Political Diary

New Delhi, 27 February 2024

Gyanvapi Mosque

TIME FOR BHARAT BHAKTI?

By Poonam I Kaushish 

It was music to Shiv Bhakts as Har Har Mahadev had his way, say and came out trumps. In a big win for Hindus, Allahabad High Court Monday dismissed Gyanvapi mosque management committee's appeals challenging Varanasi district judge's order last month allowing “puja” to be performed in Vyas Tehkhana, averring “worship will continue.” 

Recall, Samajwadi’s Mulayam Singh Government had stopped prayers in the Tehkhana 1993 post Babri Masjid demolition.  On Shailendra Vyas’s petition claiming cellar was with his family since 1551and prayers were being held since British times till 1993 and State could not arbitrarily take away his right of freedom of religion granted by Article 25, the district judge  allowed puja. 

Certainly, the temple-masjid symbolism is an intoxicating potent being used by Hindus and Muslims, depending on which side of the template one is on. History tells us Aurangzeb built Gyanvapi Mosque 1669 after demolishing Vishweshwar Mandir. The temple’s plinth was left untouched and continued to serve as the mosque’s courtyard which reportedly has a Shivling in the pond used for “wasoo” (purification) before namaz and why Hindus are being deprived of their religious right to offer water to the ‘lingam.’ 

In 1936, three Muslim petitioners moved Varanasi’s District Court demanding the entire Gyanvapi complex be declared mosque’s part. The Court granted right to offer namaz alongside prayers anywhere in the complex. 

However, just like Places of Worship Act (PoW) the present case too has its roots in 1991 when a Vishwanath temple priest’s descendant and two others filed a suit in Varanasi’s civil judge court demanding declaration that Gyanvapi complex is part of Kashi temple, removal of Muslims from therein, mosque’s demolition as it was built on old Visweshwar temple’s remnants and land be returned to them, bypassing the PoW. 

In 1998 Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (AIM) moved Allahabad High Court asserting temple-mosque land dispute could not be adjudicated by a civil court as it was barred by PoW Act citing Section 3 which prohibits converting place of worship of a different religious denomination or a different class of the same religious denomination. Section 4(2) states all litigations, appeals or other proceedings relating to changing nature of the place of worship (which were pending till August 15, 1947) shall cease after the enactment of this Act and no fresh action can be taken on such cases. 

The petitioners contended the 1991 Act did not apply to the mosque as the mandir was partly demolished to construct it. Also, as change in nature of worship place had occurred after the cut-off date of August 15, 1947 legal action could be initiated, resulting in the High Court staying proceedings in the lower court for 22 years. 

The issue was revived in 2019 demanding an Archeological survey of the entire disputed area. This was ceded by the city-court on 8 April 2021. Alongside, a five-member committee comprising archaeology experts with two members from “minority community” was constituted to determine whether any temple existed at the site, prior to the mosque. The AIM challenged this in Allahabad High Court which indefinitely stayed the survey. 

On 18 August 2021 five women filed a petition demanding right to worship in Shringar Gauri temple daily without restrictions along-with other “visible and invisible deities within the old temple complex”. Presently, devotees are allowed to worship only on fourth day of Chaitra Navratra. 

In April 2022 Varanasi District Court allowed videography. AIM moved Supreme Court stating it went against PoW Act which was rejected. In July Allahabad’s High Court upheld Varanasi Court ordering ASI survey to determine if mosque was built upon a temple. In August last Supreme Court refused to stop ASI continuing their “scientific investigation of mosque’s complex”.

Questionably, is the genesis of the dispute just to rectify history? Is it only about worship in Tehkhana? Or ensure BJP’s political future of Hindu consolidation? “Ayodhya to bas jhaanki hai, Kashi-Mathura baaki hai? Saffronites allege Mathura’s Shahi Idgah Masjid was built by demolishing a temple at Lord Krishna birthplace. A case is pending before a local court seeking to reclaim Katra Keshav Dev Mandir complex. 

Undoubtedly, the judgment’s larger implications are that it paves path for suits of similar nature. To buttress its claim, a senior BJP leader underscores Kashi Vishwanath Temple as Lord Shiva’s most significant shrine and prominent among 12 ‘Jyotirlingas’ mentioned in Puranas. It’s part of our national heritage and symbol of nationalism which is at the core of Indian consciousness.  We have given Kashi a political thrust for installing Hindu nationalism as India’s dominant political credo. 

More. The Saffron Sangh avers idea of communal harmony and unity flies in the face of historical evidence even as Muslims use historic religious sites as reference points to articulate their socio-political goals and build modern identities with different visions of a modern State. 

Musim clerics aver Hindutva Brigade has found its golden goose: Reclaiming temples by breaking mosques to get Hindu majority to keep bringing them back to power on an emotive issue built on the foundation of aastha and badla from Muslim invaders, who are history. The method is simple: instill a feeling of victimisation within Hindus that they had been dealt unfairly by Muslim minority, first by Mughals and now by Congress and Opposition Parties which believe in Muslim appeasement. 

Today, this victim complex has now culminated into a superiority complex within a cross-section of the majority community which wants to assert its identity by demolition of mosques and “reclaiming” temples. Ayodhya and Babri were the political investments made three decades ago. 

Adding, “For the BJP it is a political issue for which they will gain benefits in 2024 elections, specially, as it Prime Minister Modi’s constituency. The Saffron Sangh wants to dip into their interest earnings from Ayodhya and make fresh investments — basically go on an expansion drive, inject fresh fuel in religiosity via Kashi and Mathura which are part of a grand effort to undermine India’s Islamic history. The motive is clear. Monuments that remind presence of Muslims ruling India must be destroyed.” 

Already, there are four instances beside Varanasi where the origin of various structures are being challenged before courts despite the PoW law: Mathura, Agra, Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar and New Delhi. 

In a sense, the dispute with its political undertones, underscores the nemesis of depending wholly and pathetically on the judicial process to tackle an issue of faith. Perhaps a way forward is to learn from the Ayodhya verdict. The judgment went a long way in becoming a catalytic agent to integrate India and make it a cohesive whole. 

It strengthened the basic features of the Constitution and confidence of people, especially of minorities, on independence of judiciary and rule of law. People showed their inherent maturity. There were no untoward incidents, fiery and inciting speeches, celebration or despondency.

Clearly, a long legal battle lies ahead as Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi temple is related to faith and posturing of assertion is not the best formula for amity. In a pluralist society, with multiplicity of religions, Hindu-Muslim religious leaders need to sit together and work on a solution. For starters why don’t ShivBhakts and Rahim Abids evoke the spirit of Rashtra Bhakti. What gives? ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The States

New Delhi, 24 February 2024

Of ‘Honour’ & Politics

WB ROW GETS MURKIER

By Insaf 

Sandeshkhali in West Bengal’s North 24 Parganas district is becoming a political hot potato. It’s not just the ‘honour’ of the village women but also of the Sikh community in the State. Tempers are far from being pacified. On the one hand, fresh protests broke out on Friday last in the village as locals set fire to properties belonging to TMC leaders Shahjahan Sheikh and his brother Siraj for grabbing their land and sexually assaulting their women and on the other the Sikh community staged demonstration in front of BJP office in Kolkata on Wednesday last, expressing solidarity with an IPS officer who has alleged its party leader Suvendu Adhikari labelled him as a ‘Khalistani’, as he was deputed to prevent him from visiting Sandeshkhali. Similar protests were held by the Sikhs in few districts, and Congress, AAP and TMC promptly grabbed the opportunity and slammed BJP for ‘divisive politics.’ While Adhikari denied the allegations, TMC launched a digital protest with theme “I Am A Sikh, I Wear Turban, & I Am Not Khalistani,” and demanded an explanation from Prime Minister Modi. Guess it will get a response on his visit scheduled for 6 March. Will tables be turned?    

‘Dictator’ Raids

It’s happened – outspoken and a critic of Modi government, former J&K Governor Satya Pal Malik has come under CBI’s radar. Vendetta or it is own goal, is the big question? On Thursday last, raids were conducted at his premises and 29 other locations, all connected to alleged corruption in Rs 2,200-crore Kiru Hydropower project in Jammu. Recall, he had claimed being offered Rs 300-crore bribe for clearing two files, including this project, when he was Governor from August 23, 2018-October 30, 2019. As premises linked to him in Delhi’s Dwarka, R K Puram, Asian Games Village and in Gurugram and Baghpat were being searched, he posted on X: “I have been ill for last 3-4 days and am admitted to hospital. Despite this, my house is being raided by the dictator through government agencies. My driver and my assistant are also being raided and harassed unnecessarily. I am a farmer’s son, I will not be afraid of these raids. I am with the farmers.’ But CBI said raids covered premises of all involved in the April 2022 case, prompting him to accuse it of ‘harassing the whistle-blower himself’! Critic may be more appropriate given record of his statements: Pulwama terror attack could have been averted if Centre had not turned down his request for aircraft to move CRPF personnel; farmers can’t be humiliated; if Modi comes back in 2024 it’s the death of democracy and he must be stopped, etc. Nothing short of inviting wrath?  

Concern Over Farmers’ Stir

Home Ministry is tightening the screws on the Punjab government, with the farmers threatening to put their protest into top gear, with some breaks, following the death of a farmer at Khanouri border on Wednesday last, amid excessive police action. Agencies report 14,000-odd people have been allowed to gather at Shambhu barrier, with nearly 1,200 tractor-trolleys, 300 cars, 10 mini-buses and other small vehicles. Similarly, Punjab has allowed a gathering of around 4,500 people with close to 500 tractor-trolleys at the Dhabi-Gujran barrier. However, ‘law and order situation is deteriorating’ claims North block and has asked AAP government to take action to ‘curb disruptive activities’. Task impossible, as Centre itself has failed to make headway with the farmers’ demands so far. Plans are afoot now by farmers’ organisations to launch nationwide protests; demanded Rs 1 crore compensation for farmer’s family; called for ‘tractor pradarshan’ (demonstration) on Monday across the country; organise a mahapanchayat at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan on 14 March, etc. A stitch in time saves nine, is the idiom the Centre could do well with.  

INDIA Ties-UP

Uttar Pradesh and Delhi offer hope to INDIA bloc with seat-sharing for Lok Sabha polls between Congress and SP and AAP respectively appears to be working out. In Lucknow, the grand old party and SP announced on Wednesday last a tie-up in UP and Madhya Pradesh, with the latter leaving 17 of the 80 seats and getting a solitary seat Khajuraho respectively. Interestingly, Congress will contest in high profile constituencies of Raebareli, Amethi, and Varanasi and SP and allies shall fight rest of 63 seats. More good news followed. Congress and AAP agreed that former will contest 3 of the seven seats in Delhi. With all 7 seats with BJP in Delhi, the going is not easy, particularly for AAP. It has fresh accusations against the saffron party now. On Friday it claimed BJP was scared of the alliance, had asked it not to have one, and shall soon get the ED to arrest Kejriwal, following its 7^th summons in the liquor case. The allegations don’t cut much ice as it has agreed to share seats in Chandigarh, Goa, Gujarat, and Haryana with Congress, but will go solo in Punjab. Guess, have the cake and eat it too!   

Justice For Chandigarh

Three cheers to Supreme Court. The ‘rigged’ Chandigarh mayor poll has been set aside. On Tuesday last, not only did it instal declared defeated AAP-Congress nominee Kuldeep Kumar to the seat, hurriedly taken by BJP nominee Manoj Sonkar, but found returning officer Anil Masih ‘guilty of a serious misdemeanour’. It directed a show cause notice be issued to him under Section 340 of CrPC 1973 (offence affecting administration of justice), as “Pertinently, this is not an ordinary case of alleged malpractice by candidates in an election, but electoral misconduct by presiding officer himself.” Underlining ‘a free and fair electoral process is imperative for maintaining people’s trust in representative democracy,’ it said, “The ballots hadn’t been defaced when presiding officer put his mark at the bottom…each of the eight ballot papers, which were invalidated by Masih, the votes were duly cast in favour of Kumar…”, thereby upholding Kumar’s plea. Though Sonkar resigned 48 hours before the order, it didn’t stop the court to invoke Article 142 (empowering it to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in matters pending before it) given the “brazen nature of the malpractice, visible on camera, had made the situation all the more extraordinary...’ BJP must see it as a warning, lest it goes pink again!  

No Balm for Manipur

Too little, too late, is best way to describe Manipur High Court’s action on Wednesday last. It ordered the deletion of a paragraph from a March 2023 order that had asked Biren Singh government to consider including the Meitei community in the ST list within 4 weeks, which recall triggered the ethnic unrest and set the State on fire claiming hundreds of lives and displacing thousands. The single bench justified removal of the paragraph during a review petition saying it conflicted with Supreme Court’s constitution bench position. In effect, it accepted the thumb rule that courts shouldn’t overstep their jurisdiction in determining such categorisations. Recall, the top court when petitioned last May against that order had criticised it as ‘obnoxious’ as the High Court was ‘absolutely wrong’. However, it had refrained from staying the order as petitions challenging the order were pending with the larger division bench and invited tribal participation, particularly from the Kukis. Nearly a year since, the State is far from returning to normalcy. The ethnic divide between Kuki and Meitei people is complete.  Manipur is divided almost in two parts. It will take a lot more to bridge the gap. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 23 February 2024

UN Veto on Gaza

CALL FOR REFORMS

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

The United States vetoed the UN resolution calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. Thirteen out of 15 UN Security Council members, both permanent and non-permanent, voted in favour, Britain abstained and US voted against. But, since the five permanent members (P-5) have the veto powers, the United States vetoed it causing the resolution to be un-implementable. This is the third time the US has vetoed the resolutions on humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza: October 18, December 8 in 2023 and now this year, February 20. After the veto, the demand for reform of UN organs has become shriller. 

The United States is moving, at the time of writing, an alternative resolution calling for temporary ceasefire linked to the release of hostages held by Hamas since 7 October 2023.  On this dark day, Hamas launched a terrorist attack on Israel killing over 1200 people and taking 256 Israelis, including women and children, as hostages. What will happen to this resolution is a matter of time and speculation. Let us focus on the frustrations and desperations by the international community on the controversial veto process in the UN. Let us recall that the veto power has been exercised by all the five members on numerous occasions. 

In the recent past, Russia has used the veto 12 times in favour of the Syrian government which is guilty of genocide of over 400,000 of its citizens since 2011. Russia even vetoed a resolution calling for ending the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime in the civil war. China has vetoed more than once resolutions on Islamic terrorists working against India, to declare them ‘global terrorists.’ Russia has been vetoing any resolution in favour of Ukraine with regard to the ongoing Ukraine war. China is also vetoing any resolution in favour of Muslim Rohingyas as Beijing completely backs the military regime of Myanmar. 

There is a contentious historical context of the veto power by P-5 members. The P-5 is now divided broadly into two groups – US, France, United Kingdom on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. However, all of them act like a club and the club will not change the rules which take away their privileges. So has been the case. 

The question raised now by many countries is whether it is just, inclusive or equitable to let five countries impose their will on the rest 188 member-countries of the world. In fact, in the context of the veto, it is one country out of five imposing its will on the rest. Is this a fair, prudent and practical way to run international politics? Admittedly, UN Security Council has acted in unity in some cases, like military actions against dictatorial regime of Col. Gaddafi in Libya and sanctions against Iran etc. But in many cases like the ones cited, the one of the P-5 has been able to monopolise the peace process, in fact in most cases, derailing it. 

Let us remember that the UN was created after the Second World War in order to prevent succeeding generations ‘from the scourge of war’. The alternative strategy UN adapted to war consists of diplomacy, mediation and peace initiatives. But because of the unequal composition of the UN organs, mainly the UN Security Council, the principal objective of the United Nation has been defeated; hence the call for reforms of its structure. 

India, as the biggest democracy and the most populous country in the world is leading the campaign on UN Security Council reform. The principle New Delhi puts forth is ‘equity in global decision making’. This will redress the historical injustices committed on the Global South; “centuries of injustices”. India’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj made a powerful case at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform on 16 February. 

She forcefully put it, “I think we might all broadly agree that the historical injustices perpetrated against the Global South can no longer be ignored. It is time to rectify these disparities by ensuring greater representation for regions like Asia, Latin America and Africa on the Security Council through reform in both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership”. 

Furthermore, she elaborated, “Equity demands that every nation, irrespective of its size or power be afforded an equal opportunity to shape global decision-making.” She added that equity entails that the voices of the marginalised and the oppressed be elevated on to the world stage. Including the members of the Global South into the table will lead to more inclusive decision-making. Also, an inclusive Council will foster a broader consensus and legitimacy of its decisions. 

Let it be noted that India is not only demanding the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership of the UNSC; New Delhi is also asking for restructuring the decision-making process in the Council, which includes abolition of the veto power. Unless done so, mere expansion of the membership will not solve the problem; on the contrary, it will lead to perpetuation of existing inequities. 

There is some wind of reforms blowing from the P-5 countries as well. One hears the talk of embracing the concept of ‘voluntary restraint’. Prof. Jenifer Trahan discusses this concept in her book ‘Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes, Chapter 3 focuses on ‘Initiatives to Voluntarily Restraint Veto Use as to the Face of Atrocity Crimes’. There are six initiatives discussed in the chapter. 

She addresses a legal issue here, i.e., whether P-5 countries can legally use the veto in the face of atrocity crimes – which has serious implications on conflicts, and on the lives of all those affected by the conflict. Crucially, she establishes the linkage between the exercise of the veto power and ‘continuing death tolls on the ground’, like it is happening now in Gaza, Ukraine and other ongoing conflicts. 

Heeding the arguments and advice of Prof. Trahan, the world must do its utmost to ensure that UN charter’s voting provisions (veto) are never used that facilitates or enables the perpetration of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. 

The second much-talked about reform is the expanding the membership. The United States, UK and France are apparently open to expansion whereas China and Russia oppose it. The most potential candidate for permanent membership of the UNSC are India, Brazil, Japan and Germany which somewhat operate as G-4. This should happen sooner than later. 

To sum up, the United Nations has not been effective in countering conflicts, preventing wars and restraining belligerence by many countries. But, without doubt, United Nations has done commendable and critical developmental as well as humanitarian work. As we scan the multiple development arms of the United Nations, their works across the globe deserve admiration of the international community. So, one is not writing the obituary of UN. On the contrary, if UN did not exist, we had to invent it. More power to United Nations as it resets its structures and functions.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 22 February 2024

The Rajya Sabha And Biennial Poll

By Inder Jit

(Released on 20 March 1990) 

The Rajya Sabha is again in the news. Fresh biennial elections to the House are under way as one-third of its members are due to retire soon. The outcome of the poll is of interest any time. But it has greater significance this year in view of the stakes involved for the ruling National Front and the Congress-I as the Opposition. The National Front has to get two of its Cabinet Ministers --- Mr. P. Upendra and Mr. M.S Gurupadaswamy --- returned to the House and another two Ministers --- Prof M.G.K. Menon and Dr. Raja Ramanna --- elected to it. The Congress-I also wants some of its leaders back in Parliament via the Rajya Sabha. Prominent among these are Mr. Buta Singh, Mr. M.L. Fotedar, Mrs. Mohisina Kidwai, Mr. Balram Jakhar and Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad. It is also eager to get two of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s close aides --- Mr. R.K. Dhawan and Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyer --- elected to the House. The BJP and the Left parties, for their part, are not far behind. They, too, are trying to get some of their prominent leaders elected from wherever possible. 

In the process, the ruling National Front, the Congress-I and other major parties are poised to trample the Constitution both in its letter and spirit, ignoring the basic scheme of the Rajya Sabha in India’s Union of States. Under the Constitution, any voter in India can contest an election to the Lok Sabha from anywhere in the country. But the same is not permitted for the Rajya Sabha. Each member represents a State and is therefore elected by the members of the Assembly of that State alone. Further, he has to be a registered voter in the State and is required to be ordinarily a resident of that State. This principle has been repeatedly undermined and the Constitution violated since the time of Indira Gandhi. Mrs. Gandhi had, for instance, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, her Finance Minister, elected to the Rajya Sabha from Gujarat, following his defeat in the Lok Sabha poll from his home State of West Bengal in 1980. At present, we have Mr. Shiv Shankar elected from Gujarat and Mr. M.L. Fotedar from U.P. 

All this has come to be accepted, thanks mainly to ignorance about the Rajya Sabha and its role. The Rajya Sabha is not the Upper House or the Second Chamber, an expression which connotes an inferior position. It has a status of its own and a specific role to play unlike the House of Lords. In fact, Nehru made his position abundantly clear in 1953 when a controversy erupted in regard to the respective powers of the two Houses. He then stated the following in the Rajya Sabha on May 6, 1953: “Under our Constitution, Parliament consists of two Houses, each functioning in the allotted sphere laid down in the Constitution. We derive authority from the Constitution. Sometimes we refer to the practice and conventions prevailing in the United Kingdom… Our guide must, however, be our own Constitution… To call either of these Houses as Upper House or a Lower House is not correct…Neither House by itself constitutes Parliament. It is the two Houses together that are the Parliament of India…”

Some basic facts about the Rajya Sabha require to be restated. The Rajya Sabha cannot pass a vote of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers. Nor is the Council of Ministers under any obligation to resign if defeated on the floor of the House. The Rajya Sabha’s powers in relation to financial matters and the budget are also much less than those of the Lok Sabha. It has the power to discuss the budget. But it is barred from either rejecting or amending a money bill. It can only make recommendations to the Lok Sabha which the latter may or may not accept. A money bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses of Parliament if the Lok Sabha declines to accept the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha also appears to suffer a certain disability in a joint session of the two Houses because of its numerical weakness --- its membership is limited to 250 as against 544 of the Lok Sabha. Nevertheless, the Rajya Sabha is invested with certain special powers which add to its prestige and dignity.

The Constitution bars the Lok Sabha from legislating in regard to matters specified in the State List. However, the Rajya Sabha as the Council of States and representing the federal principle is specially empowered under Article 249 to make it lawful for Parliament to enact “in the national interest” legislation in regard to any matter enumerated in the State List for the whole or any part of India. Again, under Article 312(1) of the Constitution, the Rajya Sabha alone can empower Parliament to create in the national interest one or more all India services common to the Union and/or States. In exercise of this power, the Rajya Sabha passed in 1961 a resolution for the creation of the Indian Service for Engineers, the Indian Forest Service and the Indian Medical Health Service. A similar resolution for the creation of the Indian Agricultural Service and the Indian Educational Service was passed in 1965 by the Rajya Sabha by not less than two-thirds of its members present and voting, a constitutional requirement. 

One other aspect of the Rajya Sabha needs to be emphasized. The Constitution makers wanted the House to consist of persons of greater experience and eminence. They, therefore, deliberately opted for three things. First, indirect elections from the State legislatures. Second, fixation of minimum age for membership at 30 years as against 25 for the Lok Sabha. Third, nomination by the President of 12 persons “having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of literature, science, art and social service.” But the hopes roused by the Constitution have been belied during the past two decades. The provision has been diluted and distorted unconscionably. Several eminent men adorned the Rajya Sabha during Nehru’s time and for some years thereafter. They included educationists like Dr. Zakir Hussain and Dr. P.V. Kane, an authority in Dharmashastras, historians like Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji and Dr. Tara Chand, scientists like Satyendranath Bose, poets like Maithilisharan Gupta and Harivansh Rai Bachchan and artists like Rukmini Devi Arundale and Prithiviraj Kapoor. 

Indira Gandhi misused the provision to provide a convenient berth in the Rajya Sabha for ex-Ministers such as Mr. Mohanlal Saksena and Mr. Jairamds Daulatram, a Congress-I General Secretary, Mrs. M. Chandrashkhar and some others undeserving of nomination. Last year, the Rajiv Gandhi Government nominated four partymen: Mr. B.N. Pande, Mr. S.P. Mittal, Syeda Anwara Taimur (Assam’s former Chief Minister) and Mr. M.L. Bhatia. Astonishingly thereafter, it chose Mr. Justice M.H. Beg, formerly Chief Justice of India, for a vacancy. Mr. Justice Beg, however, passed away a few days before the formalities could be completed. Mohd. Yunus was then nominated in his place, causing all round surprise. Not only that. Independent persons have been encouraged over the years to become members of the ruling party, making a mockery of the Constitution whereunder these members are barred from voting in the Presidential poll to emphasise their non-alignment and independence. At least eight of the 12 nominated members today are members of the Congress-I in violation of the Constitution and its spirit. 

Surprisingly, there is serious talk at the time of writing that Dr. Raja Ramanna, Minister of State for Defence, and Prof M.G.K. Menon, Minister of State for Science and Technology are likely to be nominated to enable them to continue as Ministers. Undoubtedly, Dr. Ramanna and Prof Menon are eminent scientists. Both qualify for nominations to the Rajya Sabha. But it would be wholly wrong to nominate them to enable them to continue as Ministers. A Union Minister told me in Parliament on Friday: “There is no bar to the appointment of nominated members as Ministers.” Yes, technically. But, as I explained to him, nomination of ministers would go against the spirit of the Constitution and the unwritten convention. Prof Nurul Hasan, presently Governor of West Bengal, honourably resigned his nominated membership of the Rajya Sabha when Mrs. Gandhi invited him to join her Council of Ministers. Nehru in his time inducted a good few eminent non-partymen into his Cabinet, such as John Mathai and C.D. Deshmukh. All were, however, elected to Parliament. Not one was nominated. 

Where do we go from here? Both Mr. V.P. Singh and Mr. Rajiv Gandhi need to find honourable ways of bringing their party or non-party colleagues into Parliament --- and to desist from violating the constitution and healthy conventions. In the present case, only voters who are genuine residents in one State or another should represent that State in the Rajya Sabha. For instance, Mr. Buta Singh, could be found a safe seat for the Lok Sabha in Karnataka and a sitting member of the House from that State provided a berth in the Rajya Sabha. Dr. Ramanna should be found a place in the Rajya Sabha from his home State or a safe seat in the Lok Sabha. Two points need to be borne in mind in the final analysis. The Rajya Sabha is not the Second Chamber or the Upper House but the Council of States, representing India’s federal character. Nominated members represent the country’s conscience. They are expected to speak up loud and clear in the best interest of the nation, not of any party. --- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)