On the Election Commission
OK. A serious post, this. The airwaves and the press have been full of the news of CEC N Gopalaswamy's suo motu action against EC Navin Chawla. Most of this has been criticism by esteemed lawyers and jurists against this action, which they termed "overreach". The entire controversy pissed me off, especially as I am an election afficionado (some prefer the term fanatic), so I did what any conscientious Bong would do - I wrote a letter to the Hindu. Since they probably won't publish it, I decided to put it up on the blog as well. Here it is...
Like any other regular reader, I noticed your relentless efforts to give as much publicity as you could to the latest controversy in the Election Commission. Maybe it was an attempt to push an exclusive story, or righteous indignation at political involvement in the Election Commission, or (and I sincerely hope this is not the case) some undue pressure to give a struggling government a leg to stand on in an Election Year, the didactic headlines and endless articles about Gopalaswami's constitutional overreach gave a whiff of partiality. However, the articles were extremely well-written, and gave me an insight I always wanted into the Election Commission.
We claim to be the world's greatest democracy. The Election Commission is an integral part of that claim. After all, recently they have provided free and fair elections, be it in Bihar, West Bengal or Jammu and Kashmir. That does not, however, mean that the constitution of the Election Commission is perfect, and the current fracas underscores that reality. How can the Election Commission be truly impartial when it is appointed by the President, i.e. the government of the day? Yes, provisions exist that protect the EC from governmental action against them, but does the government not have full authority to appoint party loyalists to the post? Case in point: Navin Chawla. A man who the Justice Shah Commission denounced as "unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others," he was a loyalist to the Gandhis, and one of the chief perpetrators of the constitutional excesses of the 1975 Emergency. Of course, the return of Indira Gandhi to the PM post was enough to bury the findings of the Shah Commission, and he went from strength to strength.
The petition against Navin Chawla cannot be acted upon unless it is sent to the EC via the President, i.e. the government. Without the consent of the government Chawla is supposed to be partial to, action can't be taken! Am I the only one who sees something wrong here? Yes, Gopalaswami's suo motu action dragged the EC into a controversy, but at least it was better than the alternative: do nothing and have a government loyalist in charge of the commission that regulates the elections. After all, the Chief Election Commissioner can't be removed from office before the natural end of his term. Now, I abhor the policies of the BJP, but I do love my country enough to speak out against injustice. And the Congress' Machiavellian attempt to hold on to power in the form of Navin Chawla is an injustice to the people of this nation.
Yours sincerely
Ajachi Chakrabarti
Room No. 150, AH6
BITS Pilani Goa Campus
Opp NH 17-B
Zuarinagar
Goa - 403726
More later...
OK. A serious post, this. The airwaves and the press have been full of the news of CEC N Gopalaswamy's suo motu action against EC Navin Chawla. Most of this has been criticism by esteemed lawyers and jurists against this action, which they termed "overreach". The entire controversy pissed me off, especially as I am an election afficionado (some prefer the term fanatic), so I did what any conscientious Bong would do - I wrote a letter to the Hindu. Since they probably won't publish it, I decided to put it up on the blog as well. Here it is...
Like any other regular reader, I noticed your relentless efforts to give as much publicity as you could to the latest controversy in the Election Commission. Maybe it was an attempt to push an exclusive story, or righteous indignation at political involvement in the Election Commission, or (and I sincerely hope this is not the case) some undue pressure to give a struggling government a leg to stand on in an Election Year, the didactic headlines and endless articles about Gopalaswami's constitutional overreach gave a whiff of partiality. However, the articles were extremely well-written, and gave me an insight I always wanted into the Election Commission.
We claim to be the world's greatest democracy. The Election Commission is an integral part of that claim. After all, recently they have provided free and fair elections, be it in Bihar, West Bengal or Jammu and Kashmir. That does not, however, mean that the constitution of the Election Commission is perfect, and the current fracas underscores that reality. How can the Election Commission be truly impartial when it is appointed by the President, i.e. the government of the day? Yes, provisions exist that protect the EC from governmental action against them, but does the government not have full authority to appoint party loyalists to the post? Case in point: Navin Chawla. A man who the Justice Shah Commission denounced as "unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others," he was a loyalist to the Gandhis, and one of the chief perpetrators of the constitutional excesses of the 1975 Emergency. Of course, the return of Indira Gandhi to the PM post was enough to bury the findings of the Shah Commission, and he went from strength to strength.
The petition against Navin Chawla cannot be acted upon unless it is sent to the EC via the President, i.e. the government. Without the consent of the government Chawla is supposed to be partial to, action can't be taken! Am I the only one who sees something wrong here? Yes, Gopalaswami's suo motu action dragged the EC into a controversy, but at least it was better than the alternative: do nothing and have a government loyalist in charge of the commission that regulates the elections. After all, the Chief Election Commissioner can't be removed from office before the natural end of his term. Now, I abhor the policies of the BJP, but I do love my country enough to speak out against injustice. And the Congress' Machiavellian attempt to hold on to power in the form of Navin Chawla is an injustice to the people of this nation.
Yours sincerely
Ajachi Chakrabarti
Room No. 150, AH6
BITS Pilani Goa Campus
Opp NH 17-B
Zuarinagar
Goa - 403726
More later...
1 comment:
/me loves this blog, eagerly awaiting for more posts...
Post a Comment