Country's curse – ignoramus Union Ministers
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 1042
"Can Advani be called a Pakistani infiltrator because he's from Sindh? Most chief ministers of West Bengal were from erstwhile East Bengal. Can they be called infiltrators?"
These are the words and arguments not of an ordinary Congress worker in the street but of India's Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee while addressing a seminar organized by a Muslim NGO on June 15 at Kolkata. His message was obviously and deliberately targeted at the peculiar audience before him.
Such arguments only betray desperate frustration giving credence to an old saying that when a person falls short of arguments, he starts calling names and comes to blows.
By comparing Advani with infiltrators Mr Mukherjee has repeated the same blunder which his veteran colleague Home Minister Shivraj Patil committed by comparing Afzal Guru with Sarabjit Singh. The former is an Indian held guilty of conspiring a terrorist attack in which about 9 innocent securitymen were killed defending the Parliament building where the top leadership of the country was holed up at that time. He was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court (SC). On the contrary Sarabjit Singh is an Indian pronounced guilty of terrorism and espionage by a Pakistani court. The former is a traitor, the latter a hero, a patriot. Our great home minister fails to distinguish between the two.
And contrast what Sarbjit’s wife Mrs. Sukhpreet Kaur says, “I and my daughters would never like Sarabjit freed in exchange for any hardcore Pakistani terrorist lodged in Indian jails. Nothing is above the nation and we can’t go against the interests of the motherland”. Who should feel ashamed is obvious.
And now our venerable Minister for Foreign Affairs fails to distinguish between an Indian citizen and a Bangladeshi infiltrator. He appears ignorant of the law of the land and the Constitution. According to the Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, an infiltrator is “a person who secretly becomes a member of a group (in our case India) or goes to a place to get information or to influence the group”.
Article 6 of the Constitution, as applicable to the case of Mr. Advani, says “:….a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution if (a) he or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 …”
One can only pity Mr. Mukherjee's understanding. The only saving grace however is that he spared his party and the country by not saying that Pakistan President General Musharraf is more “Indian” than is Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh because Musharraf was born in Delhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh in what now forms part of Pakistan.
Lakhs of Indians migrated (and in the process more than 10 lakhs were killed) to this side of the border from those parts which are now in Pakistan and Bangladesh to an uncertain future leaving their ancestral homes and hearths for their love of India. By equating refugees from Pakistan with infiltrators from Bangladesh Mr. Mukherjee has only put salt on the wounds of these Indians and insulted their patriotism.
And he goes on, “…it was not unusual for people from a smaller economy like Bangladesh to move into a bigger economy like India…this happens all over the world”. Here again he fails to make distinction between people of one country moving to the other as per law and those doing it in a clandestine manner, illegally.
If there were no infiltrator, why did the Congress government enact the Illegal Migrants (Detection by Tribunals) Act, 1983? Setting aside this Act as “unconstitutional” the Supreme Court said: "This IMDT Act, 1983 has created the biggest hurdle and is the main impediment or barrier in the identification and deportation of illegal migrants.”
That UPA was playing politics was evident from the fact that instead of acting as per the judicial verdict, on the eve of last assembly elections it clandestinely amended the Foreigners’ Act as applicable to Assam. SC was once again constrained to strike down this amendment too as "unconstitutional" calling it a crude attempt to bring in the IMDT Act from the backdoor.
Mr. Mukherjee's logic only repudiates Congress' supreme leader, late Mrs. Indira Gandhi who, way back in 1971, raised a great hue and cry the world over, over the exodus of about 80-90 lakh people from the then East Pakistan into India.
Mr. Mukherjee is again playing politics when he says “there is no reason to believe that lakhs of Bangladeshi are infiltrating into India”. As a Union Minister he should have the exact figures with him to buttress his argument. He is deliberately indulging in selective memory/amnesia and selective beliefs. The Congress Chief Minister of Assam, late Mr. Hiteshwar Saikia had admitted in the Assembly of more than one crore Bangladeshis having infiltrated into Assam. But under pressure, for obvious political reasons, he was later made to withdraw this statement.
On May 6, 1997 Mr Inderjit Gupta, Union Home Minister in the United Front government supported by Congress from outside, in reply to a question informed the Lok Sabha that the number of illegal infiltrators in the country is estimated to be about one crore.
Mr. Mukherjee does not wish to remember or believe what doesn’t suit his party's political and electoral purposes. The former Assam Governor, General S. K. Sinha, in a report to the President of India, had warned that "the unabated influx of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam and the consequent perceptible change in the demographic pattern of the State….threatens to reduce the Assamese people to a minority in their own State".
Mr. Mukherjee is oblivious of the fact that Indians legally living for generations together in Kenya, Uganda, Thailand, South Africa, Fiji, etc. were mercilessly thrown out although they were not infiltrators, as Bangladeshis are, whom UPA wishes to provide shelter and extend every facility that is available to native Indians.
The problem is that people like Mr. Pranab Mukherjee and Mr. Shivraj Patil are playing politics with the interests of the nation for obvious electoral gains. Does India deserve such ignoramus government leaders? That remains the question. ***
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Spidernet: A Satire
Ask them, my son!
Roadshow as armour in election warfare
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Son: Father.
Father: Yes, my son.
Son: What is a roadshow?
Father: It is a new weapon invented in the armoury for use during election warfare.
Son: Who invented it, father?
Father: Nobody has so far claimed the intellectual rights. But as my knowledge goes, it was first tested-fired in 1998?
Son: By whom, father?
Father: Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and later, rightly inherited by her son, Rahul Gandhi.
Son: How does it work?
Father: It is easier to handle and simpler to use than the conventional technique of speech-making.
Son: How, father?
Father: An election speech is a fling of love for the audience and shot of an arrow of words at the opponents. It earns supporters and smashes the opposition forts.
Son: Is making a speech as simple as throwing a stone at your opponents?
Father: No, my son. Making a speech targeting your opponent is as intricate and difficult a job as going on an aerial sortie for bombardment at enemy targets. It needs expertise and experience.
Son: Does a person making a speech become an effective communicator?
Father: No. Not certainly always and, the least, everybody.
Son: But where is the problem? Today we have professional speechwriters who create great speeches which have great instant impact.
Father: We do have great speechwriters. But writing a speech and making a speech are two different things, equally difficult. If speechwriters could turn every Tom, Dick and Harry into prime ministers and presidents in a democracy, we need no intelligence and experience to make a mark.
Son: But we do have leaders who make great speeches.
Father: Yes, we do have. But many of them are readers, not leaders.
Son: How does the roadshow armour strike?
Father: When you don't wish to speak or have nothing to speak, the armour of roadshow is the best weapon against your opponent. In an election rally, it is the public that comes to see and hear you. In a roadshow it is the leaders who come to show their face to the roadside spectators, wave their hands, shake hands with them and trade their smile for votes.
Son: Our film actors and actresses too gesture to their fans in halls with their arms wide open, smooching their fingers crying wildly: "I love you all." And the hall bursts wild into roars of applause in response. Is this also of the same kind?
Father: I don't know, son. The only similarity seems to be that in both cases the gathering is of fans that may or may not necessarily vote in an election.
Son: Do these actresses love all?
Father: I don't know. I have no personal experience, son. Others may know better.
Son: In which election warfare was the weapon of roadshow used?
Father: In UP, then Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and lately, in Karnataka.
Son: With what results?
Father: I don't know son. Ask Sonia and Rahul. ***
Roadshow as armour in election warfare
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Son: Father.
Father: Yes, my son.
Son: What is a roadshow?
Father: It is a new weapon invented in the armoury for use during election warfare.
Son: Who invented it, father?
Father: Nobody has so far claimed the intellectual rights. But as my knowledge goes, it was first tested-fired in 1998?
Son: By whom, father?
Father: Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and later, rightly inherited by her son, Rahul Gandhi.
Son: How does it work?
Father: It is easier to handle and simpler to use than the conventional technique of speech-making.
Son: How, father?
Father: An election speech is a fling of love for the audience and shot of an arrow of words at the opponents. It earns supporters and smashes the opposition forts.
Son: Is making a speech as simple as throwing a stone at your opponents?
Father: No, my son. Making a speech targeting your opponent is as intricate and difficult a job as going on an aerial sortie for bombardment at enemy targets. It needs expertise and experience.
Son: Does a person making a speech become an effective communicator?
Father: No. Not certainly always and, the least, everybody.
Son: But where is the problem? Today we have professional speechwriters who create great speeches which have great instant impact.
Father: We do have great speechwriters. But writing a speech and making a speech are two different things, equally difficult. If speechwriters could turn every Tom, Dick and Harry into prime ministers and presidents in a democracy, we need no intelligence and experience to make a mark.
Son: But we do have leaders who make great speeches.
Father: Yes, we do have. But many of them are readers, not leaders.
Son: How does the roadshow armour strike?
Father: When you don't wish to speak or have nothing to speak, the armour of roadshow is the best weapon against your opponent. In an election rally, it is the public that comes to see and hear you. In a roadshow it is the leaders who come to show their face to the roadside spectators, wave their hands, shake hands with them and trade their smile for votes.
Son: Our film actors and actresses too gesture to their fans in halls with their arms wide open, smooching their fingers crying wildly: "I love you all." And the hall bursts wild into roars of applause in response. Is this also of the same kind?
Father: I don't know, son. The only similarity seems to be that in both cases the gathering is of fans that may or may not necessarily vote in an election.
Son: Do these actresses love all?
Father: I don't know. I have no personal experience, son. Others may know better.
Son: In which election warfare was the weapon of roadshow used?
Father: In UP, then Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and lately, in Karnataka.
Son: With what results?
Father: I don't know son. Ask Sonia and Rahul. ***
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A satire: Who rules India? Ask them, son!
A satire
Who rules India?
Ask them, son!
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
Son: Father, there's a great hue and cry over price rise.
Father: That's right, son.
Son: Why's the opposition targeting Government and Congress President?
Father: Because they run the government. People have voted them to power to administer public affairs, manage the economy.
Son: But, father, Dr. Manmohan says prices are rising because of global reasons beyond government control.
Father: Yes, he does say so.
Son: But who runs the government in India?
Father: Obviously, Dr. Manmohan Singh.
Son: Who's the Finance Minister?
Father: Another eminent economist P. Chidambaram.
Son: What are the two doing to manage the economy, control the unbridled prices and runaway inflation?
Father: Obviously watching the global trends.
Son: Will it do the trick?
Father: They know it better. They're wise people.
Son: But who rules the country – Manmohan government or the globe?
Father: Ask them, son. ***
*Amba Charan Vashishth is a freelance political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly in English
Who rules India?
Ask them, son!
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
Son: Father, there's a great hue and cry over price rise.
Father: That's right, son.
Son: Why's the opposition targeting Government and Congress President?
Father: Because they run the government. People have voted them to power to administer public affairs, manage the economy.
Son: But, father, Dr. Manmohan says prices are rising because of global reasons beyond government control.
Father: Yes, he does say so.
Son: But who runs the government in India?
Father: Obviously, Dr. Manmohan Singh.
Son: Who's the Finance Minister?
Father: Another eminent economist P. Chidambaram.
Son: What are the two doing to manage the economy, control the unbridled prices and runaway inflation?
Father: Obviously watching the global trends.
Son: Will it do the trick?
Father: They know it better. They're wise people.
Son: But who rules the country – Manmohan government or the globe?
Father: Ask them, son. ***
*Amba Charan Vashishth is a freelance political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly in English
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
SPIDERNET: Congress No. 2
SPIDERNET: Congress No. 2
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
The veteran CPI (M) leader, Mr. Sitaram Yechury is a veteran of the pen too. In one of his writings recently, he appeared to be hollow, without solid content and strong arguments. He also seems to be ignoring hard facts, obviously deliberately. A review of his writings is both interesting and astonishing, besides being self-contradictory.
“Advani’s willingness to be PM", according to Mr Yechury, "poses a serious challenge to the future of our democracy”. Only a fascist with no respect for people's mandate can say that. In democracy, everybody has a right to be "willing" to be prime minister. And it is not mere "willing" that does the trick; it is the people who will or will not turn it into a reality. Therefore, if tomorrow Advani is PM, it will not be courtesy CPM, Left parties or the Congress, but on the strength of people's mandate.
Mr. does recount the “solid drubbings” BJP received in last year’s UP Vidhan Sabha elections forgetting that his own party’s record was much worse, nothing to feel proud of. While BJP did win 51 seats, the Left front and other leftists who contested about 100 seats drew a glorious blank from the electorate.
It was in 2005 that CPM decided to come out of its nest in the three States of Tripura, West Bengal and Kerala to spread its wings to the Hindi heartland. During the last three years all it has achieved is just total rejection at the hands of the electorate in the North. In Punjab and Uttarakhand elections it failed to open its account. Only in December 2007 the Left parties, including CPM, were given a worst “drubbing” by the electorate both in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, where all their candidates lost security deposits.
Just last month CPI (M) itself confessed that because of its acts of omission and commission the Party was losing popularity and support of the people both in Left ruled States and the country.
To Mr. Rajnath Singh’s words “minority (which Mr. Yechury reads Muslim) appeasement”. But if it is not "minority appeasement" what else is it to extend reservation to Muslims on the basis of religion, and religion alone, in employment and education, ordering no power cuts in Muslim dominated areas, reserve 15% loans for Muslims in Bank loans and the like, at the cost of all others?
According to Sachar Committee statistics, while Muslims command a 25% share in population in West Bengal, their representation in services is only 4%. Who is to be blamed for this?
It looks, championing the cause of minorities and Muslims is a sacred act of ‘secularism’ for the pseudo-secularists and doing so for the cause of the majority community of Hindus is an abominable ‘crime of communalism’. This gives substance to the feeling in some quarters that in the ‘secular’ India of their conception it is a ‘crime’ to be a Hindu or Hindu supporter or sympathizer.
CPI (M) can champion the cause of Babri masjid to be ‘secular’ but BJP and other parties become ‘communal’ when they speak of Ram temple in Ayodhya.
CPI (M)'s WB Minister Subhash Chakravarty was made to apologise when he visited a temple and said he is a Hindu first and CPI (M) member afterwards. But it is the same 'secular' CPI (M) which in Kochi (Kerala) allowed its Muslim members to leave the party meeting in between to say their namaz. It gave an iftar party in Regent Hotel to its Muslim members. Is it the CPI (M) brand of ‘secularism’?
Let us, for a minute for the sake of argument, accept CPI (M)'s unsubstantiated charge that the current “agrarian crisis” and “distress” is because of the NDA. But what have the UPA and Left parties done to stem the rot during the last over three-and-a-half years? Do they need centuries to help the farmers? But it is also a hard fact that when NDA left, the food grain godowns in the country were full to the brim and the agricultural production was at its peak. Who is responsible for emptying the stocks and for the fall in the food production which, according to the latest reports, has come down to 2.5% from last year’s 3.8%?
It is unimaginative to blame the “food for work” programme for depletion in food stocks. If food, instead of money, was distributed the food grains went to the stomach of the poor Indians and not to foreign countries. Even otherwise, they would have had to purchase food grains at exorbitant rates from the market with the low wages they would have received.
Till 1998 and now since 2004 it was the Congress or Congress and Left supported governments which had been in power at the Centre and the States. Can they absolve themselves of the responsibility for the present “agrarian crisis” and “distress” the farming community is experiencing?
CPM’s pro-farmer and pro-minority boast was exposed by what it did to the Singur and Nandigram farmers. It only revived the memories of Stalin in Soviet Russia. Leftist litterateur Mrs. Mahasweta Devi has written that women were raped and bullets were made to pierce through their private parts. Governor, Human Rights Commission, and High Court -- all condemned what the West Bengal Government did in Singur.
It goes to the credit of excellent administration that food riots broke out in CPI (M) ruled West Bengal, perhaps for the first time in the history of Independent India. According to the figures released by the Central Statistical Organisation, the highest number (10.6%) of those going to bed without food for a number of days in the country belong to West Bengal.
CPI (M) belongs to that tribe of politicians who must condemn BJP for all its acts of omission and commission at all times and in whatever situations for no rhyme or reason. They condemn BJP if it champions for a Uniform Civil Code, repeal of Article 370 and promises to construct a magnificent Ram temple at Ayodhya. But it equally gives them stomachache if BJP puts these issues to the back burner till its gets full people's mandate for the purpose. Enactment of Uniform Civil Code forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has reminded the Union government at least thrice of its responsibility to enact it. The Constitution itself says that Article 370 is a temporary measure.
It also exposes the hypocrisy of both the Congress-led UPA and the Left parties supporting it from outside when they argue that Article 370 cannot be revoked till the minority community consents to it. But it is the same very 'secular democrats' who wish to thwart the attempt of the majority to construct a Ram temple at Ayodhya.
It is a misstatement of facts that BJP MPs ever “sabotaged its adoption demanding reservation for OBC women within this reservation” when the women’s reservation Bill was “first introduced in Parliament”.
CPM leader has kept a count of NDA allies who left it, but not of those who left UPA. He is insomniac about the rift within the CPI (M) and the Left allies in West Bengal and Kerala. As recently as the first week of February, 2008 the ‘people’s’ government of West Bengal gunned down five activists of its own ally, the Forward Block.
Recently, in West Bengal local bodies' elections, Forward Block contested against its big ally CPM. In the current Tripura assembly elections, Forward Block is fighting against the ruling CPM.
Principles had never been the moral forte of left parties, particularly the CPI (M). Their commitment to nationalist causes has always been questionable. They have recently taken an about-turn on socialism and capitalism. Only recently Shri Jyoti Basu supported West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's stand on capitalism saying that there is a need to industrialise the state. "Socialism is not achievable at this point of time”, he said.
How ironic is Mr Yechury’s boast that “out of the 61 Left MPs in the Lok Sabha, 54 of them reached there by defeating Congress candidates”. And yet the Left parties had the cheek – and the high 'democratic' principles -- to support that very Party in Parliament speaking and fighting against whose programmes, policies and individuals had it won people’s mandate for these 54 parliamentary seats. Does it not amount to cheating the electorate? Why should the people have voted for CPI (M) if they knew that Left MPs were, ultimately, to support Congress?
It remains a fact that the Left parties are speaking in two tongues – one in New Delhi and quite the opposite in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura.
This also substantiates the charge the Left parties are “sleeping with the enemy” and have entered into a marriage of convenience, devoid of principles, in their lust for power without responsibility.
It again is a hard fact that the moment the Left parties make a bold declaration not to support an anti-people policy of the UPA government, like hike in prices of petroleum products, increase in EPF interest rates, Indo-US Deal, disinvestment and the like, they receive invitation to lunch or dinner either by the Prime Minister or UPA chairperson. After having the sumptuous meals they forget their opposition to UPA policies and come out smiling. It is this behaviour of theirs that has given strength to the charge that the Left parties wave the red flag on the streets for public consumption and wave the green flag at private meetings with Government. The fact remains that the UPA had its way at all the times and it was the Left parties which had to compromise and submit each time. Remember their famous words on Indo-US Deal, “Congress has to choose between us and US”. Where do they stand today?
Needless to remind Shri Yechury of his own famous remark that Left not only barks; it can bite too. CPI (M) and Left have yet to come true to their words.
On February 14 the UPA government announced a hike of Rs. 2 per litre in petrol prices and Re. 1 in diesel. According to official announcement, the decision was taken after taking all the UPA allies and the Left parties in confidence. But the Left parties are opposing the decision publicly. Is it not cheating the people?
The least said the better about the Left. In fact the Left Parties, particularly CPI (M), may pose whatever they may, in reality they are only proving themselves as Congress No. 2 in the current political scenario.
*Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
The veteran CPI (M) leader, Mr. Sitaram Yechury is a veteran of the pen too. In one of his writings recently, he appeared to be hollow, without solid content and strong arguments. He also seems to be ignoring hard facts, obviously deliberately. A review of his writings is both interesting and astonishing, besides being self-contradictory.
“Advani’s willingness to be PM", according to Mr Yechury, "poses a serious challenge to the future of our democracy”. Only a fascist with no respect for people's mandate can say that. In democracy, everybody has a right to be "willing" to be prime minister. And it is not mere "willing" that does the trick; it is the people who will or will not turn it into a reality. Therefore, if tomorrow Advani is PM, it will not be courtesy CPM, Left parties or the Congress, but on the strength of people's mandate.
Mr. does recount the “solid drubbings” BJP received in last year’s UP Vidhan Sabha elections forgetting that his own party’s record was much worse, nothing to feel proud of. While BJP did win 51 seats, the Left front and other leftists who contested about 100 seats drew a glorious blank from the electorate.
It was in 2005 that CPM decided to come out of its nest in the three States of Tripura, West Bengal and Kerala to spread its wings to the Hindi heartland. During the last three years all it has achieved is just total rejection at the hands of the electorate in the North. In Punjab and Uttarakhand elections it failed to open its account. Only in December 2007 the Left parties, including CPM, were given a worst “drubbing” by the electorate both in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, where all their candidates lost security deposits.
Just last month CPI (M) itself confessed that because of its acts of omission and commission the Party was losing popularity and support of the people both in Left ruled States and the country.
To Mr. Rajnath Singh’s words “minority (which Mr. Yechury reads Muslim) appeasement”. But if it is not "minority appeasement" what else is it to extend reservation to Muslims on the basis of religion, and religion alone, in employment and education, ordering no power cuts in Muslim dominated areas, reserve 15% loans for Muslims in Bank loans and the like, at the cost of all others?
According to Sachar Committee statistics, while Muslims command a 25% share in population in West Bengal, their representation in services is only 4%. Who is to be blamed for this?
It looks, championing the cause of minorities and Muslims is a sacred act of ‘secularism’ for the pseudo-secularists and doing so for the cause of the majority community of Hindus is an abominable ‘crime of communalism’. This gives substance to the feeling in some quarters that in the ‘secular’ India of their conception it is a ‘crime’ to be a Hindu or Hindu supporter or sympathizer.
CPI (M) can champion the cause of Babri masjid to be ‘secular’ but BJP and other parties become ‘communal’ when they speak of Ram temple in Ayodhya.
CPI (M)'s WB Minister Subhash Chakravarty was made to apologise when he visited a temple and said he is a Hindu first and CPI (M) member afterwards. But it is the same 'secular' CPI (M) which in Kochi (Kerala) allowed its Muslim members to leave the party meeting in between to say their namaz. It gave an iftar party in Regent Hotel to its Muslim members. Is it the CPI (M) brand of ‘secularism’?
Let us, for a minute for the sake of argument, accept CPI (M)'s unsubstantiated charge that the current “agrarian crisis” and “distress” is because of the NDA. But what have the UPA and Left parties done to stem the rot during the last over three-and-a-half years? Do they need centuries to help the farmers? But it is also a hard fact that when NDA left, the food grain godowns in the country were full to the brim and the agricultural production was at its peak. Who is responsible for emptying the stocks and for the fall in the food production which, according to the latest reports, has come down to 2.5% from last year’s 3.8%?
It is unimaginative to blame the “food for work” programme for depletion in food stocks. If food, instead of money, was distributed the food grains went to the stomach of the poor Indians and not to foreign countries. Even otherwise, they would have had to purchase food grains at exorbitant rates from the market with the low wages they would have received.
Till 1998 and now since 2004 it was the Congress or Congress and Left supported governments which had been in power at the Centre and the States. Can they absolve themselves of the responsibility for the present “agrarian crisis” and “distress” the farming community is experiencing?
CPM’s pro-farmer and pro-minority boast was exposed by what it did to the Singur and Nandigram farmers. It only revived the memories of Stalin in Soviet Russia. Leftist litterateur Mrs. Mahasweta Devi has written that women were raped and bullets were made to pierce through their private parts. Governor, Human Rights Commission, and High Court -- all condemned what the West Bengal Government did in Singur.
It goes to the credit of excellent administration that food riots broke out in CPI (M) ruled West Bengal, perhaps for the first time in the history of Independent India. According to the figures released by the Central Statistical Organisation, the highest number (10.6%) of those going to bed without food for a number of days in the country belong to West Bengal.
CPI (M) belongs to that tribe of politicians who must condemn BJP for all its acts of omission and commission at all times and in whatever situations for no rhyme or reason. They condemn BJP if it champions for a Uniform Civil Code, repeal of Article 370 and promises to construct a magnificent Ram temple at Ayodhya. But it equally gives them stomachache if BJP puts these issues to the back burner till its gets full people's mandate for the purpose. Enactment of Uniform Civil Code forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has reminded the Union government at least thrice of its responsibility to enact it. The Constitution itself says that Article 370 is a temporary measure.
It also exposes the hypocrisy of both the Congress-led UPA and the Left parties supporting it from outside when they argue that Article 370 cannot be revoked till the minority community consents to it. But it is the same very 'secular democrats' who wish to thwart the attempt of the majority to construct a Ram temple at Ayodhya.
It is a misstatement of facts that BJP MPs ever “sabotaged its adoption demanding reservation for OBC women within this reservation” when the women’s reservation Bill was “first introduced in Parliament”.
CPM leader has kept a count of NDA allies who left it, but not of those who left UPA. He is insomniac about the rift within the CPI (M) and the Left allies in West Bengal and Kerala. As recently as the first week of February, 2008 the ‘people’s’ government of West Bengal gunned down five activists of its own ally, the Forward Block.
Recently, in West Bengal local bodies' elections, Forward Block contested against its big ally CPM. In the current Tripura assembly elections, Forward Block is fighting against the ruling CPM.
Principles had never been the moral forte of left parties, particularly the CPI (M). Their commitment to nationalist causes has always been questionable. They have recently taken an about-turn on socialism and capitalism. Only recently Shri Jyoti Basu supported West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's stand on capitalism saying that there is a need to industrialise the state. "Socialism is not achievable at this point of time”, he said.
How ironic is Mr Yechury’s boast that “out of the 61 Left MPs in the Lok Sabha, 54 of them reached there by defeating Congress candidates”. And yet the Left parties had the cheek – and the high 'democratic' principles -- to support that very Party in Parliament speaking and fighting against whose programmes, policies and individuals had it won people’s mandate for these 54 parliamentary seats. Does it not amount to cheating the electorate? Why should the people have voted for CPI (M) if they knew that Left MPs were, ultimately, to support Congress?
It remains a fact that the Left parties are speaking in two tongues – one in New Delhi and quite the opposite in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura.
This also substantiates the charge the Left parties are “sleeping with the enemy” and have entered into a marriage of convenience, devoid of principles, in their lust for power without responsibility.
It again is a hard fact that the moment the Left parties make a bold declaration not to support an anti-people policy of the UPA government, like hike in prices of petroleum products, increase in EPF interest rates, Indo-US Deal, disinvestment and the like, they receive invitation to lunch or dinner either by the Prime Minister or UPA chairperson. After having the sumptuous meals they forget their opposition to UPA policies and come out smiling. It is this behaviour of theirs that has given strength to the charge that the Left parties wave the red flag on the streets for public consumption and wave the green flag at private meetings with Government. The fact remains that the UPA had its way at all the times and it was the Left parties which had to compromise and submit each time. Remember their famous words on Indo-US Deal, “Congress has to choose between us and US”. Where do they stand today?
Needless to remind Shri Yechury of his own famous remark that Left not only barks; it can bite too. CPI (M) and Left have yet to come true to their words.
On February 14 the UPA government announced a hike of Rs. 2 per litre in petrol prices and Re. 1 in diesel. According to official announcement, the decision was taken after taking all the UPA allies and the Left parties in confidence. But the Left parties are opposing the decision publicly. Is it not cheating the people?
The least said the better about the Left. In fact the Left Parties, particularly CPI (M), may pose whatever they may, in reality they are only proving themselves as Congress No. 2 in the current political scenario.
*Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.
SPIDERNET: Lest he marries the other woman
SPIDERNET; Lest he weds the other woman
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is no exaggeration to say that the stand of Left parties supporting the UPA from outside is nothing short of hypocrisy and double standards.
They claim that supporting the UPA is "their helplessness" because the alternative is the rise to power of 'communal' forces which, they say, are represented by BJP and its allies.
Before 1989, Congress was the enemy No. 1 for the Left Parties. They deplored the division of anti-Congress votes that made Congress to continue in power. For the purpose of defeating it they had joined hands with the Jana Sangh, whom today the Left parties call 'communal'. They even shared power with this communal outfit in the northern States of India when united front governments became a phenomenon in post-1967 electoral scenario.
In 1989 they had no qualms of conscience not to join hands with 'communal' BJP to support V. P. Singh government. But BJP became 'communal' the moment it withdrew support to VP Singh government.
Now they support the Congress-led UPA government from outside. But hardly has there been any time during the last four years when they have not condemned and threatened this government on various issues like rise in prices of petroleum products, Indo-US deal, disinvestment and what not. We have heard their now famous byte through the mouth of CPM veteran Sita Ram Yechury: "We don't only bark. We can bite too". Everybody in the country knows what they have done so far.
Getting hurt at the recent rise in prices, they called for a four-day bandh in Left ruled States. They continue threatening but at the same time assuring that they don't wish to make this government collapse. Actually, the fact is that they don't want to lose the luxury of being in power without the mandate and without accountability. Their argument: they cannot help ushering the BJP-led NDA.
Their response is similar to the woman who quarrels with her husband and cannot stand him even for a moment. When the couple face each other, they only quarrel and shout. She doesn't share a room with him. But she is not willing to divorce him only because that would facilitate her husband marry the other woman which she cannot digest under no circumstances. ***
*Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is no exaggeration to say that the stand of Left parties supporting the UPA from outside is nothing short of hypocrisy and double standards.
They claim that supporting the UPA is "their helplessness" because the alternative is the rise to power of 'communal' forces which, they say, are represented by BJP and its allies.
Before 1989, Congress was the enemy No. 1 for the Left Parties. They deplored the division of anti-Congress votes that made Congress to continue in power. For the purpose of defeating it they had joined hands with the Jana Sangh, whom today the Left parties call 'communal'. They even shared power with this communal outfit in the northern States of India when united front governments became a phenomenon in post-1967 electoral scenario.
In 1989 they had no qualms of conscience not to join hands with 'communal' BJP to support V. P. Singh government. But BJP became 'communal' the moment it withdrew support to VP Singh government.
Now they support the Congress-led UPA government from outside. But hardly has there been any time during the last four years when they have not condemned and threatened this government on various issues like rise in prices of petroleum products, Indo-US deal, disinvestment and what not. We have heard their now famous byte through the mouth of CPM veteran Sita Ram Yechury: "We don't only bark. We can bite too". Everybody in the country knows what they have done so far.
Getting hurt at the recent rise in prices, they called for a four-day bandh in Left ruled States. They continue threatening but at the same time assuring that they don't wish to make this government collapse. Actually, the fact is that they don't want to lose the luxury of being in power without the mandate and without accountability. Their argument: they cannot help ushering the BJP-led NDA.
Their response is similar to the woman who quarrels with her husband and cannot stand him even for a moment. When the couple face each other, they only quarrel and shout. She doesn't share a room with him. But she is not willing to divorce him only because that would facilitate her husband marry the other woman which she cannot digest under no circumstances. ***
*Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Spidernet: The Myth & Reality of Parliamentary Privileges
SPIDERNET:
The Myth and Reality of
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
By A. C. Vashishtha
Words: 1506
Not-so- far-codified parliamentary privileges of our elected representatives have always been in the news and a matter of controversy. Like the mother who every other moment hurls the "I'll slap you" threat to his errant child, we also hear our parliamentarians threaten a privilege motion against every Tom, Dick and Harry. The latest has been the case of Indian Muslim League Member of Rajya Sabha, Mr. Abdul Wahab from Kerala who was made to leave the Air India aircraft before takeoff from Kozhikode on April 7 after a tiff with the pilot. The MP is reported to have threatened to move a privilege motion against the erring airline staff.
Whether the incident involves breach of privilege is a question that is the unchallenged discretion of the Rajya Sabha Chairman or Lok Sabha Speaker. But for academic interest, it is useful to understand what, in effect, can amount to a breach of parliamentary/legislative privilege although during the last sixty years no effort – and perhaps deliberately! – has been made to define it.
Our public representatives, honourable as they are, are yet human beings. And to err is human. An error whether of words or actions, can invite criticism and reproach from the people who bestow the aura of 'honour' on our public representatives on the strength of their vote. It is the people who make and unmake our elected representatives; the latter derive all their power and privileges from the people.
Yet, our public representatives seem to be growing more and more zealous and protective of their rights and privileges. They overlook their duties. The thin attendance at the time of important debates in our legislatures, at times having to be adjourned a number of times for want of quorum because the members had more important business other than legislative to take care of – the legislative business for which they are paid hefty pay, perks, allowances and, above all, the privileges. Any criticism of theirs, exposure of their activities these days invariably inviting motions of breach of privilege guaranteed.
The privileges are, no doubt, necessary for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution "to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament", according to famous authority on parliamentary business Mr. M. N. Kaul,. These are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and the vindication of its authority and dignity. The privileges have been granted to members so that "they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament without let or hindrance". (Report of Committee of Privileges in Captain Ramsay case House of Commons (H.C. 164(1939-40) p vi, para 19)
Yet, privileges "do not discharge the member from the obligations to society which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in that capacity, as they apply to other subjects" (H. C. 1951 Lewis case). These "do not place a member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of laws." (Committee of Speakers 1956).
Even after winning an election, a public representative does not lose his individual identity and personal existence – a person with his own profession, vocation and a circle of his own relations, friends and acquaintances. The one facet of his personality as a private individual engrossed in his personal affairs and business promotion cannot be made a part and parcel of his other facet of a public representative. Nor can – and should – both these aspects come into clash with each other. A respectable distance and dichotomy between the two has to be maintained for a harmonious functioning. The powers, functions and duties of the one should not transgress into the field of the other.
A public representative may come to have a clash of interests and, in the process, there could be some infringement of civil or criminal law even. But that does not provide a privilege to him against his spouse, brothers, parents and other relatives because these have nothing to do with his duties, functions and powers as a public representative. There may, at times, be a hot exchange of words or a brawl between two individuals without the other knowing even that the other is a public representative. That is why no person can – and should – claim privilege or immunity in anything said or done in his personal capacity as a private individual, whether in matters concerning himself, his family or profession. And that is why the Constitution gives the members of Parliament and of State legislatures the privilege and immunity only from "any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof" and not in any of their other functions or speeches delivered outside the House. Protected by the security ring of "proceedings in Parliament" and in State legislatures) these privileges do not extend beyond the legislative building, except when they are prevented from attending the session of Parliament or Assembly.
The concept of parliamentary privileges has been adopted by us in India on the pattern of the one prevailing in the British Parliament and is, more or less, governed and guided by the famous treatise May's Parliamentary Practice. The contempt of the House, according to May, is "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House, in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results…"
Breach of privilege means a disregard of any of the rights, privileges and immunities either of members of Parliament individually, or of the House in its collective capacity. Referring to various debates in the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha in Procedure and Practice of Parliament M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdhar state that "in order to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member of Parliament must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member of the House and must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Reflections upon members otherwise than in their capacity as members do not, therefore, involve a breach or privilege or contempt of the House. Similarly, speeches or writings containing vague charges against members or criticizing their parliamentary conduct in a strong language particularly in the heat of a public controversy without, however, imputing any malafides are not treated by the House as a contempt or breach of privilege".
Every activity of a member of Parliament does not attract the privilege. The House of Commons in 1958 rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges "that a particular letter written by a member to a Minister relating to a Nationalised Industry was a proceeding in Parliament".
Privilege of freedom from arrest "cannot extend or be contended to operate, where the member of Parliament is charged with an indictable offence". (Case of Venkateswarlyu, AIR 1951, Madras 272). Further, "the House will not allow even the sanctuary of its walls to protect a member from the process of criminal law" (May, p. 101)
The Constitution, the law and the parliamentary practice in India and the United Kingdom, therefore, clearly draw a distinct dividing line between the duties and functions of a public representative as a parliamentarian in the House and those outside, the latter bereft of the element of privilege.
In the Import Licence Case that surfaced about 15 years back, allegations of bribery and forgery of signatures of other MPs for promoting the cause of certain applicants were made. But the question of privilege was disallowed since the conduct of the member, although improper, was not related to the business of the House. At the same time it was held that as the allegations of bribery and forgery were serious and unbecoming of a member of Parliament, he could be held guilty of lowering the dignity of the House (Kaul and Shakdhar, ibid p. 231)
On the contrary, on the conduct of certain JMM MPs who voted for the Narasimharao Government during a vote of confidence in the House after allegedly receiving money, the Supreme Court held that trial must proceed against the alleged ``bribe-givers'' but not against the alleged ``bribe-takers'' since they enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution which states that ``no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.''
There is a very thin line dividing the two facets of an individual's personality – personal and the one as a representative elected by the people. During the course of one's life one has to come face to face with the realities of life. One must be ready to face such situation. What is important is not whether it involves parliamentary privilege or not, but the truth and the truth alone. A public representative should fight for truth, for the unearthing of it. And the truth prevails; it must always prevail.
The Myth and Reality of
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
By A. C. Vashishtha
Words: 1506
Not-so- far-codified parliamentary privileges of our elected representatives have always been in the news and a matter of controversy. Like the mother who every other moment hurls the "I'll slap you" threat to his errant child, we also hear our parliamentarians threaten a privilege motion against every Tom, Dick and Harry. The latest has been the case of Indian Muslim League Member of Rajya Sabha, Mr. Abdul Wahab from Kerala who was made to leave the Air India aircraft before takeoff from Kozhikode on April 7 after a tiff with the pilot. The MP is reported to have threatened to move a privilege motion against the erring airline staff.
Whether the incident involves breach of privilege is a question that is the unchallenged discretion of the Rajya Sabha Chairman or Lok Sabha Speaker. But for academic interest, it is useful to understand what, in effect, can amount to a breach of parliamentary/legislative privilege although during the last sixty years no effort – and perhaps deliberately! – has been made to define it.
Our public representatives, honourable as they are, are yet human beings. And to err is human. An error whether of words or actions, can invite criticism and reproach from the people who bestow the aura of 'honour' on our public representatives on the strength of their vote. It is the people who make and unmake our elected representatives; the latter derive all their power and privileges from the people.
Yet, our public representatives seem to be growing more and more zealous and protective of their rights and privileges. They overlook their duties. The thin attendance at the time of important debates in our legislatures, at times having to be adjourned a number of times for want of quorum because the members had more important business other than legislative to take care of – the legislative business for which they are paid hefty pay, perks, allowances and, above all, the privileges. Any criticism of theirs, exposure of their activities these days invariably inviting motions of breach of privilege guaranteed.
The privileges are, no doubt, necessary for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution "to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament", according to famous authority on parliamentary business Mr. M. N. Kaul,. These are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and the vindication of its authority and dignity. The privileges have been granted to members so that "they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament without let or hindrance". (Report of Committee of Privileges in Captain Ramsay case House of Commons (H.C. 164(1939-40) p vi, para 19)
Yet, privileges "do not discharge the member from the obligations to society which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in that capacity, as they apply to other subjects" (H. C. 1951 Lewis case). These "do not place a member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of laws." (Committee of Speakers 1956).
Even after winning an election, a public representative does not lose his individual identity and personal existence – a person with his own profession, vocation and a circle of his own relations, friends and acquaintances. The one facet of his personality as a private individual engrossed in his personal affairs and business promotion cannot be made a part and parcel of his other facet of a public representative. Nor can – and should – both these aspects come into clash with each other. A respectable distance and dichotomy between the two has to be maintained for a harmonious functioning. The powers, functions and duties of the one should not transgress into the field of the other.
A public representative may come to have a clash of interests and, in the process, there could be some infringement of civil or criminal law even. But that does not provide a privilege to him against his spouse, brothers, parents and other relatives because these have nothing to do with his duties, functions and powers as a public representative. There may, at times, be a hot exchange of words or a brawl between two individuals without the other knowing even that the other is a public representative. That is why no person can – and should – claim privilege or immunity in anything said or done in his personal capacity as a private individual, whether in matters concerning himself, his family or profession. And that is why the Constitution gives the members of Parliament and of State legislatures the privilege and immunity only from "any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof" and not in any of their other functions or speeches delivered outside the House. Protected by the security ring of "proceedings in Parliament" and in State legislatures) these privileges do not extend beyond the legislative building, except when they are prevented from attending the session of Parliament or Assembly.
The concept of parliamentary privileges has been adopted by us in India on the pattern of the one prevailing in the British Parliament and is, more or less, governed and guided by the famous treatise May's Parliamentary Practice. The contempt of the House, according to May, is "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House, in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results…"
Breach of privilege means a disregard of any of the rights, privileges and immunities either of members of Parliament individually, or of the House in its collective capacity. Referring to various debates in the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha in Procedure and Practice of Parliament M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdhar state that "in order to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member of Parliament must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member of the House and must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Reflections upon members otherwise than in their capacity as members do not, therefore, involve a breach or privilege or contempt of the House. Similarly, speeches or writings containing vague charges against members or criticizing their parliamentary conduct in a strong language particularly in the heat of a public controversy without, however, imputing any malafides are not treated by the House as a contempt or breach of privilege".
Every activity of a member of Parliament does not attract the privilege. The House of Commons in 1958 rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges "that a particular letter written by a member to a Minister relating to a Nationalised Industry was a proceeding in Parliament".
Privilege of freedom from arrest "cannot extend or be contended to operate, where the member of Parliament is charged with an indictable offence". (Case of Venkateswarlyu, AIR 1951, Madras 272). Further, "the House will not allow even the sanctuary of its walls to protect a member from the process of criminal law" (May, p. 101)
The Constitution, the law and the parliamentary practice in India and the United Kingdom, therefore, clearly draw a distinct dividing line between the duties and functions of a public representative as a parliamentarian in the House and those outside, the latter bereft of the element of privilege.
In the Import Licence Case that surfaced about 15 years back, allegations of bribery and forgery of signatures of other MPs for promoting the cause of certain applicants were made. But the question of privilege was disallowed since the conduct of the member, although improper, was not related to the business of the House. At the same time it was held that as the allegations of bribery and forgery were serious and unbecoming of a member of Parliament, he could be held guilty of lowering the dignity of the House (Kaul and Shakdhar, ibid p. 231)
On the contrary, on the conduct of certain JMM MPs who voted for the Narasimharao Government during a vote of confidence in the House after allegedly receiving money, the Supreme Court held that trial must proceed against the alleged ``bribe-givers'' but not against the alleged ``bribe-takers'' since they enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution which states that ``no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.''
There is a very thin line dividing the two facets of an individual's personality – personal and the one as a representative elected by the people. During the course of one's life one has to come face to face with the realities of life. One must be ready to face such situation. What is important is not whether it involves parliamentary privilege or not, but the truth and the truth alone. A public representative should fight for truth, for the unearthing of it. And the truth prevails; it must always prevail.
NEEDLEPOINT: They need honour & Education, not alms of reservation
Spidernet
They deserve honour and education
Not the alms of reservation
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Reservation was certainly a necessity – legal, social and economic -- when such a provision was made in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were men of wisdom and foresight. They knew that making such a provision permanent would make it have an adverse effect on the Indian society and may ultimately divide it on the basis of caste. They actually had a vision of India as a nation not divided on caste lines, as it was in the past till India won freedom. That was why the provision for reservation was made for just 10 years. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had with a sense of pride declared that the scheduled castes would not beg for it after that.
But that is a history now. There was a time when claiming to belong to a scheduled caste/tribe family looked embarrassing. Reservation too looked upon like a gracious favour. But today it has become a matter of pride, a sign of status, and something one should fight and even sacrifice for.
Without going into the justification or otherwise of their demand, the recent agitation by Gurjars for grant of scheduled tribes (and not the Other Backward Class status, as the Government has granted), has to be seen in this very light. Of late, in Rajasthan some sections among the forward castes of Brahmins and Rajputs too have come out with a demand for granting them backward/scheduled caste status. Even the non-Hindu religions, which hitherto prided themselves in being casteless creeds in denunciation of Hindu society, are now condescending to demand reservation on the basis of castes – a fact which their religion doesn't recognize. Such demands will continue to be on the increase as long as there is reservation.
This situation has ignited the spark of a class/caste conflict in the society. Rajasthan's Meena community, already enjoying a scheduled tribe status, is equally vehement in opposing the Gurjars.
Malady lies not in the demand, but in the politics behind in the name of votes. The reservation provision that was temporary for a decade has now become a permanent feature of the Constitution. No political party can dare to do otherwise
There was no narrow electoral politics at play when the Constitution in one of its Directive Principles provided for enactment of a uniform civil code in the country, a provision about which the Supreme Court has also reminded the Union government not once, but at least thrice. But now the electoral considerations have made our leaders deaf, blind and dumb on the issue.
Similar is the story about the Article 370 which, again, was a temporary one. Now it has virtually turned into a permanent feature, as against the spirit of the Constitution, lest it costs the ruling party votes of a particular community.
No serious effort has been made, for obvious reasons, to assess the extent of amelioration the reservation provision has ushered in the condition of the scheduled castes/tribes. In the absence of the creamy layer provision, now enforced because of Supreme Court verdict, the benefit of reservation has been usurped by only a very few families. We can count on our tips the families whose four generations are in the IAS, IPS and other prestigious Central services. Others continue to indulge in the age-old professions as before, living in slums in pecuniary.
Reality is that those who got into power and prestige because of reservation no longer wish to be identified with the castes to which they belonged. They snapped their relations with the community and married off themselves in higher castes, instead of doing so to uplift someone in their own community. For them the value of the caste certificate was reduced to just claiming benefit. Inter-caste and inter-community marriages should always be welcome. But, unfortunately, doing so in these cases has only resulted in the neglect of the rest in their own community. And that was not what our Constitution visualized.
In fact, reservation is a curse on the merit of the mankind. What we should have done was to extend the benefit of a good education and multiplicity of opportunities the higher castes enjoyed more because of their economic condition and less because of their social upbringing. We should have empowered the scheduled tribes/castes and backward classes by providing them with a good environment for higher education and coaching to compete with the higher castes on the platform of equality on the strength of their merit. It is a folly to think that the reserve classes lack merit or intelligence and that they can survive or march forward only if there is reservation to the exclusion of merit. Given the opportunity that have excelled in fields nobody could earlier think even.
Thousands of crores has been wasted during the past sixty years without any significant and tangible improvement in the life and condition of our neglected and dalit sections of society. Why were they not provided the type of education and extent of opportunities other castes enjoyed?
The present agitations by more and more castes for their inclusion in the scheduled castes/scheduled tribe category is because of the impression ingrained in their mind that the very act of their inclusion in these proud categories will overnight make their wards grab prized posts without earning the merit. A sense of inferiority complex has been generated in the minds of these neglected sections that they can never earn merit and reservation is the only panacea. The neglected castes have been made to beg for the alms of reservation and not to agitate for their right to education and merit. That is the crux of the problem. Empowering the downtrodden doesn't fetch votes; our politicians know it very well.
Our rulers will have to change their mindset to barter favours with electoral benefits from certain castes and communities. Unless this is done, the kind of situation that developed in Rajasthan may erupt in other parts of the country with similar demands from other castes/communities. Let our politicians ponder in a cool manner. ***
They deserve honour and education
Not the alms of reservation
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Reservation was certainly a necessity – legal, social and economic -- when such a provision was made in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were men of wisdom and foresight. They knew that making such a provision permanent would make it have an adverse effect on the Indian society and may ultimately divide it on the basis of caste. They actually had a vision of India as a nation not divided on caste lines, as it was in the past till India won freedom. That was why the provision for reservation was made for just 10 years. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had with a sense of pride declared that the scheduled castes would not beg for it after that.
But that is a history now. There was a time when claiming to belong to a scheduled caste/tribe family looked embarrassing. Reservation too looked upon like a gracious favour. But today it has become a matter of pride, a sign of status, and something one should fight and even sacrifice for.
Without going into the justification or otherwise of their demand, the recent agitation by Gurjars for grant of scheduled tribes (and not the Other Backward Class status, as the Government has granted), has to be seen in this very light. Of late, in Rajasthan some sections among the forward castes of Brahmins and Rajputs too have come out with a demand for granting them backward/scheduled caste status. Even the non-Hindu religions, which hitherto prided themselves in being casteless creeds in denunciation of Hindu society, are now condescending to demand reservation on the basis of castes – a fact which their religion doesn't recognize. Such demands will continue to be on the increase as long as there is reservation.
This situation has ignited the spark of a class/caste conflict in the society. Rajasthan's Meena community, already enjoying a scheduled tribe status, is equally vehement in opposing the Gurjars.
Malady lies not in the demand, but in the politics behind in the name of votes. The reservation provision that was temporary for a decade has now become a permanent feature of the Constitution. No political party can dare to do otherwise
There was no narrow electoral politics at play when the Constitution in one of its Directive Principles provided for enactment of a uniform civil code in the country, a provision about which the Supreme Court has also reminded the Union government not once, but at least thrice. But now the electoral considerations have made our leaders deaf, blind and dumb on the issue.
Similar is the story about the Article 370 which, again, was a temporary one. Now it has virtually turned into a permanent feature, as against the spirit of the Constitution, lest it costs the ruling party votes of a particular community.
No serious effort has been made, for obvious reasons, to assess the extent of amelioration the reservation provision has ushered in the condition of the scheduled castes/tribes. In the absence of the creamy layer provision, now enforced because of Supreme Court verdict, the benefit of reservation has been usurped by only a very few families. We can count on our tips the families whose four generations are in the IAS, IPS and other prestigious Central services. Others continue to indulge in the age-old professions as before, living in slums in pecuniary.
Reality is that those who got into power and prestige because of reservation no longer wish to be identified with the castes to which they belonged. They snapped their relations with the community and married off themselves in higher castes, instead of doing so to uplift someone in their own community. For them the value of the caste certificate was reduced to just claiming benefit. Inter-caste and inter-community marriages should always be welcome. But, unfortunately, doing so in these cases has only resulted in the neglect of the rest in their own community. And that was not what our Constitution visualized.
In fact, reservation is a curse on the merit of the mankind. What we should have done was to extend the benefit of a good education and multiplicity of opportunities the higher castes enjoyed more because of their economic condition and less because of their social upbringing. We should have empowered the scheduled tribes/castes and backward classes by providing them with a good environment for higher education and coaching to compete with the higher castes on the platform of equality on the strength of their merit. It is a folly to think that the reserve classes lack merit or intelligence and that they can survive or march forward only if there is reservation to the exclusion of merit. Given the opportunity that have excelled in fields nobody could earlier think even.
Thousands of crores has been wasted during the past sixty years without any significant and tangible improvement in the life and condition of our neglected and dalit sections of society. Why were they not provided the type of education and extent of opportunities other castes enjoyed?
The present agitations by more and more castes for their inclusion in the scheduled castes/scheduled tribe category is because of the impression ingrained in their mind that the very act of their inclusion in these proud categories will overnight make their wards grab prized posts without earning the merit. A sense of inferiority complex has been generated in the minds of these neglected sections that they can never earn merit and reservation is the only panacea. The neglected castes have been made to beg for the alms of reservation and not to agitate for their right to education and merit. That is the crux of the problem. Empowering the downtrodden doesn't fetch votes; our politicians know it very well.
Our rulers will have to change their mindset to barter favours with electoral benefits from certain castes and communities. Unless this is done, the kind of situation that developed in Rajasthan may erupt in other parts of the country with similar demands from other castes/communities. Let our politicians ponder in a cool manner. ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
