|
|
A Tribune Special
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Quest for federalism
On Record
Profile
|
A Tribune Special Parties should choose clean candidates, says Jagdeep S. Chhokar
The sentiment expressed in the editorial is indeed laudable and in keeping with the larger public sentiment in the country, as expressed in an Internet poll as far back as 2000. According to this survey, 79 per cent of the respondents said that providing criminal records of aspiring MPs would check criminalisation of politics. It is heartening to note that the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the declared prime ministerial candidate of the BJP, Mr L.K. Advani, announced on October 18 that “his party would not field any candidate with a criminal background in the forthcoming general elections even if the prospective candidate was on a winning wicket”. One hopes that all political parties follow this announcement, at least the major parties. There is, however, another side to the story. The same day that The Indian Express reported Mr Advani’s announcement, another newspaper, The Hindu, reported that the state government of one of the states going to the polls next month is reported to have withdrawn around 72,000 criminal cases, possibly in anticipation of or in preparation for the ongoing Assembly elections in the state. The second of the two reports is obviously disturbing, particularly given what happened in the last elections to four of these State Assemblies, for which data is available based on the implementation of the landmark judgment by the Supreme Court on March 13, 2003, which made disclosure of pending criminal cases by candidates contesting elections to Parliament and State Assemblies mandatory, in the face of stiff opposition by the entire political establishment. Based on available data, about 20 per cent of all the candidates who contested the State Assembly elections in Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan had criminal cases pending against them, the exact figures for Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh being 19.74 and 12.5 per cent respectively. That is about the candidates who contested the elections. What about those who won the elections and actually went on to become the elected representatives of ‘We, the People’ with legitimate authority to make laws and take decisions which govern the way we can and should lead our lives? These numbers are not heartening at all. A total of 18.48 per cent of all the MLAs in these four states (Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan) had criminal cases pending against them. Sadly, it is the national capital which had the dubious honour to have the highest proportion of MLAs with criminal cases pending against them, 34.29 per cent, followed by Madhya Pradesh with 22.61 per cent, and Rajasthan with 13.5 per cent. It was the low percentage in Chhattisgarh (6.67 per cent) that brought the combined average of the four states down to 18.48 per cent. However, this figure of 18.48 per cent is itself a cause for concern, particularly when one notices that as many as 18.18 per cent of the MPs in the current Lok Sabha have criminal cases pending against them, as mentioned by none other than Chief Election Commissioner of India N. Gopalaswami while delivering the 23rd Sardar Vallabhai Patel memorial lecture on the theme, “Election Management: New Paradigm” at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy in Hyderabad on October 20, 2008. The scourge of criminality has been gnawing at the roots of democracy in the country. The governments of the day have not been ignorant about it over the years. The N.N. Vohra Committee, consisting of the Union Home Secretary as Chairman, and Secretary (Research and Analysis Wing), Director (Intelligence Bureau), Director (Central Bureau of Investigation) as members, and Joint Secretary in the Home Ministry as the Member-Secretary, was appointed by the Government in July 1993. This Committee was constituted “to take stock of all available information about the activities of crime syndicates/ mafia organisations which had developed links with and were being protected by government functionaries and political personalities.” In the first meeting of the Committee, the Chairman Mr Vohra “perceived that some of the members appeared to have some hesitation in openly expressing their views and also seemed unconvinced that the government actually intended to pursue such matters” (emphasis added). The Chairman decided to write the report himself, justifying his action in one of the concluding paragraphs of the report thus: “In the normal course, this Report would have been drafted by the Member Secretary and finalised by the Committee. Considering the nature of the issues involved, I did not consider it desirable to burden the Members of the Committee with any further involvement beyond the views expressed by them. Accordingly, I decided to personally dictate this Report.” Mr Vohra went on to write, “I have prepared only three copies of this Report. One copy each is being submitted to Minster of State (Internal Security) and Home Minister, the third copy being retained by me. After HM has perused this Report, I request him to consider discussing further action with Finance Minister, MOS (IS) and myself. The emerging approach could thereafter be got approved from the Prime Minister before being implemented.” The report was submitted in October 1993. The initial attempts by the government seemed to be to keep the report under wraps but somehow, given the infirmities of our governance systems, it got leaked and is now widely available even on the Internet. There seems to be no hint of any action taken on the report. Six years later, in May 1999, the Law Commission of India submitted its 170th Report on Electoral Reforms to the government. This is by far the most comprehensive review and set of recommendations on the subject. Among the many recommendations is one to disqualify a person from contesting elections for five years if charges have been framed against him/her in a criminal case in which the possible punishment is two years or more of imprisonment. This, of course, has not been done so far. Even an attempt to get candidates contesting elections to disclose criminal cases pending against them required four years of public interest litigation, including fending off an attempt to amend the Representation of the People Act by getting the President to issue an Ordinance, but finally resulting in the judgment by the Supreme Court on March 13, 2003 in favour of the public interest litigation. The Law Commission had also made several other far-reaching recommendations which, if implemented in the right spirit, would significantly improve the electoral system and make it much more representative of public opinion. Several of the recommendations have been repeatedly supported by the Election Commission publicly and in its communications to the government. In his lecture in Hyderabad, the current Chief Election Commissioner reiterated some of these proposals such as requiring a minimum of 50 per cent plus one vote for the winning candidate, barring persons facing charges of committing heinous crimes from contesting elections. A letter written in July 2004 by the then Chief Election Commissioner, Mr Krishnamurthy, to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh detailed a list of 22 proposals made by the Election Commission to improve the electoral system. There has been no known response from the government. The sad but inescapable conclusion seems to be that successive governments have done little on electoral reforms. They did not have even the slightest inclination to effect any significant change in the electoral system. It is against this background that the announcement “No tickets to those with criminal background” and also the news that criminal cases are being withdrawn, possibly in anticipation of or in preparation for the forthcoming Assembly elections in the States, acquire importance. The hope is that good sense and national interest will prevail, and political parties will show sagacity by choosing clean candidates so that the rapid decline in the confidence of the people in the political and electoral processes can be reversed.
The writer, a retired Professor of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, is a founding member of the Association for Democratic Reforms
|
Quest for federalism
Having
recognised India’s pluralist and multi-regional character, the founding fathers of the Constitution had opted for a federal system and rejected unitary system. They felt that a model of nation building that will accommodate various caste, tribal, religious, cultural, linguistic and regional groups in the power structure will suit India best. However, following Partition and the problems of communalism and secessionism on the one hand and the external threats from Pakistan and China and the threat to our sovereignty from the pressures of power blocs led by the USA and USSR on the other, the founding fathers favoured a federal system with a strong Centre. The system worked smoothly despite shifting balances in Centre-state relations till 1967 due to the Congress’ dominance at the Centre and in the states. The formation of unstable coalitions of non-Congress parties in many states during 1967-1971 created new tensions. The misuse of Article 356 by the Governors kicked off a major controversy. The echo for greater autonomy reverberated in many states. The Planning Commission’s role, too, was questioned. These brought the issue of restructuring the federal system on the centrestage. The revival of Congress dominance in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections due to Indira Gandhi’s charisma, her radical steps like bank nationalisation, abolition of privy purses, politics of populism and slogans of Garibi Hatao and Samajvad Lao pushed the issue of restructuring the federal system into the backburner. The disillusionment with the non-performance of the coalition governments, too, were instrumental in this development. The only exception was the adoption of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution by the Akali Dal in 1973. Even this resolution was not pressed. However, the end of inner-party democracy in the Congress, centralisation of all the powers in the hands of Indira Gandhi and the emergence of extra- constitutional authority of her son Sanjay Gandhi, reduction of the Chief Ministers’ status to that of subedars once again revived the demand for restructuring of the polity. This amply found expression in the JP-led movement for Total Revolution in 1975. The imposition of Emergency on June 26, 1975 brought with it a host of problems. The emergence of one-party system and the authoritarian rule of Indira Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi and his cronies converted India virtually into a unitary system. This trend was institutionalised through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. This controversial Act, enacted on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, had virtually changed the basic structure of the Constitution and strengthened the authority of the Prime Minister in particular and the Centre in general. After the change of power and the end of Congress dominance, the Janata Party emerged as a credible national alternative to the Congress at the Centre. This triggered a fresh debate on restructuring the Indian federal system. However, the CPM, the Akali Dal and the DMK did not pursue with the demand at that timebecause the regional parties got a share in the power structure at the Centre and in the states. Indira Gandhi’s return to power in the 1980 Lok Sabha elections with a promise to provide a ‘Government that Works’ and the people’s disillusionment with the Janata experiment once again revived the demand for restructuring the federal system. The manner in which she centralised all powers in her hands and her style of functioning, often in a confrontation mode, largely contributed to this. Her deviation from the path of secularism also contributed to this phenomenon. This explains the demand for greater autonomy of states by all the national Opposition parties. The Dharam Yudh of the Akali Dal on the issue of Anandpur Sahib Resolution, the genesis of militancy and the rise of the demand for Khalistan have to be seen in this perspective. The Assam Movement, too, could be viewed in the same way. The rise of the Telugu Desam and Janata Party-Kranti Ranga combine to power in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka respectively in 1983 should be perceived as reactions against centralisation of power and as a reflection of the quest for federalisation. Indira Gandhi’s strategy of confrontation in Punjab and Assam strengthened this urge. Her decision of appointing the Sarkaria Commission in 1983 for re-examining the Centre-state relations proved too insufficient in this context. The re-federalisation of Indian polity was initiated after the 1984 Lok Sabha elections by Rajiv Gandhi who succeeded Indira Gandhi. This was evident from the Punjab Accord and Assam Accord in 1985, his promise to restore inner-party democracy and his attempt to get the Constitution (64th Amendment) Bill passed for adding the third tier to Indian federalism by constitutionalising the Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies. However, his agenda remained incomplete due to various factors. The emergence of a federalised or a regionalised multi-party system in the 1989 Lok Sabha elections due to regionalisation of Indian politics on account of the cumulative impact of the process of modernisation, politicisation and economic development did bring about a change in the federal structure. Regional parties got partnership in the power structure at the national level. This was evident from the replacement of the single-party government of the Congress by the coalition governments headed by V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar during 1989-1991. The Mandalisation and the Mandirisation of politics in 1990 further changed the contours of the federal system. While Mandalisation was a centrifugal trend which strengthened regionalisation of politics, Mandirisation was a centripetal trend which sought to homogenise the polity by establishing the hegemony of the Hindutva forces. It is a different matter that its logical outcome was horizontal and vertical fragmentation of the polity on communal lines. The revival of the Congress rule under P.V. Narasimha Rao after the 1991 Lok Sabha elections changed the contours further due largely to four factors. First, the adoption of the New Economic Policy, together with liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation shifted the centre of federal system from New Delhi to Washington. Secondly, the Narasimha Rao government’s failure to prevent the demolition of Babri Masjid and the communal riots that followed had created new challenges before the polity. Cross border terrorism and the rise of international terrorism exacerbated the problem. Thirdly, the continued militancy in Jammu and Kashmir due to many acts of omission and commission continued to defy solution. And finally, the Naxalite movement assumed a dangerous character over the years. Clearly, these problems could be tackled only by political solutions. More important, national consensus, which became elusive after the emergence of the Bipolar-Multiparty system and the formation of coalition governments since 1996 Lok Sabha elections, is the need of the hour. The signing of the Indo-US nuclear deal has added a new dimension to the federal system. This has further shifted the centre of the federal system to Washington, Vienna and the capitals of the 45-member Nuclear Supplies Group
countries.
The writer, a former Professor of Political Science, Kurukshetra University, is currently Consultant, Haryana Institute of Rural Development, Nilokheri (Karnal)
|
|
On Record
It’s
election time in Delhi. The battle is between the Congress and the
BJP. The Sheila Dixit-led Congress government in Delhi is making a strong bid to return to power for the third time in a row. Besides Sheila
Dixit, her close A non-controversial leader with a clean image, Dr Walia has been a member of the Delhi Assembly since 1993 when he contested the election for the first time from Geeta Colony. After delimitation, Geeta Colony Assembly constituency has been dissolved. He is now contesting from Laxmi Nagar and is confident of his victory. He spares some time for The Sunday Tribune in the midst of a hectic election campaign. Excerpts: Q: How confident is the Congress of retaining power? A: We will retain power for the third time in a row. The Congress is asking for votes on the plank of development. If the people compare our performance with that of the BJP regime (1993-98), they will vote for us. We have changed the face of the National Capital. Water, power and transport were the major problems when we came to power first in 1998. With the commissioning of Sonia Vihar water treatment plant, water supply has increased. As for power, the situation has improved with the gas-based power house and privatisation of power supply. Besides, we are buying power from
Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh and North-Eastern states. Delhi Metro has revolutionized the transport system. Wherever Metro goes, people leave their vehicles. Low floor and A/C buses have been launched. Roads have been widened. A number of flyovers have improved the speed of vehicles. Q: Will anti-incumbency affect the Congress? A: It could but not so much because of development. People want facilities, development. In 1998, voters had rejected the BJP as they were not satisfied with its performance. Q: What are the challenges before the Congress? A: The main challenge is to convince the voters that the allegations made by the BJP have no basis. Consider inflation. It’s a worldwide phenomenon. Yet, the Union Government is doing its best to rein in prices. Secondly, Delhi is the National Capital. Any citizen of the country has the right to come and live here. Its population is increasing. Every year, nearly 1,00,000 people are added to its population. Developing basic infrastructure for them has become a challenge for the government. Q: But the Opposition in the Delhi Assembly says the Congress government did little to control terrorism. A: The BJP believes in ‘’No Work, No Mistake’’ policy. They want to drag on issues. The Opposition always makes allegations. People are safe in Delhi. Police is not under the Delhi Government’s control. It is controlled by the Centre which has taken effective steps to check terrorism in the country. Q: Could the Bahjun Samaj Party
(BSP) affect the Congress’ prospects? A: I don’t think the BSP will harm the Congress in the elections. It is basically a regional party which is in power in Uttar
Pradesh. Voters of Delhi have a national outlook. They do not exercise their franchise on the basis of caste. They will vote in favour of the party which works for their development and creates jobs for them. Q: The Congress government has issued provisional certificates to unauthorised colonies but building plans have still not been approved by the MCD or the
DDA. How does the move benefit residents of the unauthorised colonies? A: It will benefit the residents. It is the first step towards regularisation of these colonies. Zonal plans, district plans and buildings plans are under consideration. Once these plans are
finalised, they will be submitted to the agency concerned. Later, these colonies will be fully
authorised. The Congress government in Delhi has created history by regularising 1,600 colonies in one go. In 1997, only 10 colonies were regularised and preparing infrastructure for such a small number of colonies was not difficult for the government. But for 1,600 colonies, it is a gigantic task. Q: The Opposition claims that your party manifesto is like old wine in new bottle. What is your comment? A: The BJP always does this. The Congress has fulfilled all the assurances it made in the last Assembly elections in 2003. In our manifesto for the ensuing elections, we have outlined future development
work.
|
||
|
Profile Yuvi’s successive centuries catapulted him into the top 10 in the latest ICC ODI rankings. Yuvraj’s 11 places to attain his career best ranking of sixth place among batsmen. The two defeats cost England dearly as it slumped to the sixth spot. Tall, well-built, Yuvraj Singh is India’s rising cricket star. Almost a year back when he smashed fast bowlers Stuart Broad in the test against England for six sixes in an over, the cricket world held its breath. One of India’s fine performers in the one-dayers for past five years, Yuvraj has been an enigma in Test cricket. His inconsistent run in the Tests since his debut over five years ago has seen him play just 23 matches. Reports of Yuvraj taking Saurav Ganguly’s place in the Indian middle order got the stamp of approval from the man who matters the most — Chairman of national selectors, Krishnamachari Srikanth. Backing Yuvi to the coveted Test spot, he is quoted as saying he expected the flamboyant young man to replicate Saurav’s success in ODIs in the Test arena. Yuvraj has the distinction of becoming an all rounder at 19. He proved his ability in the domestic competition and in the Under-19 World Cup in Sri Lanka. In the final of the Cooch Bihar Trophy in 1999-2000 season, Yuvi made 358 runs against Bihar. Any batsman who has the ability to play an innings of that length is bound to be a force to reckon with. Following that performance, he caught the eyes of cricket player selectors; named the Player of the Series for scoring heavily through World Cup including a tremendous half century that came off just 20 balls in the semi-finals against Australia. One of Yuvi’s most memorable innings was a partnership with Mohammad Kaif in the NatWest Series final against England in July 2002 which led India to victory. He represented India at the 2003 Cricket World Cup. He scored his first century in his fourth season with the Indian team against Bangladesh in 2003. Yuvraj had a good run of form late in 2005 and early in 2006. He was named man of the series in three consecutive series, against South Africa and then against Pakistan and England, in which he scored three centuries and four half-centuries in fifteen matches, which pitch forked him into the top 10 of ICC ODI batting rankings. During the Pakistan tour, at times when Captain Rahul Dravid and Vice-Captain Virender Sehwag were absent, Yuvi was on-field captain, indicating that he may be seen as a potential captain. He made his test debut against New Zealand in Mohali in late 2003 in front of his home crowd in Punjab due to the absence of regular captain Saurav Ganguly in the sixth position. He was dropped when Ganguly returned but joined the Test team in 2004 tour of Pakistan, when Ganguly was again injured.
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Commenting
Whenever