthinkable. All this threat of Article 356 against States is not only unconstitutional but is also totally destructive of the federal structure we are having.”

Q: “They have not wielded Article 356 despite pressure from their allies. Why don’t you appreciate that?”

A: “They cannot do that because they know courts will strike that down. It is not out of their commitment to democracy or because of any ideology. Short of that they are doing everything they can to destabilise the State government by sending Home Ministry teams, giving lectures on the law and order situation in various non-BJP ruled States and so on. What is the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. It is a known fact that there are more killings in the city of Mumbai than anywhere else in India.”

Q: “Don’t you agree that the unity of the nation will be more strong in a Presidential system of government?”

A: “I am totally opposed to the presidential form of government and the assumption that the unity of the nation will be more secure in that system is totally baseless. In a country of so many diverse cultures, languages, religions, ethos and problems, it is very very dangerous to even think of a hegemonistic set up of government. Today every region can voice its grievances or demand. When one person is at the helm where is the room for dissent or demands? This is a Hindu majority country and they will seek votes on the plank of religion. A frenzy will get created and we know the result of such jingoism from our past-experiences.”

Q: “At the same time, don’t you also agree that the parliamentary system has not delivered the desired results?”

A: “We have seen how authoritarianism got imposed through parliamentary democracy. Then the people had the opportunity to assert themselves. That shows the vibrancy of parliamentary democracy in this country. Whenever people wanted to remove somebody they have done it unhesitatingly. Our people have never tolerated non-performance or anti-people activity of any government. May be our parliamentary system has not delivered the desired results but definitely it has not been a failure.”

Q: “The very fact that we have been having a fractured mandate for quite some time and there is a growing disenchantment with the electoral system only goes to prove that the system has failed. Is it not so?”

A: “I don’t agree. It is not the parliamentary system but our so-called national parties that have failed. We must take note of the diversity in our country. Unless this diversity gets its due importance, and the outward exhibition of their viewpoints, agonies, aspirations and demands, what you call a national consensus is not possible. The fractured Lok Sabha is only representative of the suppressed feelings and aspirations of different people. I am not saying this is good but it is the responsibility of the national parties to represent the aspirations of people of different regions. Over the years, unfortunately people have lost faith in the so-called national parties because they did not articulate the aspirations of various sections of the Indian people. I would expect this to be a passing phase and it would take some more time before the national parties regain the confidence of the people.”

Q: “What is your reaction to the creation of more states? Don’t you agree that India can afford to have more states so that governance can be more effective?”

A: “By doing so they have opened up a pandoras’ box. It is not going to solve a single problem but only add to additional expenditure, more complications and of course further demands for a separate state from all over the country. It is a dangerous thing that is being done. Per se, I agree that we can afford to have more administratively viable smaller states. For that we have to apply certain norms and thoroughly study the situation and implications.”

Q: “Would you also suggest a review of the Constitution as proposed by some people in the BJP?”

A: “I don’t think a general review of the Constitution is necessary. But I do want a review of the position relating to Centre-State relationship. I believe that a country which talks of a federal structure cannot have a strong Centre without strong states. It is absolutely unacceptable to me that whatever is done by the Centre is done better. It is wrong to presume that State governments are generally inferior in performance or capacity. The assumption that Centre knows better, does better and is more patriotic is unacceptable to me. There is no place called Centre. Lutten’s Delhi does not show the real picture of India. In the name of keeping the country united the Centre should not arrogate to itself the tasks which belong to the States.”

Q: “Is it your view that the development of the country can hasten only when the States are given more powers?”

A: “Definitely. Problems of Gujarat and Nagaland are different. The issues confronting Andhra Pradesh and Haryana are different. How can you apply the same standards? Look at the difference in the per capita income of people from state to state. What has been the Centre’s role? Industry, economic policy, banking, insurance and the norms of commerce were all under their control and why this accentuation of wealth and development in one part and not in the other places? If this sort of disproportionate growth continues, India will be up in flames.”

Q: “Do you see any possibility of all the non-BJP parties coming together to give an alternate government?”

A: “There may not be a front as such. Today the situation is, this government is on an extension and cannot last long. I also hope that it does not last too long. There cannot be any President’s rule at the Centre. If this government falls, either the Congress has to form a government with inside or outside support of other or else there has to be elections. Those who want to give a secular front can do so provided they have a working arrangement.”

Q: “Will the Left Front lend whole hearted support to a Congress led Government?”

A: “Yes, we have made it clear that we are willing to lend an issue-based support to such a Government, if the Congress comes forward to provide one. I cannot forecast what will happen. Left Front can only add to the stability of such a Government in the form of numbers, provided the Government functions with a Common Minimum programme. Since the Congress is not showing any immediate interest in providing an alternate Government, the BJP Government may limp along for some more time until it gets into greater and greater troubles and finally collapses sooner or later under its own weight.” — Newscribe