REWIND

New Delhi, 2 May 2024

FAIR FIGHT REQUIRES FAIR FLIGHTS

By Inder Jit

(Released on 4 July 1989) 

Thoughts in New Delhi and elsewhere in the country are turning once again towards ways and means of ensuring a free and fair poll, now that the general election is fast approaching. Successive polls over the past 37 years have no doubt been largely free and fair. Nevertheless, the Election Commission, headed by Mr. R.V.S. Peri Sastri, has spoken from Tirupati not a day too soon in calling upon all the political parties to follow the Model Code of Conduct. Specifically, they have asked the Centre and the States to ensure that there is no cause for complaint about “utilisation” of their official position for the purposes of electioneering. The Commission has also done well to have suggested once again incorporation of six items of the Model Code as “corrupt practices” for electoral purposes in a bid to prevent the party in power from misusing its authority and position for gaining electoral advantage.

The Model Code of Conduct specifically lays down: “(a) The Ministers shall not combine their official visit with the electioneering work and shall not make use of official machinery or personnel during electioneering work; (b) Government transport, including official aircraft, vehicles, machinery and personnel cannot be used for furtherance of the Party in power.”  It thus bars Ministers from doing two things. One, combining their official duties with electioneering. Two, using Government transport, including official aircraft, for furtherance of the interest of the party in power. Yet, all our Prime Ministers have used IAF planes for election purposes from the days of Nehru. Indira Gandhi did so time and again. So also did Charan Singh prior to the 1960 poll which swept Indira Gandhi back to power. Mr Morarji Desai as Prime Minister, too, used this facility during the 1977 Assembly elections.

The issue burst into the open again in December 1984 when the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Mr N.T. Rama Rao approached the Election mission for permission to use a Government helicopter for electioneering. But the then Chief Election Commissioner, Mr R.K. Trivedi, turned down the request and justified his decision on the ground that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh was not the only Chief Minister who had been refused permission. He said that the Chief Ministers of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, UP and Manipur had also sought permission to use official aircraft for electioneering. All of them had been refused permission. Mr Trivedi also asserted that the Prime Minister alone was permitted to use the official aircraft for electioneering. The use of the official aircraft by Central Ministers, Chief Ministers and their Cabinet colleagues was prohibited under the Model Code of Conduct. No exceptions could be made.

Was the CEC’s stand fair? Before answering the question, we would do well to take a fresh look at the convention even if it was established during Nehru’s time. Nehru, according to “India from Curzon to Nehru and After” by Durga Das, was initially against using IAF planes. He did not think it proper to travel for his election campaign in the plane he used for official purposes as the Prime Minister. At the same time, “neither he nor the Congress Party could afford to charter a plane for the purpose.” The then Auditor General, Mr. Narahari Rao, thereupon came to the ruling party’s rescue and “salved Nehru’s conscience by devising a convenient formula.” He said, “The PM’s life must be secured against all risks and this could be assured best if he travelled by air. Air Transport would obviate the need for the large security staff required if he travelled by rail. Since it was the nation’s responsibility to see to his security, the nation must pay for it”.

An equally obliging committee of senior officers recommended in 1951 the use of the IAF planes by the Prime Minister “for official as well as other types of journeys.” The committee argued and the Government agreed that “even though the Prime Minister undertake tours for electioneering as a party leader, the business of Government does not come to a standstill.” It was, therefore, the responsibility of Government also to provide adequate facilities which would enable the Prime Minister to attend to governmental functions even while on tour. The new rule then framed enabled the Prime Minister to use IAF planes by paying the Government the normal fare charged by the civil airlines for transporting a passenger. Thus, Nehru was able to acquire through the payment of a nominal amount a mobility which multiplied a hundred fold his effectiveness as a campaigner and vote catcher!

The CEC’s decision on NTR’s request was clearly unfair. (Actually Mr. Trivedi conveniently slipped up on his facts.) The considerations which made it necessary to permit the Prime Minister to use the official aircraft for electioneering all over the country apply equally to the Chief Minister -- at least within his own state. Like the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister does not cease being a Chief Minister when he undertakes journeys for reasons other than official. He, too, needs to be able to travel by official aircraft for the due performance of his or her duties as the head of Government as well for reasons of security. Understandably, the issue did not arise during Nehru’s time. He was his party’s principal campaigner and there were no Chief Ministers belonging to the Opposition who wanted official aircraft. We have now not only Chief Ministers who belong to the “Opposition” but also convenient and fuel saving helicopters.

More. Is it fair to allow the Prime Minister alone to use official aircraft and that too virtually for a song? The use of official aircraft enabled Mr Rajiv Gandhi in 1984 to campaign in some 300 constituencies. In sharp contrast, the Opposition leaders were nowhere near Mr Gandhi’s record performance, which was one up on the hurricane poll tours undertaken by Indira Gandhi. A pertinent question that arises is: Should not official planes also be available to the Opposition leaders? Without exception, the Opposition leaders answer in the affirmative. One top leader urged: “Once the poll is announced, the Prime Minister’s status and privilege must change in favour of equality with the other party leaders. If security is an over-riding consideration, it must be extended to the leaders of the other recognised parties also. In the U.S., all the Presidential candidates are provided equal facilities.”

Clearly, there is need to consider the whole matter afresh in the light of conventions in other democracies. In the UK, the Prime Minister does not use official transport for electioneering. In a classic case, Attlee campaigned in his own car driven by his wife and accompanied by merely one detective. In Canada, use of official aircraft by the Prime Minister for party purposes is acknowledged on all sides as an unfair advantage and, therefore, avoided. In the USA, the President can use the Air Force plane as assigned to him for his poll campaign. However, he has to reimburse the Air Force on actual cost basis. In India in 1967, Mrs Gandhi used IAF planes for her 46-day poll campaign round the country and paid no more than Rs 8,650. During the mid-term poll in UP in 1969, she was charged Rs 6 and a few odd paisas only for a 20-minute helicopter ride from Deoria to Kasia, an air distance of 20 miles!

True, the use of IAF official planes does not necessarily spell victory. These did not save either Indira Gandhi in 1977 or Charan singh in 1980 from defeat. (Tragically, Charan Singh failed to implement as Prime Minister his own plea as an Opposition leader that identical facilities should be made available to the Opposition in all fairness.) Nevertheless, there should be no scope for any feeling of unfairness. The Election Commission should even now correct the wrongs committed during the past many polls and allow the Opposition and their Chief Ministers the use of official aircraft on the same basis as available to the Prime Minister. As the ruling party, the Congress-I may be tempted to disagree. But its leaders would do well to remember that a party may be in power today and in opposition tomorrow. Statesmanship lies in taking a detached long-term view. The poll should not only be fair, but must also be seen to be fair.--INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)