Open Forum
New Delhi, 19 January 2017
Purity Of Elections
REMOVING RELIGIOUS SMOG
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
The ban on use of religion, caste, race, community and language
during poll campaigns is bound to give rise to numerous election petitions
involving scanning through enormous amount of election speeches and campaigns
adopted by political parties. How many results will be countermanded will be
anybody’s guess.
The Election Commission has issued a stern warning to
political parties against making statements that could trigger disharmony in
the society on the basis of religion and hamper free and peaceful elections.
This follows the recent landmark judgement of the Supreme Court against the use
of religion, caste, race, community, and language during campaigns by any
candidate or his agent terming it as “corrupt practice” punishable with
disqualification of the candidate. The Chief Justice held that appealing on the
basis of religion would amount to “mixing religion with State power”.
The judgement clearly has extraordinary significance for its
timing as Assembly elections are to take place in five States, where without
exception one or more of the prohibited appeals are commonly used by all
political parties as the major vote-catching net. In Uttar Pradesh, the home of
Mandir-Masjid politics, there can be no general election without dragging
religion, which is the prime factor among the five prohibited.
Noteworthy is the fact that the verdict was passed with only
a slender majority - four in a seven-member Constitution Bench with three
giving dissenting verdicts. It indicates difficulties in enforcing the ruling
against firmly established principles of social justice that recognise these
factors and not disagreement with democratising the election process.
The verdict is for secularising or purifying elections from
the polluting influence of narrow sub-national attachments in order to
establish the election process and campaigns as secular democratic instruments
to choose the rulers. A worthy cause indeed, but with tremendous practical
difficulties to operate!
The court was interpreting the scope of the word “his” in
Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 on prohibition of
appeals on the basis of religion, etc., in election campaigns. It held that the word covered the candidates
and their agents as well as the voters thus reversing the verdict given in 1995
which restricted the reference in the word “his” to the candidate. The broad
and purposive interpretation of the word has ruled out any appeal made –
general or with specific reference -- invoking the parochial affinities in
favour of or against a candidate in election as divisive factors.
The judgement is apparently in conformity with the secular
character of the State under the Constitution devoid of any bias and
attachments while maintaining that “the relationship between man and God is an
individual choice and the State should keep this in mind”. The dissenting
judges wanted to limit the ban to the candidate’s religion, race, caste,
community or language.
There are two factors invariably present in electoral
battles – one is mobilisation of bloc votes on the basis of ready-made groups
like caste, race, religion, community, language, etc., and the other is
promises to appease sectarian wishes and group demands through State machinery
if voted to power.
It is now incumbent on all political parties to draw a clear
line between the use of the prohibited grounds in vocal or written, visual or
audio means of appeal for votes and appeasement of sectarian needs and
ambitions in pursuance of the policy of uplifting the disadvantaged social
groups.
The court verdict implies that religion has no place in the
secular function of election, that democratic and secular government has nothing to do with religion,
and religion and caste based identities
are to be ignored by secular governments and their representatives. Voters are
expected to shed their expectations based on their social identities and learn
to view election as an occasion to choose non-partisan representatives.
On the contrary, the dissenting judges have said that
discussions on caste, creed, and religion are constitutionally protected within
and outside elections and cannot be restricted, and that the issue should be
left to parliament for decision. The majority decision seems to them an
instance of judicial over-reach and judicial redrafting of the law.
In India,
many parties are founded on the basis of religious, caste, ethnic and regional
identities though they may have members and supporters from other groups. There
is no need to list such parties as their very name betrays their roots and
interests like the Indian Union Muslim League,
All India Muslim League, All India Majlis-e-ittehadul Muslimeen with
Muslim interests, DMK, AIADMK, MDMK, DMDK, etc, showing Dravidian pride, ethnic
parties like Asom Gana Parishad, and Nagaland People’s Front, region or State
based parties like Bodo People’s Progressive Front, Haryana Janhit Congress,
Meghalaya Democratic Party, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena , People’s Party of
Arunachal, Sikkim Democratic Front, etc., in almost every State, religion based
Akali Dal, community based Shiv Sena, and language based Telugu Desam
Party and so on.
Such parties have to enlarge their horizon at least in
election campaigns – an impossible task.
Many of them will lose the reason for their very existence if they have
to look beyond their immediate social context. Still, they have to learn to
delink their exclusively sectional frame of mind and adopt inclusive politics
accepting that governance is for all.
Unfortunately, the country has not been progressing even in
the slightest measure evenly across populations or territories. Modern politics
in India
is group politics ever since representative institutions were imported and
implanted. Some historians may attribute this to the British policy of divide
and rule and their invention of communal representation in the legislatures and
its extension in government services. But the Indian mind was quick to grasp
and develop the idea. Thus appeared
political-social categories – Non-Brahmins, Depressed Classes, Muslims, Indian
Christians, Backward Classes – long before independence in some presidencies.
Current labels like Dalit, OBC, and MBC are also caste combinations.
Caste as a basis for identifying Backward Classes has not
been invalidated by courts so far.
Hence, it will find a place everywhere – in all organs of government and
governance. Its entry into elections may be barred by rules, but adherence to
rules will require political will and public demand.
It is a delicate task to define the boundaries between
electoral contests and public policy of promoting collective interests based on
religion, caste, etc. Strictly considered, political parties have to refrain
from making promises to SC, ST, OBCs, and religious minorities during election
campaigns. Parties that are mainly depending on building vote banks by wild
election promises may have to change their outlook and strategies in the effort
to sanitise election field.
The recent court judgement and EC’s strict warning, if
enforced in good faith, may help pushing back religion, caste, language, and
race to their proper place as matters of personal faith and choice. They can
have only a limited impact in curbing openly divisive politics, and cannot
promote sense of nationalism.
Social identity is a universal phenomenon and not peculiar
to Indian society. The question now seriously discussed in India has
appeared in different forms in many countries. As long as we apply social
identities for public purposes like representation in legislative bodies,
college admissions, recruitment for jobs, welfare schemes, etc., we can only
attempt to prohibit hate speeches and street level clashes during elections.
--INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|