Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jan 21, 2005

About Us
Contact Us
Opinion
News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment |

Opinion - Editorials Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

OUT OF JURISDICTION, AGAIN

IN YET ANOTHER act completely out of jurisdiction, the Election Commission has undertaken to examine whether the release and use of the Justice U.C. Banerjee interim report on Godhra amount to a violation of the model code of conduct. It has sought to determine the political content of the coming Assembly elections rather than confine itself to `supervising' free and fair elections as mandated in Article 324 of the Constitution. T.S. Krishnamurthy's loose talk insinuating that Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad timed the release of the Godhra report for electoral gain is yet another instance of the Chief Election Commissioner donning the mantle of the nation's conscience-keeper and super policeman. Worse still, the CEC has termed the citing of the Banerjee report as likely use of religion for political exploitation. The Godhra tragedy and the communal carnage that followed had very little to do with religion and everything to do with the politics of communalism. Taking hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness to a new high, the Bharatiya Janata Party has blamed Lalu Prasad for attempting to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims through the instrumentality of the Banerjee report. The CEC seems to be unwittingly concurring with the BJP.

The Election Commission's model code of conduct prohibits parties or candidates from indulging in "any activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic." In principle, this is an admirable ideal, and yet there are complexities that cannot be circumscribed by sheer nobility of intent. The politics of shilanyas in Ayodhya, L.K. Advani's rath yatra, and the culmination of the upsurge of so-called Hindu nationalism in the vile and barbaric act of demolition of the Babri Masjid cannot be neatly delineated either as religion or as politics. It is easier, however, to define communalism of both the majority and the minority; this reveals itself in the disruption of public peace, threatens the rule of law, and undermines the social fabric. The BJP under Narendra Modi's leadership fought and won the Gujarat elections on the plank of the Godhra deaths and their communal fallout. If the Election Commission were honestly and uncompromisingly to adhere to its own guidelines, the entire election process in Gujarat would have to be nullified. Constitutional experts, therefore, have suggested that Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, must guide every attempt to regulate public and political activity.

The Election Commission's statement exemplifies a peculiar mindset associated with certain managerial and technocratic tendencies. It leads to a narrow and authoritarian framing of `real' issues. Constant harping on what it insists should be the rules of the political game directly leads to attempts to sanitise public life and curtail, to use Jawaharlal Nehru's memorable phrase, "the noise and chaos of democracy." This is not to argue that politics and politicians have not shortchanged the people of India over the years. But this cannot be an argument for abandoning democratic politics in favour of managerialism or taking the cut and thrust of politics out of elections. The aftermath of Godhra had profound and disturbing implications for the idea of India. It is only natural for political parties and the democratic process to discuss threadbare these implications — in, and out of, election season. To be part of the idea of India is to be concerned for a larger whole than one's backyard. Voters do not require the patronising gaze or the censoring hand of any constitutional functionary to determine the politics of the country and its future.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Updates: Breaking News |


News Update


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu