Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Somnath’s expulsion

This refers to Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s expulsion by the CPI(M). Mr. Chatterjee should have resigned from the party after being elected Speaker. After his term, he could have rejoined the party. By refusing to resign after the Left parties withdrew support to the UPA government, he invited action.

A 10-time MP and politician of six decades should have known better.

S. Sasidharan Uppath,

Palakkad

Mr. Chatterjee was elected as an MP on the CPI(M) ticket and the CPI(M) manifesto. After withdrawing support to the government, the party gave him the option of being a party member or the Lok Sabha Speaker.

Obviously, Mr. Chatterjee wanted to continue as the Speaker. By expelling him, the CPI(M) has given him what he chose to have.

S. Chatterjee & Vani V.C.,

Bangalore

As pointed out in the editorial “After the vote” (July 24), Mr. Chatterjee can be regarded as the first and only defector MP in the life of CPI(M), unlike MPs belonging to various parties who are vulnerable to blandishments of money. The argument that the ‘neutrality’ of the office of Speaker means he should not be expelled from the membership of a political party is hypocritical.

Factually, it has been reported that it was on the insistence of the party that Mr. Chatterjee had to relinquish his membership of the Central Committee, so that aspersions would not be cast on the Speaker’s neutrality. Initially, Mr. Chatterjee seemed to have been very reluctant to do this. Should not the neutrality confine itself to the proceedings inside the Lok Sabha? Or should he be apolitical in perpetuity? Then how is Shivraj Patil, an ex-Speaker, the present Home Minister?

Kasim Sait,

Chennai

Mr. Chatterjee should have resigned before the trust vote. He became the Speaker because he was elected on the CPI(M) ticket. His party proposed his name. It appears that Mr. Chatterjee wanted to be in the limelight during the unethical and so-called historic trust vote.

A. Amudhavanan,

Tirunelveli

No one disputes Mr. Chatterjee’s mettle as the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha. But his defiance of his party is untenable.

N.K. Vijayan,

Kizhakkambalam

Mr. Chatterjee’s expulsion shows that the CPI(M) is becoming increasingly rigid. The Speaker is popular among the people of his Bolpur constituency as well as in the entire State of West Bengal. He has functioned as an effective Speaker and remained within parliamentary norms by staying on after the Left parties withdrew support to the government.

The CPI(M) seems to be going back to the ideology of the 1960s and 1970s. As an old friend of the party, I am concerned.

Supriya Dasgupta,

Bangalore

There may be substance in the CPI(M) argument that Mr. Chatterjee is a party MP first and the Speaker next. But after he was elected Speaker, he should not have been forced to toe the party line.

At the time of the trust vote, the numbers in the Lok Sabha were precariously balanced and it was necessary for a forthright Speaker to be in the Chair.

Arun Kanth,

Hanamkonda

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

Stories in this Section

Moving ahead with post
Maximising benefits of trade
Trail of violence: rights activists at risk
Berlin gives Obama rock star welcome
Rape — there is never an excuse, ever
Why does Russia cooperate with ‘rogue states’
Corrections and clarifications
Somnath’s expulsion
Trust vote
Ramar Sethu issue

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu