In the history of Indian elections, three events have occurred last week which are totally without precedent.
Firstly,
the Election Commission, following a complaint made to it on behalf of
the Bharatiya Janata Party, has publicly censured the Union Minister of
Law and Justice and Minority Affairs, Salman Khurshid, for violating the
Model Code of Conduct.
Secondly, the Law Minister has reacted defiantly to the Election Commission’s order. The Commission has noted:
‘Shri Khurshid has been seen today (11th
February, 2012) making statements to the effect that he would pursue
the line of his earlier announcement irrespective of whatever the
Commission directs. In fact, the Union Minister goes on to say that he
would stick to his line, “even if they hang me”. We have found the tone
and tenor of the Union Minister dismissive and utterly contemptuous
about the Commission’s lawful direction to him’.
Thirdly,
the Election Commission, feeling “shocked that instead of being
remorseful about the violation of the Model Code, has chosen to be
defiant and aggressive” decided to convene “an emergency meeting” of the
full Commission. The Commission then addressed a letter to the
President to inform her that
“the
Commission is quite concerned that the delicate balance of functions
between constitutional authorities has come under a strain, because of
the Minister’s improper and unlawful action.”
The last paragraph of the Commission’s letter to the Rashtrapati reads :
“The
Election Commission of India finds it necessary and unavoidable to turn
to you at this juncture for immediate and decisive intervention so that
the ongoing general election to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly is
conducted, and this Commission discharges its functions, in accordance
with the Constitu;tion and the law.”
***
It
would be worthwhile to place on record some excerpts from the operative
part of the Election Commission’s Order in this regard. The Order said :
“The
model code of conduct lays down, inter-alia, that the Ministers shall
not announce any financial grants in any form or promises thereof. In
the Commission’s considered opinion, the promise of jobs to a distinct
section of the electorate would also tantamount to special financial
grant to the members of that section in the form of government jobs and
the remuneration that goes with the jobs. Further, the model code of
conduct also prohibits, inter-alia, appeals on the ground of caste or
communal feelings. Here also, the Commission is of the considered view
that the promise of reserving 9% seats for minorities amounts to an
appeal to particular sections of the electorate with a view to
influencing their minds to voter for the party in power. The press
reports which appeared on the 10th January, 2012, in various
national dailies and local news papers of important standing, mention
that the respondent while making the above promise of reservation of
seats for minorities specifically added that the benefits of such
reservation in Uttar Pradesh would go to Muslims…..
“The
Commission has come to the inescapable conclusion that the respondent,
Shri Salman Khurshid, made a new promise to a distinct targeted group of
the electorate among the minorities that 9% seats would be reserved for
them from out of the overall quota of 27% for the other backward
classes. The Commission is also satisfied that the above promise was
made by Shri Salman Khurshid as a Union Minister for Law and Minorities
Affairs. Thus, Shri Salman Khurshid has violated the model code of
conduct by making the above said promise. The Commission, therefore,
cannot help expressing its deep anguish and disappointment over his
violation of model code of conduct. As a Union Minister for Law and
Minorities Affairs, he has an added responsibility of ensuring that the
model code of conduct is observed in letter and spirit so that elections
are conducted in a free and fair manner and all political parties enjoy
a level playing field in the matter of their election campaigns.”
****
In
the course of my statements during my poll campaign in U.P. I had urged
the Prime Minister to advise Salman Khurshid, a Minister in his
cabinet, to understand the serious implications of the letter addressed
to the President by the Election Commission in which the Commission had
described Law Minister Khurshid’s conduct as “improper and unlawful
action”, to apologise to the Commission. I had also affirmed that if he
fails to do so, he ought to be sacked from the Cabinet.
Presumably,
on the P.M’s advice, the Law Minister wrote a letter of regret to the
Commission, following which the E.C. decided to treat the matter as
closed.
***
Never
before have the Congress Party and/or its leaders communalized an
Assembly election as consciously and deliberately as it has done in
Uttar Pradesh in 2012.
Salman Khurshid episode is not the only instance to prove this point.
Digvijay
Singh’s recent statement to the effect that the Batla House encounter
with terrorists was a fake encounter has been yet another instance.
Even
after Khurshid’s regret letter, Beni Prasad Varma has repeated what
Khurshid had said. The E.C. has served a notice on Varma also. If Varma
also does something like what Khurshid has done, and escapes removal
from the Ministry, then Jaitley’s suspicion would be proved correct that
these statements are not individual acts of defiance of a
constitutional authority but part of a planned poll-oriented conspiracy
by the party’s poll managers. It is significant that while the party
formally distanced itself from Khurshid’s utterances, the family did
not. The family’s youngest campaigner enthusiastically supported the Law
Minister.
L.K. Advani
New Delhi
19 Feb, 2012
http://blog.lkadvani.in/blog-in-english/congress-communalises-up-campaign
Subramaniam Swamy has announced that he would appeal against the Trial Court’s decision. The
key question the judiciary has now to decide is: Is A Raja the former
Telecom Minister the solitary villain of the piece, and the only person
responsible for these fraudulent transactions?
