Saturday,28 February 2009
New Delhi: In what promises to be a keen electoral contest to determine who rules India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has already taken an early lead over the Congress -- in cyberspace warfare.
With general elections involving some 700 million voters only two months away, the BJP - perhaps taking a leaf from the Barack Obama style of campaigning - is targeting voters who are mostly young and net savvy.
"Advani for prime minister" is the theme of five campaigns by the BJP on more than 2,000 websites, including those of the US, British and Pakistani media which Indians often frequent.
Prodyut Bora, convenor of the BJP's IT cell, said: "We are the leaders in the use of Internet for elections."
So far there has been no similar effort from the Congress. But the party has shown it can use the Internet if it wishes. In the Rajasthan assembly contest late last year, it launched an Internet campaign with video ads.
To go with the web ads, Advani, 81, has started a blog -- the first senior Indian politician to do so.
On Jan 7, he wrote: "My young colleagues who created this website told me that a political portal without a blog is like a letter without a signature. I am excited by the idea of using the Internet for the election campaign."
But the question remains - will the Internet campaign bring in the votes?
V.K. Malhotra, the BJP's chief ministerial candidate in Delhi last year, launched a website to woo voters. It did not help. Incumbent Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit of the Congress won again.
Arun Kumar of the School of Social Sciences in New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) says the BJP campaign is unlikely to help it garner too many votes because "Internet-savvy people are a small portion of the population".
According to him, what really matters are face-to-face interactions based on issues that matter to the people. Similarly, he says, the lack of an Internet campaign is unlikely to harm the Congress.
All major parties such as the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) have their official websites. The CPI-M website has comments on a whole range of issues.
On the coming Lok Sabha polls, it says: "The party should conduct a vigorous political campaign in the run up to the Lok Sabha polls. We should call for the defeat of the BJP and the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) to ensure that the communal forces are kept out of power at the centre. The campaign should attack the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government's anti-people economic policies. The Left parties, along with the secular parties, should work together to make a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative realisable."
The Samajwadi Party's official website says: "This website aims to communicate with the masses and let people understand the party better. As time changes, technology changes; Samajwadi Party believes in staying up to date with technology and using it for betterment."
The website of Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar's NCP welcomes visitors to "join our cause and make a difference".
Navneet Kaushal, founder CEO of Page Traffic, told IANS: "Political parties have been using online media since 2003. The online Congress campaign in the last state elections showed it can gather a momentum of its own. However, Advani's campaign is the first of its kind on a national scale and borrows heavily from Barack Obama's style. We will have to see if it connects with the Indian people."
Dipankar Gupta, also of the School of Social Sciences in JNU, says: "The Congress seems to think there is not much advantage to be had by going for an Obama-style Internet campaign. The BJP campaign is unlikely to help it secure too many votes, just as it is unlikely that Congress's prospects will be harmed as most real voters don't surf the Internet."
Saturday, February 28, 2009
BJP to contest 11 ls seats in Kerala
28 February 2009
Kottayam: The BJP would contest 11 out of the 20 Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala in the coming elections, party state unit President P.K.Krishnadas said.
The candidates for nine seats had already been finalised and a decision on the remaining two constituencies would be taken before March 15, he told reporters here.
Referring to the CBI's move to prosecute CPI-M state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan in the SNC Lavalin corruption case, he said Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan should keep his promise that all the accused would be prosecuted. He said the time was ripe to form a third front against the LDF and UDF.
Kottayam: The BJP would contest 11 out of the 20 Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala in the coming elections, party state unit President P.K.Krishnadas said.
The candidates for nine seats had already been finalised and a decision on the remaining two constituencies would be taken before March 15, he told reporters here.
Referring to the CBI's move to prosecute CPI-M state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan in the SNC Lavalin corruption case, he said Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan should keep his promise that all the accused would be prosecuted. He said the time was ripe to form a third front against the LDF and UDF.
Advani blasts Rama Sene for Mangalore pub attack
Bangalore: Bharatiya Janata Party leader L.K. Advani Saturday blasted the rightwing Hindu group Sri Rama Sene for its attack on women in a Mangalore pub last month, saying such "barbaric attacks are condemnable".
Advani was referring to the Jan 24 attack on young women by around 40 Rama Sene men. The Sene members had accused the women who go to pubs of violating Indian traditions.
He was addressing a well attended rally of students and youth in Karnataka to mark the conclusion of a state-wide anti-terror campaign by the ruling BJP.
Speaking to reporters after the rally, Advani said: "I strongly condemn the attack on girls in Mangalore. There can be no compromise on this. It is wrong and against Indian culture and ethos."
The BJP's prime ministerial candidate said people could have different perspectives on whether they approved of young men and women frequenting pubs but attacking them was wrong.
"Girls and boys will have their own ways, and you may not approve, but it is wrong to attack them for it," he said.
Hundreds of male and female students attended the rally in scorching heat at the Palace Grounds, about five kilometers from the city centre, a highlight of which was an address by K. Unikrishnan, father of Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan, a National Security Guard (NSG) commando who was killed in a gun battle with terrorists during the Nov 26-29 Mumbai carnage last year.
After being garlanded and presented with a shawl by Advani, Unnikrishnan and his wife Dhanalakshmi sought the BJP leader's blessings by touching his feet.
In his brief address in Kannada, Unnikrishnan said his son was not killed but sought death fighting the terrorists.
"Have such fire in you and no terrorist can kill you," he exhorted the cheering young audience.
Advani was referring to the Jan 24 attack on young women by around 40 Rama Sene men. The Sene members had accused the women who go to pubs of violating Indian traditions.
He was addressing a well attended rally of students and youth in Karnataka to mark the conclusion of a state-wide anti-terror campaign by the ruling BJP.
Speaking to reporters after the rally, Advani said: "I strongly condemn the attack on girls in Mangalore. There can be no compromise on this. It is wrong and against Indian culture and ethos."
The BJP's prime ministerial candidate said people could have different perspectives on whether they approved of young men and women frequenting pubs but attacking them was wrong.
"Girls and boys will have their own ways, and you may not approve, but it is wrong to attack them for it," he said.
Hundreds of male and female students attended the rally in scorching heat at the Palace Grounds, about five kilometers from the city centre, a highlight of which was an address by K. Unikrishnan, father of Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan, a National Security Guard (NSG) commando who was killed in a gun battle with terrorists during the Nov 26-29 Mumbai carnage last year.
After being garlanded and presented with a shawl by Advani, Unnikrishnan and his wife Dhanalakshmi sought the BJP leader's blessings by touching his feet.
In his brief address in Kannada, Unnikrishnan said his son was not killed but sought death fighting the terrorists.
"Have such fire in you and no terrorist can kill you," he exhorted the cheering young audience.
Sanjay Dutt not a serious candidate: Sushma
28 February 2009
- Ranchi: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Sushma Swaraj said here Saturday that Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt, who will be contesting the Lok Sabha poll from Lucknow on a Samjawadi Party ticket, is not a serious candidate.
"Lalji Tandon (the BJP candidate from Lucknow) is a serious politician and Sanjay Dutt is a non-serious candidate," Swaraj, who was here to launch the party's election campaign in Chhattisgarh, told reporters.
Swaraj added that Tandon was chosen to contest the election from Lucknow since he was nominated by former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who has held the seat for five successive terms.
"The BJP stands to gain in many states, including Jharkhand and Gujarat, and retain seats in Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh in the upcoming elections. The NDA (National Democratic Alliance) will form the next government at the centre," said Swaraj.
- Ranchi: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Sushma Swaraj said here Saturday that Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt, who will be contesting the Lok Sabha poll from Lucknow on a Samjawadi Party ticket, is not a serious candidate.
"Lalji Tandon (the BJP candidate from Lucknow) is a serious politician and Sanjay Dutt is a non-serious candidate," Swaraj, who was here to launch the party's election campaign in Chhattisgarh, told reporters.
Swaraj added that Tandon was chosen to contest the election from Lucknow since he was nominated by former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who has held the seat for five successive terms.
"The BJP stands to gain in many states, including Jharkhand and Gujarat, and retain seats in Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh in the upcoming elections. The NDA (National Democratic Alliance) will form the next government at the centre," said Swaraj.
Arun Gawli to contest on BSP ticket
Saturday,28 February 2009
Mumbai: The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) Friday announced a merger with former mafia don and Maharashtra legislator Arun Gawli's party Akhil Bharatiya Sena (ABS).
Gawli would also contest the Mumbai North Central Lok Sabha seat on a BSP ticket, BSP state president Vilas Garud said, adding that the ABS chief has already given a letter of consent to merge the two parties.
"It is as good as done. We have also decided to nominate him as the party candidate from Mumbai North Central Lok Sabha constituency in the forthcoming parliamentary elections," Garud told IANS.
The seat is presently represented by Congress' Eknath Gaekwad.
Gawli, presently lodged in jail, was elected to the assembly from Chinchpokli, a south Mumbai constituency, in 2004.
Known as ?Daddy' among his followers, Gawli was sent to custody in September 2008 under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in connection with an extortion case.
A former associate of absconding mafia don Dawood Ibrahim, he is married to a Muslim woman, Asha (formerly Ayesha) and lives in the fortress-like Dagdi Chawl in south-central Mumbai.
Mumbai: The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) Friday announced a merger with former mafia don and Maharashtra legislator Arun Gawli's party Akhil Bharatiya Sena (ABS).
Gawli would also contest the Mumbai North Central Lok Sabha seat on a BSP ticket, BSP state president Vilas Garud said, adding that the ABS chief has already given a letter of consent to merge the two parties.
"It is as good as done. We have also decided to nominate him as the party candidate from Mumbai North Central Lok Sabha constituency in the forthcoming parliamentary elections," Garud told IANS.
The seat is presently represented by Congress' Eknath Gaekwad.
Gawli, presently lodged in jail, was elected to the assembly from Chinchpokli, a south Mumbai constituency, in 2004.
Known as ?Daddy' among his followers, Gawli was sent to custody in September 2008 under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in connection with an extortion case.
A former associate of absconding mafia don Dawood Ibrahim, he is married to a Muslim woman, Asha (formerly Ayesha) and lives in the fortress-like Dagdi Chawl in south-central Mumbai.
Tough for CPM if Cong, TC form alliance: Basu
28 February 2009
Kolkata: The electoral battle in the coming Lok Sabha elections will be tough for the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) if the Congress and the state's main opposition Trinamool Congress formed an alliance in West Bengal, veteran communist leader Jyoti Basu said here Friday.
"It'll be a tough for us (CPI-M) if there is an alliance," Basu told reporters at the party headquarters at Alimuddin Street here.
He said the CPI-M might lose some seats in the coming Lok Sabha polls if the Congress-Trinamool alliance finally materialised.
Basu came to attend the party's state secretariat meeting Friday. He came at around 10.40 am and stayed inside the party office for nearly 40 minutes.
He had last attended the CPI-M state secretariat meeting last week (Feb 20) at the party headquarters, after a gap of six months.
When asked about the possibility of a CPI-M-Congress coalition at the centre, Basu, would not comment on whether the communists would support the Congress at the centre after Lok Sabha elections.
"No such decision was taken in the party meeting," he added.
Basu was the chief minister of West Bengal from June 1977 to November 2000.
Kolkata: The electoral battle in the coming Lok Sabha elections will be tough for the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) if the Congress and the state's main opposition Trinamool Congress formed an alliance in West Bengal, veteran communist leader Jyoti Basu said here Friday.
"It'll be a tough for us (CPI-M) if there is an alliance," Basu told reporters at the party headquarters at Alimuddin Street here.
He said the CPI-M might lose some seats in the coming Lok Sabha polls if the Congress-Trinamool alliance finally materialised.
Basu came to attend the party's state secretariat meeting Friday. He came at around 10.40 am and stayed inside the party office for nearly 40 minutes.
He had last attended the CPI-M state secretariat meeting last week (Feb 20) at the party headquarters, after a gap of six months.
When asked about the possibility of a CPI-M-Congress coalition at the centre, Basu, would not comment on whether the communists would support the Congress at the centre after Lok Sabha elections.
"No such decision was taken in the party meeting," he added.
Basu was the chief minister of West Bengal from June 1977 to November 2000.
Rupee hits record low of 51.12 against dollar
Rupee hits record low of 51.12 against dollar
27 Feb 2009, PTI
MUMBAI: Sliding for the fifth day in a row, the Indian rupee on Friday breached the 51-mark for the first time ever against the greenback as the local currency lost 66 paise on sustained strong demand for the US dollar from foreign banks and oil importers amid weak stock markets.
The US dollar ended sharply higher against the rupee at Rs.51.12/14 per dollar and the Pound Sterling also finished higher at Rs.72.49/51 per pound at the close of the Interbank Foreign Exchange (Forex) market on Friday.
Dealers in foreign exchange said that the stronger dollar abroad gave an opportunity to the foreign banks to buy American currency in the local market and sell it in offshore non-deliverable forward contracts for immediate profits.
In the overseas market, the dollar gained against its major rival euro but slipped against Asian competitor yen.
The rupee on Thursday only set a fresh low record of 50.46 on sudden surge in demand for dollar. The previous low record of the domestic currency was recorded on last December 2 when it touched the intra-day high of 50.60. Including today's fall of 66 paise, the rupee had slumped by a whopping 151 paise or 3.04 per cent in the straight past five sessions.
Continued selling by Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) in equity markets also weighed against the rupee. They have pulled out nearly USD 1.6 billion in the current calender year so far, dealers said. Weakness in equity markets also put pressure on domestic unit, they added.
27 Feb 2009, PTI
MUMBAI: Sliding for the fifth day in a row, the Indian rupee on Friday breached the 51-mark for the first time ever against the greenback as the local currency lost 66 paise on sustained strong demand for the US dollar from foreign banks and oil importers amid weak stock markets.
The US dollar ended sharply higher against the rupee at Rs.51.12/14 per dollar and the Pound Sterling also finished higher at Rs.72.49/51 per pound at the close of the Interbank Foreign Exchange (Forex) market on Friday.
Dealers in foreign exchange said that the stronger dollar abroad gave an opportunity to the foreign banks to buy American currency in the local market and sell it in offshore non-deliverable forward contracts for immediate profits.
In the overseas market, the dollar gained against its major rival euro but slipped against Asian competitor yen.
The rupee on Thursday only set a fresh low record of 50.46 on sudden surge in demand for dollar. The previous low record of the domestic currency was recorded on last December 2 when it touched the intra-day high of 50.60. Including today's fall of 66 paise, the rupee had slumped by a whopping 151 paise or 3.04 per cent in the straight past five sessions.
Continued selling by Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) in equity markets also weighed against the rupee. They have pulled out nearly USD 1.6 billion in the current calender year so far, dealers said. Weakness in equity markets also put pressure on domestic unit, they added.
GDP growth at 6-year low
28 Feb 2009
NEW DELHI: The Indian economy is now officially estimated to have grown at 5.3% in the October-December 2008 quarter over the corresponding months of 2007, making it the lowest year-on-year growth for any quarter since January-March 2003.
The lower than expected growth in the third quarter (Q3) of 2008-09 makes it extremely unlikely that the 7.1% growth projected for the full financial year earlier this month will be met. It also is likely to add to pressure on the Reserve Bank of India to take some monetary measures to boost growth for the rest of the year.
The sharp dip in growth in Q3 - from 7.6% for Q2 - was largely due to a 2.2% decline in GDP from agriculture and a 0.2% decline in the manufacturing sector. The dip in agriculture would be particularly worrying for several sectors which were expecting strong rural demand to help in tiding over the impact of a global recession.
For April-December 2008, the first nine months of the current fiscal, the growth rate is now put at 6.9%. That means the economy will have to record a growth of 7.7% in Q4 if the projected 7.1% growth for the full year is to materialise. Given the context of a global recession, that seems an extremely remote possibility.
In fact, most analysts believe that if the growth rate in Q4 were to be even 5%, we should be relieved. One reason for this apparent pessimism despite a series of stimulus packages by the government is that the services sector has continued to grow quite handsomely even in Q3, registering a 9.3% increase over the corresponding period of 2007-08. That trend could be difficult to sustain if industry and agriculture continue to be sluggish. In Q3, for instance, "financial, insurance, real estate and business services" grew by an impressive 9.5% and "community, social & personal services" by a whopping 17.3%.
A rapidly sliding rupee would normally have given reason for hope that exports could pick up as they become globally more competitive, but given the all-pervasive gloom in developed country markets, there may not be much to look forward to on this front.
If such a prognosis turns out to be correct, the full-year growth figure could end up being closer to 6.4% than 7.1%. Either way, 2008-09, it is now clear, will register the lowest growth rate of GDP for any year since 2002-03.
NEW DELHI: The Indian economy is now officially estimated to have grown at 5.3% in the October-December 2008 quarter over the corresponding months of 2007, making it the lowest year-on-year growth for any quarter since January-March 2003.
The lower than expected growth in the third quarter (Q3) of 2008-09 makes it extremely unlikely that the 7.1% growth projected for the full financial year earlier this month will be met. It also is likely to add to pressure on the Reserve Bank of India to take some monetary measures to boost growth for the rest of the year.
The sharp dip in growth in Q3 - from 7.6% for Q2 - was largely due to a 2.2% decline in GDP from agriculture and a 0.2% decline in the manufacturing sector. The dip in agriculture would be particularly worrying for several sectors which were expecting strong rural demand to help in tiding over the impact of a global recession.
For April-December 2008, the first nine months of the current fiscal, the growth rate is now put at 6.9%. That means the economy will have to record a growth of 7.7% in Q4 if the projected 7.1% growth for the full year is to materialise. Given the context of a global recession, that seems an extremely remote possibility.
In fact, most analysts believe that if the growth rate in Q4 were to be even 5%, we should be relieved. One reason for this apparent pessimism despite a series of stimulus packages by the government is that the services sector has continued to grow quite handsomely even in Q3, registering a 9.3% increase over the corresponding period of 2007-08. That trend could be difficult to sustain if industry and agriculture continue to be sluggish. In Q3, for instance, "financial, insurance, real estate and business services" grew by an impressive 9.5% and "community, social & personal services" by a whopping 17.3%.
A rapidly sliding rupee would normally have given reason for hope that exports could pick up as they become globally more competitive, but given the all-pervasive gloom in developed country markets, there may not be much to look forward to on this front.
If such a prognosis turns out to be correct, the full-year growth figure could end up being closer to 6.4% than 7.1%. Either way, 2008-09, it is now clear, will register the lowest growth rate of GDP for any year since 2002-03.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Modi says Rahul 'aquarium fish'
Panaji: The war of words between Narendra Modi and the Congress grew shriller Sunday. The Gujarat chief minister likened Congress MP Rahul Gandhi to a "small fish" in an aquarium, and the Congress promptly described Modi as a "piranha who devours human beings".
Modi, addressing a poll rally in Goa, said Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders like him and his counterparts in states ruled by the party are like "ocean fish" who weather big storms, unlike those "floating around in aquariums".
In an obvious dig at Rahul Gandhi, the 38-year-old Congress general secretary who is being projected as a youth icon by the Congress, Modi said: "We are not small fish floating around in the comfort of aquariums, but we weather huge storms to win."
"We are not flowers cultivated by gardeners of the rich. We have grown up in the forests on our own," Modi said, asking: "Which young people are they talking about?"
He continued: "Aren't there young people living in the slums and in the homes of poor? But they are not considered young, for their fathers are not rich, because their fathers were not prime ministers or their mothers are not big people."
Modi, who is in-charge of the BJP in Goa for upcoming Lok Sabha elections, claimed that compared to the Congress, his party had younger chief ministers.
The Congress reacted sharply to Modi's "fish" remarks, with spokesperson Manish Tewari saying in New Delhi: "If Rahul is a fish in the aquarium, then Modi is a piranha who devours human beings."
He said Modi had no right to speak about the poor, for unlike Rahul Gandhi, he had never spent a day in a Dalit's shanty. "The chief minister of Gujarat has lost it completely," remarked Tewari.
He said the "Congress party has a history of empowering the youth; it is not a new development."
Modi, addressing a party rally in Mapusa, 12 km from Panaji, said for the first time in independent India's political history, chiefs of armed forces had been forced to indulge in war rhetoric before the media.
"It is unprecedented. This is nothing but a ploy to appease their minority vote bank. Despite 26/11, the Congress does not want to act tough against Pakistan," Modi said.
Raising the pitch further, the Gujarat chief minister said that with the 26/11 terror-strikes in Mumbai, Pakistan had initiated war and India should have responded accordingly.
"Instead, the Indian government went and begged before the US, pleading with them to lean on Pakistan."
Claiming that the Congress-led coalition government had failed miserably vis-?is security and progress, Modi said the Congress had made India weak-kneed in face of growing terrorism.
"Why is Afzal Guru not being hanged, despite being pronounced guilty? Why is he being kept alive, as if he is in a museum," he said.
Modi addressed BJP party workers meetings in the two Lok Sabha constituencies during his two-day visit to Goa.
While sitting MP Shripad Naik will contest the North Goa seat, the BJP has introduced a new face for the South Goa seat in Narendra Savoikar.
Modi, addressing a poll rally in Goa, said Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders like him and his counterparts in states ruled by the party are like "ocean fish" who weather big storms, unlike those "floating around in aquariums".
In an obvious dig at Rahul Gandhi, the 38-year-old Congress general secretary who is being projected as a youth icon by the Congress, Modi said: "We are not small fish floating around in the comfort of aquariums, but we weather huge storms to win."
"We are not flowers cultivated by gardeners of the rich. We have grown up in the forests on our own," Modi said, asking: "Which young people are they talking about?"
He continued: "Aren't there young people living in the slums and in the homes of poor? But they are not considered young, for their fathers are not rich, because their fathers were not prime ministers or their mothers are not big people."
Modi, who is in-charge of the BJP in Goa for upcoming Lok Sabha elections, claimed that compared to the Congress, his party had younger chief ministers.
The Congress reacted sharply to Modi's "fish" remarks, with spokesperson Manish Tewari saying in New Delhi: "If Rahul is a fish in the aquarium, then Modi is a piranha who devours human beings."
He said Modi had no right to speak about the poor, for unlike Rahul Gandhi, he had never spent a day in a Dalit's shanty. "The chief minister of Gujarat has lost it completely," remarked Tewari.
He said the "Congress party has a history of empowering the youth; it is not a new development."
Modi, addressing a party rally in Mapusa, 12 km from Panaji, said for the first time in independent India's political history, chiefs of armed forces had been forced to indulge in war rhetoric before the media.
"It is unprecedented. This is nothing but a ploy to appease their minority vote bank. Despite 26/11, the Congress does not want to act tough against Pakistan," Modi said.
Raising the pitch further, the Gujarat chief minister said that with the 26/11 terror-strikes in Mumbai, Pakistan had initiated war and India should have responded accordingly.
"Instead, the Indian government went and begged before the US, pleading with them to lean on Pakistan."
Claiming that the Congress-led coalition government had failed miserably vis-?is security and progress, Modi said the Congress had made India weak-kneed in face of growing terrorism.
"Why is Afzal Guru not being hanged, despite being pronounced guilty? Why is he being kept alive, as if he is in a museum," he said.
Modi addressed BJP party workers meetings in the two Lok Sabha constituencies during his two-day visit to Goa.
While sitting MP Shripad Naik will contest the North Goa seat, the BJP has introduced a new face for the South Goa seat in Narendra Savoikar.
Indian polls likely in April
NEW DELHI: The general elections in India will most likely be conducted between April 10 and May 10, simultaneously with the assembly elections in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Sikkim.
According to sources, the Election Commission (EC) would formally announce this on Saturday or Sunday, as the logistics were finalised during a meeting with Home Secretary Madhukar Gupta on Tuesday. The present government, therefore, has three more days to make announcements, as its tenure ends once the election schedule is announced and the EC’s code of conduct for elections comes into force. iftikhar gilani
According to sources, the Election Commission (EC) would formally announce this on Saturday or Sunday, as the logistics were finalised during a meeting with Home Secretary Madhukar Gupta on Tuesday. The present government, therefore, has three more days to make announcements, as its tenure ends once the election schedule is announced and the EC’s code of conduct for elections comes into force. iftikhar gilani
Indian elections likely to reflect rising tide of protectionism
The Guardian, Monday 23 February 2009
Article historyIndia will embrace economic protectionism as a result of the forthcoming general election, a leading pollster has warned.
Last month the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, visited India to lobby on behalf of British companies for greater access to the huge Indian market. Banks, insurers and retailers such as Tesco are especially keen to expand there but have to team up with an Indian company in a joint venture and face other restrictions.
But the general election, which begins in April, is likely to result in a leftwing coalition government that will halt tentative moves towards liberalisation, according to Yashwant Deshmukh, who runs the Team Cvoter polling firm. He said the new government would pursue more protectionist policies that would restrict foreign companies' access to the country and favour Indian conglomerates such as Tata, which already dominate the economy.
Deshmukh, who has covered more than 100 local and national elections in India, predicted that the two big parties, the ruling Congress party or the BJP, would lose seats and would have to form a weak coalition with the Left Front party, led by the Communists and supported by some regional parties. "A lot of political deals will have to be done, resulting in a left-wing coalition with protectionist tendencies having a much greater say than ever before," he said.
Deshmukh added: "The election result may slow the pace of liberalisation. It will be difficult to grow the insurance, retail and banking sectors as a result. There will be a big question over the long-term policies of liberal and economic reform and opening up sectors."
Experts agreed that the election result was likely to reflect a growing trend towards economic protectionism. Vikas Pota, managing director of Saffron Chase, a communications firm focusing on UK-Indian business, said: "It seems that the current world recession is leading to protectionist language from all nations.
Article historyIndia will embrace economic protectionism as a result of the forthcoming general election, a leading pollster has warned.
Last month the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, visited India to lobby on behalf of British companies for greater access to the huge Indian market. Banks, insurers and retailers such as Tesco are especially keen to expand there but have to team up with an Indian company in a joint venture and face other restrictions.
But the general election, which begins in April, is likely to result in a leftwing coalition government that will halt tentative moves towards liberalisation, according to Yashwant Deshmukh, who runs the Team Cvoter polling firm. He said the new government would pursue more protectionist policies that would restrict foreign companies' access to the country and favour Indian conglomerates such as Tata, which already dominate the economy.
Deshmukh, who has covered more than 100 local and national elections in India, predicted that the two big parties, the ruling Congress party or the BJP, would lose seats and would have to form a weak coalition with the Left Front party, led by the Communists and supported by some regional parties. "A lot of political deals will have to be done, resulting in a left-wing coalition with protectionist tendencies having a much greater say than ever before," he said.
Deshmukh added: "The election result may slow the pace of liberalisation. It will be difficult to grow the insurance, retail and banking sectors as a result. There will be a big question over the long-term policies of liberal and economic reform and opening up sectors."
Experts agreed that the election result was likely to reflect a growing trend towards economic protectionism. Vikas Pota, managing director of Saffron Chase, a communications firm focusing on UK-Indian business, said: "It seems that the current world recession is leading to protectionist language from all nations.
Monday, February 9, 2009
L.K.Advani Speach at BJP National Council -Election Mode
Shri Rajnath Singhji, President of the BJP, and my esteemed colleagues,
It gives me great pleasure to be with you at this crucial meeting of the National Council of the Party.
At the outset, I join all of you in paying homage to two of the great sons of Bharat Mata ― Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar. Nagpur was the Karma Bhoomi for both of them.
Dr. Ambedkar was a scholar of the highest order. A proud patriot in whom the spirit of nationalism always burnt with incandescent brightness, his advocacy of equality, human dignity and social justice serves as a beacon even today. The best example of this is his address to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, a day before the Assembly formally adopted the Constitution. On that day he had warned:
“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.”
What can be a better enunciation of an Inclusive Society, Inclusive Democracy and Inclusive Development? The BJP is firmly committed to these three ideals, which also find an echo in Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya’s philosophy of Integral Humanism.
Nagpur is Dr. Ambedkar’s Deeksha Bhoomi, the place where he embraced Buddhism. Mumbai is his Chaitya Bhoomi, where he ended his worldly life. Both places have fairly impressive memorials. However, his Janma Bhoomi, Mhow in Madhya Pradesh, had remained without a suitable memorial during the decades-long rule of the Congress in the state. I was, therefore, happy and privileged when Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan, our young and dynamic Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, invited me last year to unveil a magnificent memorial for Dr. Ambedkar at his place of birth.
Dr. Hedgewar is the founder of our ideological movement. The BJP was founded in 1980. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh was founded in 1951. However, the ideological movement of which the BJP is an integral part started its journey in 1925, when Dr. Hedgewar founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In the nearly 80 years of its existence, the RSS and all the entities inspired by it have grown into what can be called, without the slightest fear of contradiction, the largest family of mass organizations dedicated to the service of the nation. This ideology can be summed up in just two words: Rashra Sarvopari or Nation First.
It is precisely because of the massive, and steadily growing, collective strength of our ideological family that our adversaries have mounted the most vicious attack on us. To those who oppose us out of malice, we say, “Your motivated attacks will not deter us.” However, to those who are aloof from us out of ignorance or due to the propaganda of our adversaries, we extend a hand of mutual understanding and say, “Come, let us work together despite our differences for the greater good of the nation.” This is how the BJP has grown, remaining true to its core beliefs and winning allies in the democratic space.
Why Congress must be voted out
Friends, the circumstance that invests this meeting of the National Council with crucial importance is well known to you. In less than ten weeks, India will go to the polls to elect the 15th Lok Sabha. In slightly over 15 or 16 weeks, the election process will have been over and a new government installed in New Delhi.
It is our resolve to make that new government, a BJP-led government of the National Democratic Alliance. We shall make it happen by seeking, and securing, a decisive mandate from the people of India.
Hence, the Call of Nagpur is: Onward to Victory.
In democracy, victory comes to those who can win the trust and confidence of the people. It comes to those who can convince the people that they are best suited to govern the nation at a time when it is facing multiple and mammoth challenges.
I have the good fortune of having participated in all the 14 general elections held so far, from 1952 to 2004. There is a simple and self-evident formula that determines the outcome of an election. If the people are happy with an incumbent government, they give it a renewed mandate. But change is not guaranteed if they are unhappy. For the desired change to come about, the people must see a clear and credible alternative.
What can be said about the national situation as we prepare ourselves for the electoral battle? Do the people want change? Most certainly, Yes. The UPA Government’s performance is so full of failures and betrayals that its continuation in office would constitute a vastly increased threat to the vital interests of the country and its people.
The Government’s soft and compromising approach to cross-border terrorism, further weakened by the virus of votebank considerations, has endangered India’s internal security like never before. Secure in the knowledge that the Government in New Delhi has neither the political will nor the clarity of policy to fight terrorism, the enemies of India have felt so emboldened that they mounted one barbaric attack after another, making the last five years witness the highest number of terrorist incidents and casualties since the onset of terrorism in India in the early 1980s.
On 26 November, they staged the most audacious assault till date in Mumbai. The revelations about how this attack took place can only lead to one conclusion: the Congress-led governments at the Centre and in Maharashtra were sleeping in spite of having full information that the terrorists could use the sea route. This was not so much a case of intelligence failure as of governance failure.
Six questions for Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi
I have six questions for the Prime Minister and the Congress president on internal security. The people of India deserve answers to these questions because accountability is the cornerstone of democratic governance.
• Although the Union Home Minister and Maharashtra’s Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister were sacrificed after 26/11, why has no commission of inquiry been set up to probe all aspects of the Mumbai terror attacks? The BJP demands a high-level judicial inquiry that will not only unearth what went wrong but also recommend ways of preventing recurrence of such attacks.
• If the Union Home Minister was removed for incompetence, at whose behest was he retained in that crucial post for four and a half years?
• In the aftermath of 26/11, senior members of the UPA Governments made statements to the effect that “all options are open” in dealing with Pakistan. Why has the Government not used even the mildest of diplomatic options in the past two months to make Islamabad feel the heat for sponsoring terrorism? And why are senior representatives of the Government speaking in multiple voices on Pakistan?
• The UPA Government enacted two anti-terror laws in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks. The BJP readily supported their passage in Parliament, even though the Congress had stoutly opposed the enactment of POTA in 2002. Will the Prime Minister show the honesty to admit to the nation that it was wrong on the part of his Government to have doggedly maintained for the first four and a half years that no special anti-terror laws were needed and that existing laws were adequate to deal with the menace? And will the Congress president have the honesty to accept that opposition to POTA in 2002 was wrong?
• Now that the term of the UPA Government is coming to an end, will the Prime Minister tell the nation why his Government chose not to implement the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the death sentence on Afzal Guru, the mastermind of the terrorist attack on Parliament? In this context, let me assure the people that a future NDA Government, if elected to power, will recommend Afzal Guru’s execution to the President within the first 100 days. Here is our warning to the merchants of death and their sponsors: “We shall follow a zero-tolerance and zero-compromise approach to dealing with terrorism.”
• Why did the UPA Government deliberately and contemptuously disregard the Supreme Court’s directive with regard to enacting an effective law to curb the influx of Bangladeshis into Assam and other states, which the apex court described as “external aggression”? A future NDA Government will lose no time to implement the apex court’s directive and thereby safeguard the unity and security of India on the eastern front.
Aam aadmi’s livelihood security endangered
Endangering India’s internal security and the citizen’s physical security is not the only reason why the UPA Government qualifies to be voted out. The Government has compounded its failure by also endangering the people’s livelihood security. Unprecedented rise in prices of all the essential commodities and services during the past five years has been a source of daily torment for the aam aadmi. Now all sections of society are reeling under the effect of a graver economic crisis. Lakhs of people have lost jobs ― in construction, textiles, manufacturing, automobiles, tourism and hospitality, IT and IT-enabled services, etc ― and the sword of job-loss is hanging over the heads of many more.
The Federation of Indian Export Organizations has forecast that there would be one crore job losses by March. This comes on top of an already unacceptable level of unemployment. No government in the past has been as unfriendly to the youth, for whom opportunities in education have stagnated, openings in employment are shrinking, and the future is looking bleak.
The five years of the UPA Government have been the worse for the Indian kisan. During no comparable period in the past have so many farmers committed suicide, unable to bear the burden of debt and distress ― and their number runs into tens of thousands. The corruption-ridden implementation of the SEZ policy has resulted in farmers getting dispossessed of huge tracts of land. Migration of the rural poor to urban centres has accelerated.
The plight of the urban middle class has worsened. They have been badly hit not only by the price rise, economic recession and growing job losses, but also by the other manifestations of the mismanagement of the economy under the UPA rule. Housing loans, for example, have become costlier to service due to sharply risen interest rates.
Development programmes derailed
How the UPA Government has betrayed the nation can be seen from the following startling facts:
► The Planning Commission itself has given very poor marks to implementation of the National Highway Development Project, the dream project launched by the Vajpayee Government. Targets have been missed by a wide margin on all phases of the project, and on some stretches the implementation is as low as 5%.
► Similar is the fate of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. The Vajpayee Government, which launched it, had pledged to complete it by 2007. Under the UPA rule, it is nowhere near completion.
► When the Indo-US nuclear deal was signed last year, it was tomtommed as the UPA Government’s greatest achievement. Its proponents promised ‘nuclear bijlee for all’. While that promise remains a chimera, unlikely to be fulfilled for several decades, it is useful to know that last year India added only 7,000 MW to the generating capacity. China added 100,000 MW in 2007.
► The UPA Government seems more interested in advertising ‘Bharat Nirman’ than in implementing it. As against modest targets set for rural electrification, achievement is only 34%. For officially determined BPL families, the achievement is an abysmal 6%.
► Universal provision of safe drinking water and clean sanitation is one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. A quarter of India’s population lacks access to safe drinking water and 70% of it has no access to proper sanitation. About 21% of communicable diseases in India are related to unsafe water. Diarrhea alone accounts for more than 1,600 deaths daily — it is equivalent to eight 200-person jumbo-jets crashing to the ground each day!
How can we accept this reality? The BJP will not. What we accept is the challenge to change this sordid reality. I recently said ― and I would like to repeat it here so that it becomes the commitment of the Party as a whole ― that, whereas India today is ranked at 128 in the United Nations Human Development Index, it should be our goal and resolve to elevate it to the Top Ten nations in the world in the next two decades.
Congress proves again it’s the fountainhead of corruption
If the UPA Government has any “achievement” to its credit, it is in scaling new heights in corruption. The stench of corruption can be felt in almost single ministry. The highway project has stalled because of corruption. The ministry of communications is mired in a scandal over credible allegations that the exchequer has lost nearly Rs. 50,000 crore in the fraudulent manner in which new telecom licenses have been given. The entire government machinery was misused for letting Ottavio Quattrocchi, the principal accused in the Bofors scam, off the hook. The Government has suppressed the truth about the Food for Oil scandal in Iraq and the Scorpene submarine scandal.
The year 2008 saw two more unprecedented scandals. In a desperate attempt to save itself in office, the UPA Government enacted the “Cash for Votes” scandal, a hideous case of political corruption in the history of Indian Parliament. More recently, the Rs. 7,000-crore scam in Satyam/Maytas has come to light. Revelations about this have exposed a massive fraud not only in corporate governance but also in Congress governance in Hyderabad and New Delhi. The BJP demands a judicial inquiry to unearth, among other things, the political dimensions of the Satyam/Maytas scandal.
The five years of the UPA misrule will be remembered for the devaluation of the institutions of democracy on a scale never seen before, except during the Emergency. Even the Election Commission has been sought to be brought under the control of the Congress party by appointing a pliable and undesrving officer as an Election Commissioner.
I sometimes hear people say that corruption is no longer an election issue. The very fact that such comments are being made shows how rampant corruption has become. But we must not deduce from this that the people are no longer concerned about corruption. Experience has amply shown that the culture of corruption has stunted India’s development, disfigured our democracy and infected the moral life of our society. The BJP cannot and will not abandon the ideal of bharashtachar-mukt shaasan (corruption-free governance) because probity in public life is the very cornerstone of sushaasan (Good Governance), to which we are firmly committed.
I have always believed that the fight against corruption must start from the top. The Ganga will certainly get polluted if Gangotri itself is polluted. Last week, the Prime Minister’s Office announced, in response to an RTI application, that the Prime Minister, his ministerial colleagues and their relatives are exempt from disclosing their assets. This decision is retrograde and goes against the grain of transparency in governance. A future NDA Government, if elected to office, will reverse this decision. The Prime Minister, his ministerial colleagues and their relatives will voluntarily declare their assets on an annual basis.
Further, I wish to assure that we shall put in place an effective mechanism for fast-track disposal of cases involving major economic offences and major corruption cases against politicians and civil servants. This is necessary to strengthen people’s faith in the political and judicial system.
Why BJP is the only alternative
Friends, I said earlier that people’s displeasure with the incumbent government alone cannot guarantee the desired change. What is required is the emergence of a clear alternative that can win the trust and confidence of the people. In today’s situation, who can that alternative be? The answer is one, and only one: a BJP-led alliance.
Look at the opponents who are ranged against the BJP/NDA. The UPA is in disarray. The Congress Working Committee has recently announced that the Congress will not have any national alliance in the parliamentary elections. It will only forge state-specific alliances. This decision is nothing but a declaration of the impending burial of the UPA. The Congress is also unable to decide who to project as its leader in the coming elections. For the past five years, the real authority in the ruling dispensation has resided in 10 Janpath, which is not accountable to Parliament. The devaluation of the office of Prime Minister that this has brought about is an insult to the system of parliamentary democracy.
As a matter of fact, one wonders if, right now, there is anyone in command of the government. For the past over two months, we have no full-fledged finance minister. This, at a time when India has been facing one of the worst economic crises. Thus, here is a party that is without a track record of anything resembling good governance, without an alliance, and without a leader. Such a party and its government deserve to be shown the exit door.
The 1996 farce of unstable govts must not be repeated
The disarray in the non-NDA and non-UPA ranks is far more marked. The so-called Third Front is nowhere to be seen.
What is disconcerting, however, is the thinking in many quarters to work for a repeat of the 1996 experiment, when the BJP, in spite of having emerged as the largest single party in the 11th Lok Sabha, was effectively isolated from forming a stable government. They are hoping for a badly fragmented outcome of the forthcoming elections. Those in the Congress and some other parties that are dreaming of this misadventure should know that 2009 is different from 1996. Both in 1998 and 1999, the isolators themselves were isolated. Further, in 1999, the destabilisers got a drubbing. Unlike in 1996, the BJP has many stable allies today and we are confident of attracting more. Both our present and past allies are well aware that the BJP is sincere in its adherence to Coalition Dharma.
The Indian voter is mature and enlightened enough to know that the two highly unstable, indeed farcical, Congress-supported United Front governments between 1996 and 1998 proved to be detrimental in every respect. It took an enormous effort on the part of the Vajpayee-led NDA government to put the nation back on track and take it forward along the path of all-round progress.
The BJP has already demonstrated its ability not only to run a stable coalition government, but also to run it well. Be it in the area of national security, development or good governance, the performance of the BJP-led NDA Government between 1998-2004 stands head and shoulder above that of the UPA Government.
When I say that the farce of 1996 must not be repeated, it casts a responsibility on all of us to ensure that the NDA wins a decisive mandate, with the BJP’s tally constituting a robust and stabilizing core of that mandate.
My appeal to the National Council, therefore, is: Let us make 2009 the highest watermark ever in the BJP’s electoral performance. We can certainly do it. And WE SHALL DO IT!
Our priority: Remove despair, restore hope
What is the source of my optimism? It is simply this: people’s memory is not so short as to forget that when the NDA Government demitted office in May 2004, it left behind a mood of hope, self-confidence and national pride. We also left behind a buoyant exchequer and an upbeat economy. When the UPA Government leaves office, which it surely will, it will have left behind a mood of despair, all-round insecurity, uncertainty about the future, and a badly mismanaged economy.
In recent months, I have often been asked how I would summarise the priorities of a future NDA Government. My answer is worth repeating here since repetition conveys the power of our conviction. Our priority would be to restore and further enhance the mood of optimism and self-confidence in every section of our society.
How will we do it? We will do it by vigorously implementing a positive agenda of Good Governance, Development and Security. Our commitment to these ideals has been demonstrated not only by the track record of the previous NDA Government at the Centre, but also by our governments in all the BJP-ruled states. The specific elements of the NDA’s common agenda of governance are being worked out by our colleagues. We are also formulating a set of bold and important decisions our government will take within the first 100 days.
Suffice it to say that five major commitments will underpin our agenda.
1) We shall promote employment-oriented economic growth by promoting massive investments in agriculture, rural development, infrastructure development, and revival of the river-linking project. We shall provide unprecedented focus on education, healthcare, drinking water, sanitation and other areas of social infrastructure development. As was demonstrated by the National Highway Development Project launched by the Vajpayee Government, our ambition and resolve will match the magnitude of challenge. We shall complete the incomplete tasks in the road sector. In bijlee, paani, swasthya and shiksha, we shall launch – and implement – programmes as grand as the Golden Quadrilateral.
2) We shall take such bold steps for the revival of agriculture that not a single farmer will be pushed to commit suicide due to indebtedness.
3) We shall undertake far-reaching reforms to promote Good Governance, with focus on administrative, police, legal and electoral reforms, including State funding of elections.
4) As I said earlier, we shall pursue a no-compromise approach to dealing with threats to India’s internal security.
5) We shall vigorously promote social-economic justice and political empowerment for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs and poorer sections of all other communities. Our commitment to gender justice and political empowerment of women will be unwavering. And although we shall be uncompromising in opposing minorityism, we shall protect their legitimate rights and promote their aspirations without discrimination.
I am happy to inform members of the National Council that the process of preparing this agenda has been far more participative and broad-based this time than ever before. Shri Rajnath Singhji and I, joined by several senior colleagues, have held a series of round-table meetings with experts on various issues ― ranging from national security, agriculture, economy and business, drinking water, etc. We have also used the Internet as a tool not only to communicate our vision and views to the rest of the world, but also as a platform to receive ideas and suggestions on diverse topics of development and governance.
Five tasks before the Party
The situation today is such that the people want us to win. The BJP commands a lot of goodwill among the people, because they know that ours is the only party that can overcome the serious challenges before the nation. However, because of the unacceptable conduct of some of our colleagues, an image has been created of a party divided within. Some have left the Party. Moreover, we scored self-goals in the recent Assembly elections in Rajasthan and Delhi, both of which we could have won.
These developments in the past few months have pained Party workers and our supporters everywhere. We often take pride in proclaiming that the guiding principle for every BJP worker is: Nation First, Party Next, Self Last. A majority of our colleagues and workers indeed follow this principle with conviction and discipline. However, those who flout it not only harm the Party but also harm themselves. There is no place for them in the difficult battle ahead of us. Let me put it bluntly that the wrong conduct on by some of our own colleagues is the only thing that is acting against us.
Therefore, in the weeks ahead, the first and foremost task before the Party is to work with robust unity and unflinching resolve. The process of candidate selection has already begun and will be completed soon. Once the Party chooses a candidate, his or her victory becomes the responsibility of one and all within the organization. Therefore, our election management at the central, state and constituency levels should be such that the full force of the entire Party and the ideological Parivar is deployed for the success of the BJP and NDA candidates.
Secondly, there is absolutely no room for complacency and over-confidence of the kind that proved very costly to us in 2004. Indeed, it is the Congress which seems to be exhibiting overconfidence after its victory in Delhi and Rajasthan assembly elections. Let us exploit its weakness by working harder. It is of vital importance that we mobilize each and every potential voter to cast his/her vote on polling day. I want to congratulate Shri Ramlalji and all other colleagues down the line who have painstakingly to form booth-level committees of Party karyakartas. They are our frontline soldiers in this battle and they must receive every support they need.
Thirdly, let us conduct an aggressive, creative and self-confident mass-based campaign that focuses as much on our own positive agenda for the future as on the failures and betrayals of the UPA Government. This is an election in which issues will matter a lot. We indeed have an opportunity to turn this into one of the most educative election campaigns, in which the voter makes a rational and well-informed choice.
Fourthly, let us especially unleash the energy of the youth in our campaign. There will be as many ten crore first-time voters newly eligible to cast their votes in Elections 2009. For us, they are not only potential voters but also potential campaigners, who will bring vitality and vibrancy to the campaign. In this context, I want to congratulate the Yuva Morcha for reaching out to first-time voters on a big scale through its nationwide Pratham Matadata Samman Abhiyan.
Fifthly, let us ensure harmonious and mutually cooperative functioning between BJP workers and workers of our alliance partners.
* * *
My valued Party Colleagues, this meeting of the National Council is an occasion for all of us to remind ourselves that history has placed an onerous responsibility on us. We are not fighting this battle because we are fascinated by power, not because we have been out of office for five years, and want to get it again by any means. Power for the sake of power has never been the credo of the BJP. Our founder Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, and our ideological guru Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, have placed lofty ideals before us. These ideals have inspired us throughout our long and ardous political journey, giving us strength and showing us the path at the most trying times. We must not give up these ideals for any temptation of power and pelf. Political power for us is an instrument to serve the nation and build an India of our dreams. And right now, it is an imperative need to halt India’s downward slide which, if not reversed, can have cataclysmic consequences.
Therefore, as I said earlier, call of Nagpur is: ONWARD TO VICTORY.
Thank you.
Vande Mataram!
It gives me great pleasure to be with you at this crucial meeting of the National Council of the Party.
At the outset, I join all of you in paying homage to two of the great sons of Bharat Mata ― Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar. Nagpur was the Karma Bhoomi for both of them.
Dr. Ambedkar was a scholar of the highest order. A proud patriot in whom the spirit of nationalism always burnt with incandescent brightness, his advocacy of equality, human dignity and social justice serves as a beacon even today. The best example of this is his address to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, a day before the Assembly formally adopted the Constitution. On that day he had warned:
“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.”
What can be a better enunciation of an Inclusive Society, Inclusive Democracy and Inclusive Development? The BJP is firmly committed to these three ideals, which also find an echo in Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya’s philosophy of Integral Humanism.
Nagpur is Dr. Ambedkar’s Deeksha Bhoomi, the place where he embraced Buddhism. Mumbai is his Chaitya Bhoomi, where he ended his worldly life. Both places have fairly impressive memorials. However, his Janma Bhoomi, Mhow in Madhya Pradesh, had remained without a suitable memorial during the decades-long rule of the Congress in the state. I was, therefore, happy and privileged when Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan, our young and dynamic Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, invited me last year to unveil a magnificent memorial for Dr. Ambedkar at his place of birth.
Dr. Hedgewar is the founder of our ideological movement. The BJP was founded in 1980. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh was founded in 1951. However, the ideological movement of which the BJP is an integral part started its journey in 1925, when Dr. Hedgewar founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In the nearly 80 years of its existence, the RSS and all the entities inspired by it have grown into what can be called, without the slightest fear of contradiction, the largest family of mass organizations dedicated to the service of the nation. This ideology can be summed up in just two words: Rashra Sarvopari or Nation First.
It is precisely because of the massive, and steadily growing, collective strength of our ideological family that our adversaries have mounted the most vicious attack on us. To those who oppose us out of malice, we say, “Your motivated attacks will not deter us.” However, to those who are aloof from us out of ignorance or due to the propaganda of our adversaries, we extend a hand of mutual understanding and say, “Come, let us work together despite our differences for the greater good of the nation.” This is how the BJP has grown, remaining true to its core beliefs and winning allies in the democratic space.
Why Congress must be voted out
Friends, the circumstance that invests this meeting of the National Council with crucial importance is well known to you. In less than ten weeks, India will go to the polls to elect the 15th Lok Sabha. In slightly over 15 or 16 weeks, the election process will have been over and a new government installed in New Delhi.
It is our resolve to make that new government, a BJP-led government of the National Democratic Alliance. We shall make it happen by seeking, and securing, a decisive mandate from the people of India.
Hence, the Call of Nagpur is: Onward to Victory.
In democracy, victory comes to those who can win the trust and confidence of the people. It comes to those who can convince the people that they are best suited to govern the nation at a time when it is facing multiple and mammoth challenges.
I have the good fortune of having participated in all the 14 general elections held so far, from 1952 to 2004. There is a simple and self-evident formula that determines the outcome of an election. If the people are happy with an incumbent government, they give it a renewed mandate. But change is not guaranteed if they are unhappy. For the desired change to come about, the people must see a clear and credible alternative.
What can be said about the national situation as we prepare ourselves for the electoral battle? Do the people want change? Most certainly, Yes. The UPA Government’s performance is so full of failures and betrayals that its continuation in office would constitute a vastly increased threat to the vital interests of the country and its people.
The Government’s soft and compromising approach to cross-border terrorism, further weakened by the virus of votebank considerations, has endangered India’s internal security like never before. Secure in the knowledge that the Government in New Delhi has neither the political will nor the clarity of policy to fight terrorism, the enemies of India have felt so emboldened that they mounted one barbaric attack after another, making the last five years witness the highest number of terrorist incidents and casualties since the onset of terrorism in India in the early 1980s.
On 26 November, they staged the most audacious assault till date in Mumbai. The revelations about how this attack took place can only lead to one conclusion: the Congress-led governments at the Centre and in Maharashtra were sleeping in spite of having full information that the terrorists could use the sea route. This was not so much a case of intelligence failure as of governance failure.
Six questions for Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi
I have six questions for the Prime Minister and the Congress president on internal security. The people of India deserve answers to these questions because accountability is the cornerstone of democratic governance.
• Although the Union Home Minister and Maharashtra’s Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister were sacrificed after 26/11, why has no commission of inquiry been set up to probe all aspects of the Mumbai terror attacks? The BJP demands a high-level judicial inquiry that will not only unearth what went wrong but also recommend ways of preventing recurrence of such attacks.
• If the Union Home Minister was removed for incompetence, at whose behest was he retained in that crucial post for four and a half years?
• In the aftermath of 26/11, senior members of the UPA Governments made statements to the effect that “all options are open” in dealing with Pakistan. Why has the Government not used even the mildest of diplomatic options in the past two months to make Islamabad feel the heat for sponsoring terrorism? And why are senior representatives of the Government speaking in multiple voices on Pakistan?
• The UPA Government enacted two anti-terror laws in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks. The BJP readily supported their passage in Parliament, even though the Congress had stoutly opposed the enactment of POTA in 2002. Will the Prime Minister show the honesty to admit to the nation that it was wrong on the part of his Government to have doggedly maintained for the first four and a half years that no special anti-terror laws were needed and that existing laws were adequate to deal with the menace? And will the Congress president have the honesty to accept that opposition to POTA in 2002 was wrong?
• Now that the term of the UPA Government is coming to an end, will the Prime Minister tell the nation why his Government chose not to implement the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the death sentence on Afzal Guru, the mastermind of the terrorist attack on Parliament? In this context, let me assure the people that a future NDA Government, if elected to power, will recommend Afzal Guru’s execution to the President within the first 100 days. Here is our warning to the merchants of death and their sponsors: “We shall follow a zero-tolerance and zero-compromise approach to dealing with terrorism.”
• Why did the UPA Government deliberately and contemptuously disregard the Supreme Court’s directive with regard to enacting an effective law to curb the influx of Bangladeshis into Assam and other states, which the apex court described as “external aggression”? A future NDA Government will lose no time to implement the apex court’s directive and thereby safeguard the unity and security of India on the eastern front.
Aam aadmi’s livelihood security endangered
Endangering India’s internal security and the citizen’s physical security is not the only reason why the UPA Government qualifies to be voted out. The Government has compounded its failure by also endangering the people’s livelihood security. Unprecedented rise in prices of all the essential commodities and services during the past five years has been a source of daily torment for the aam aadmi. Now all sections of society are reeling under the effect of a graver economic crisis. Lakhs of people have lost jobs ― in construction, textiles, manufacturing, automobiles, tourism and hospitality, IT and IT-enabled services, etc ― and the sword of job-loss is hanging over the heads of many more.
The Federation of Indian Export Organizations has forecast that there would be one crore job losses by March. This comes on top of an already unacceptable level of unemployment. No government in the past has been as unfriendly to the youth, for whom opportunities in education have stagnated, openings in employment are shrinking, and the future is looking bleak.
The five years of the UPA Government have been the worse for the Indian kisan. During no comparable period in the past have so many farmers committed suicide, unable to bear the burden of debt and distress ― and their number runs into tens of thousands. The corruption-ridden implementation of the SEZ policy has resulted in farmers getting dispossessed of huge tracts of land. Migration of the rural poor to urban centres has accelerated.
The plight of the urban middle class has worsened. They have been badly hit not only by the price rise, economic recession and growing job losses, but also by the other manifestations of the mismanagement of the economy under the UPA rule. Housing loans, for example, have become costlier to service due to sharply risen interest rates.
Development programmes derailed
How the UPA Government has betrayed the nation can be seen from the following startling facts:
► The Planning Commission itself has given very poor marks to implementation of the National Highway Development Project, the dream project launched by the Vajpayee Government. Targets have been missed by a wide margin on all phases of the project, and on some stretches the implementation is as low as 5%.
► Similar is the fate of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. The Vajpayee Government, which launched it, had pledged to complete it by 2007. Under the UPA rule, it is nowhere near completion.
► When the Indo-US nuclear deal was signed last year, it was tomtommed as the UPA Government’s greatest achievement. Its proponents promised ‘nuclear bijlee for all’. While that promise remains a chimera, unlikely to be fulfilled for several decades, it is useful to know that last year India added only 7,000 MW to the generating capacity. China added 100,000 MW in 2007.
► The UPA Government seems more interested in advertising ‘Bharat Nirman’ than in implementing it. As against modest targets set for rural electrification, achievement is only 34%. For officially determined BPL families, the achievement is an abysmal 6%.
► Universal provision of safe drinking water and clean sanitation is one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. A quarter of India’s population lacks access to safe drinking water and 70% of it has no access to proper sanitation. About 21% of communicable diseases in India are related to unsafe water. Diarrhea alone accounts for more than 1,600 deaths daily — it is equivalent to eight 200-person jumbo-jets crashing to the ground each day!
How can we accept this reality? The BJP will not. What we accept is the challenge to change this sordid reality. I recently said ― and I would like to repeat it here so that it becomes the commitment of the Party as a whole ― that, whereas India today is ranked at 128 in the United Nations Human Development Index, it should be our goal and resolve to elevate it to the Top Ten nations in the world in the next two decades.
Congress proves again it’s the fountainhead of corruption
If the UPA Government has any “achievement” to its credit, it is in scaling new heights in corruption. The stench of corruption can be felt in almost single ministry. The highway project has stalled because of corruption. The ministry of communications is mired in a scandal over credible allegations that the exchequer has lost nearly Rs. 50,000 crore in the fraudulent manner in which new telecom licenses have been given. The entire government machinery was misused for letting Ottavio Quattrocchi, the principal accused in the Bofors scam, off the hook. The Government has suppressed the truth about the Food for Oil scandal in Iraq and the Scorpene submarine scandal.
The year 2008 saw two more unprecedented scandals. In a desperate attempt to save itself in office, the UPA Government enacted the “Cash for Votes” scandal, a hideous case of political corruption in the history of Indian Parliament. More recently, the Rs. 7,000-crore scam in Satyam/Maytas has come to light. Revelations about this have exposed a massive fraud not only in corporate governance but also in Congress governance in Hyderabad and New Delhi. The BJP demands a judicial inquiry to unearth, among other things, the political dimensions of the Satyam/Maytas scandal.
The five years of the UPA misrule will be remembered for the devaluation of the institutions of democracy on a scale never seen before, except during the Emergency. Even the Election Commission has been sought to be brought under the control of the Congress party by appointing a pliable and undesrving officer as an Election Commissioner.
I sometimes hear people say that corruption is no longer an election issue. The very fact that such comments are being made shows how rampant corruption has become. But we must not deduce from this that the people are no longer concerned about corruption. Experience has amply shown that the culture of corruption has stunted India’s development, disfigured our democracy and infected the moral life of our society. The BJP cannot and will not abandon the ideal of bharashtachar-mukt shaasan (corruption-free governance) because probity in public life is the very cornerstone of sushaasan (Good Governance), to which we are firmly committed.
I have always believed that the fight against corruption must start from the top. The Ganga will certainly get polluted if Gangotri itself is polluted. Last week, the Prime Minister’s Office announced, in response to an RTI application, that the Prime Minister, his ministerial colleagues and their relatives are exempt from disclosing their assets. This decision is retrograde and goes against the grain of transparency in governance. A future NDA Government, if elected to office, will reverse this decision. The Prime Minister, his ministerial colleagues and their relatives will voluntarily declare their assets on an annual basis.
Further, I wish to assure that we shall put in place an effective mechanism for fast-track disposal of cases involving major economic offences and major corruption cases against politicians and civil servants. This is necessary to strengthen people’s faith in the political and judicial system.
Why BJP is the only alternative
Friends, I said earlier that people’s displeasure with the incumbent government alone cannot guarantee the desired change. What is required is the emergence of a clear alternative that can win the trust and confidence of the people. In today’s situation, who can that alternative be? The answer is one, and only one: a BJP-led alliance.
Look at the opponents who are ranged against the BJP/NDA. The UPA is in disarray. The Congress Working Committee has recently announced that the Congress will not have any national alliance in the parliamentary elections. It will only forge state-specific alliances. This decision is nothing but a declaration of the impending burial of the UPA. The Congress is also unable to decide who to project as its leader in the coming elections. For the past five years, the real authority in the ruling dispensation has resided in 10 Janpath, which is not accountable to Parliament. The devaluation of the office of Prime Minister that this has brought about is an insult to the system of parliamentary democracy.
As a matter of fact, one wonders if, right now, there is anyone in command of the government. For the past over two months, we have no full-fledged finance minister. This, at a time when India has been facing one of the worst economic crises. Thus, here is a party that is without a track record of anything resembling good governance, without an alliance, and without a leader. Such a party and its government deserve to be shown the exit door.
The 1996 farce of unstable govts must not be repeated
The disarray in the non-NDA and non-UPA ranks is far more marked. The so-called Third Front is nowhere to be seen.
What is disconcerting, however, is the thinking in many quarters to work for a repeat of the 1996 experiment, when the BJP, in spite of having emerged as the largest single party in the 11th Lok Sabha, was effectively isolated from forming a stable government. They are hoping for a badly fragmented outcome of the forthcoming elections. Those in the Congress and some other parties that are dreaming of this misadventure should know that 2009 is different from 1996. Both in 1998 and 1999, the isolators themselves were isolated. Further, in 1999, the destabilisers got a drubbing. Unlike in 1996, the BJP has many stable allies today and we are confident of attracting more. Both our present and past allies are well aware that the BJP is sincere in its adherence to Coalition Dharma.
The Indian voter is mature and enlightened enough to know that the two highly unstable, indeed farcical, Congress-supported United Front governments between 1996 and 1998 proved to be detrimental in every respect. It took an enormous effort on the part of the Vajpayee-led NDA government to put the nation back on track and take it forward along the path of all-round progress.
The BJP has already demonstrated its ability not only to run a stable coalition government, but also to run it well. Be it in the area of national security, development or good governance, the performance of the BJP-led NDA Government between 1998-2004 stands head and shoulder above that of the UPA Government.
When I say that the farce of 1996 must not be repeated, it casts a responsibility on all of us to ensure that the NDA wins a decisive mandate, with the BJP’s tally constituting a robust and stabilizing core of that mandate.
My appeal to the National Council, therefore, is: Let us make 2009 the highest watermark ever in the BJP’s electoral performance. We can certainly do it. And WE SHALL DO IT!
Our priority: Remove despair, restore hope
What is the source of my optimism? It is simply this: people’s memory is not so short as to forget that when the NDA Government demitted office in May 2004, it left behind a mood of hope, self-confidence and national pride. We also left behind a buoyant exchequer and an upbeat economy. When the UPA Government leaves office, which it surely will, it will have left behind a mood of despair, all-round insecurity, uncertainty about the future, and a badly mismanaged economy.
In recent months, I have often been asked how I would summarise the priorities of a future NDA Government. My answer is worth repeating here since repetition conveys the power of our conviction. Our priority would be to restore and further enhance the mood of optimism and self-confidence in every section of our society.
How will we do it? We will do it by vigorously implementing a positive agenda of Good Governance, Development and Security. Our commitment to these ideals has been demonstrated not only by the track record of the previous NDA Government at the Centre, but also by our governments in all the BJP-ruled states. The specific elements of the NDA’s common agenda of governance are being worked out by our colleagues. We are also formulating a set of bold and important decisions our government will take within the first 100 days.
Suffice it to say that five major commitments will underpin our agenda.
1) We shall promote employment-oriented economic growth by promoting massive investments in agriculture, rural development, infrastructure development, and revival of the river-linking project. We shall provide unprecedented focus on education, healthcare, drinking water, sanitation and other areas of social infrastructure development. As was demonstrated by the National Highway Development Project launched by the Vajpayee Government, our ambition and resolve will match the magnitude of challenge. We shall complete the incomplete tasks in the road sector. In bijlee, paani, swasthya and shiksha, we shall launch – and implement – programmes as grand as the Golden Quadrilateral.
2) We shall take such bold steps for the revival of agriculture that not a single farmer will be pushed to commit suicide due to indebtedness.
3) We shall undertake far-reaching reforms to promote Good Governance, with focus on administrative, police, legal and electoral reforms, including State funding of elections.
4) As I said earlier, we shall pursue a no-compromise approach to dealing with threats to India’s internal security.
5) We shall vigorously promote social-economic justice and political empowerment for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs and poorer sections of all other communities. Our commitment to gender justice and political empowerment of women will be unwavering. And although we shall be uncompromising in opposing minorityism, we shall protect their legitimate rights and promote their aspirations without discrimination.
I am happy to inform members of the National Council that the process of preparing this agenda has been far more participative and broad-based this time than ever before. Shri Rajnath Singhji and I, joined by several senior colleagues, have held a series of round-table meetings with experts on various issues ― ranging from national security, agriculture, economy and business, drinking water, etc. We have also used the Internet as a tool not only to communicate our vision and views to the rest of the world, but also as a platform to receive ideas and suggestions on diverse topics of development and governance.
Five tasks before the Party
The situation today is such that the people want us to win. The BJP commands a lot of goodwill among the people, because they know that ours is the only party that can overcome the serious challenges before the nation. However, because of the unacceptable conduct of some of our colleagues, an image has been created of a party divided within. Some have left the Party. Moreover, we scored self-goals in the recent Assembly elections in Rajasthan and Delhi, both of which we could have won.
These developments in the past few months have pained Party workers and our supporters everywhere. We often take pride in proclaiming that the guiding principle for every BJP worker is: Nation First, Party Next, Self Last. A majority of our colleagues and workers indeed follow this principle with conviction and discipline. However, those who flout it not only harm the Party but also harm themselves. There is no place for them in the difficult battle ahead of us. Let me put it bluntly that the wrong conduct on by some of our own colleagues is the only thing that is acting against us.
Therefore, in the weeks ahead, the first and foremost task before the Party is to work with robust unity and unflinching resolve. The process of candidate selection has already begun and will be completed soon. Once the Party chooses a candidate, his or her victory becomes the responsibility of one and all within the organization. Therefore, our election management at the central, state and constituency levels should be such that the full force of the entire Party and the ideological Parivar is deployed for the success of the BJP and NDA candidates.
Secondly, there is absolutely no room for complacency and over-confidence of the kind that proved very costly to us in 2004. Indeed, it is the Congress which seems to be exhibiting overconfidence after its victory in Delhi and Rajasthan assembly elections. Let us exploit its weakness by working harder. It is of vital importance that we mobilize each and every potential voter to cast his/her vote on polling day. I want to congratulate Shri Ramlalji and all other colleagues down the line who have painstakingly to form booth-level committees of Party karyakartas. They are our frontline soldiers in this battle and they must receive every support they need.
Thirdly, let us conduct an aggressive, creative and self-confident mass-based campaign that focuses as much on our own positive agenda for the future as on the failures and betrayals of the UPA Government. This is an election in which issues will matter a lot. We indeed have an opportunity to turn this into one of the most educative election campaigns, in which the voter makes a rational and well-informed choice.
Fourthly, let us especially unleash the energy of the youth in our campaign. There will be as many ten crore first-time voters newly eligible to cast their votes in Elections 2009. For us, they are not only potential voters but also potential campaigners, who will bring vitality and vibrancy to the campaign. In this context, I want to congratulate the Yuva Morcha for reaching out to first-time voters on a big scale through its nationwide Pratham Matadata Samman Abhiyan.
Fifthly, let us ensure harmonious and mutually cooperative functioning between BJP workers and workers of our alliance partners.
* * *
My valued Party Colleagues, this meeting of the National Council is an occasion for all of us to remind ourselves that history has placed an onerous responsibility on us. We are not fighting this battle because we are fascinated by power, not because we have been out of office for five years, and want to get it again by any means. Power for the sake of power has never been the credo of the BJP. Our founder Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, and our ideological guru Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, have placed lofty ideals before us. These ideals have inspired us throughout our long and ardous political journey, giving us strength and showing us the path at the most trying times. We must not give up these ideals for any temptation of power and pelf. Political power for us is an instrument to serve the nation and build an India of our dreams. And right now, it is an imperative need to halt India’s downward slide which, if not reversed, can have cataclysmic consequences.
Therefore, as I said earlier, call of Nagpur is: ONWARD TO VICTORY.
Thank you.
Vande Mataram!
Opposition Leader Says -Why CEC’s recommendation with regard to Navin Chawla must be accepted by Government
The current controversy surrounding Election Commissioner Shri Navin Chawla reminds me of a conversation I had had with Benazir Bhutto when she visited Delhi during the NDA regime. She had lunch with me that day and she shared with me a delicious dish of Sindhi curry, which my wife Kamala prepares excellently.
In the post lunch chat we had that day, I posed a question to Benazir: “How is it” I asked her, “that though both India’s as well as Pakistan’s political leadership had imbibed a similar political culture under British rule, India had managed its democracy with remarkable success but in Pakistan democracy had been a total failure.” Benazir’s reply was succinct: “I attribute your country’s success to two factors: firstly, your Army is apolitical; and secondly, your Election Commission is constitutionally independent of the Executive.”
Benazir had rightly identified the two guarantees for Indian democracy. For the first of these ― the Indian Army never nurturing political ambitions of any kind ― the credit goes entirely to our armed forces and those who have led it since independence, while credit for the Election Commission’s independence must be given to the Constituent Assembly.
There were, however, eminent participants in the Constituent Assembly debate on Art. 324, who wanted the Election Commission to be invested with even greater independence than given to it. These members did not approve of the fact that the Election Commission was to be appointed by the Central Government, and that the safeguards provided to the Commission were limited to its removal. Speaking on the occasion, Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru said:
“ We are anxious, Sir, that the preparation of the election rolls and the conduct of elections should be entrusted to people who are free from political bias and whose impartiality can be relied upon in all circumstances. But, by leaving a great deal of power in the hands of the President we have given room for the exercise of political influence in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the other officers by the Central government. The Chief Election Commissioner will have to be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister suggests the appointment of a party man, the President will have no option but to accept the Prime Minister’s nominee, however unsuitable he may be on public ground”.
In 2006, the then Chief Election Commissioner Shri B.B. Tandon, in a well-argued letter addressed to Rashtrapati Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, had pleaded with Government that just as in the case of the Central Vigilance Commission and the National Human Rights Commission, the appointments are made not by the Executive but by Committees in which the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Leaders of Opposition in Parliament are also included, in case of the Election Commission also, a similar Committee should be authorized to do so. Shri Tandon concludes his letter to Dr. Kalam with the observation:
“This approach would not only be in keeping with the spirit and sentiment flowing from the debates in the Constituent Assembly but also further strengthen the faith of the people of our great democracy in the continued impartiality, neutrality and credibility of the Election Commission.”
In the context of the current controversy about Shri Navin Chawla, it would be educative to compare Art.124 dealing with the Supreme Court, with Art.324 laying down provisions relating to the Election Commission. Art.124 provides that neither the Chief Justice of India nor any other judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his office except by a process of impeachment laid down by Parliament. In case of the Election Commission, however, this kind of protection is provided only to the Chief Election Commissioner, and not to the Election Commissioners. In case of the other Election Commissioners the Constitution says that they “shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.”
On behalf of the BJP, Party General Secretary, Shri Arun Jaitley has rightly argued that the word ‘recommendation’ used in the second proviso of Article 324(3) must be construed as a binding recommendation. Jaitley has drawn attention to Article 217 of the Constitution relating to appointment of High Court Judges where the appointment is to be “after consultation with the Chief Justice”, the Chief Justice’s views has always been regarded binding.
The Party therefore, feels that the Chief Election Commissioner’s recommendation with regard to Shri Navin Chawla must be forthwith accepted by Government.
In the post lunch chat we had that day, I posed a question to Benazir: “How is it” I asked her, “that though both India’s as well as Pakistan’s political leadership had imbibed a similar political culture under British rule, India had managed its democracy with remarkable success but in Pakistan democracy had been a total failure.” Benazir’s reply was succinct: “I attribute your country’s success to two factors: firstly, your Army is apolitical; and secondly, your Election Commission is constitutionally independent of the Executive.”
Benazir had rightly identified the two guarantees for Indian democracy. For the first of these ― the Indian Army never nurturing political ambitions of any kind ― the credit goes entirely to our armed forces and those who have led it since independence, while credit for the Election Commission’s independence must be given to the Constituent Assembly.
There were, however, eminent participants in the Constituent Assembly debate on Art. 324, who wanted the Election Commission to be invested with even greater independence than given to it. These members did not approve of the fact that the Election Commission was to be appointed by the Central Government, and that the safeguards provided to the Commission were limited to its removal. Speaking on the occasion, Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru said:
“ We are anxious, Sir, that the preparation of the election rolls and the conduct of elections should be entrusted to people who are free from political bias and whose impartiality can be relied upon in all circumstances. But, by leaving a great deal of power in the hands of the President we have given room for the exercise of political influence in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the other officers by the Central government. The Chief Election Commissioner will have to be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister suggests the appointment of a party man, the President will have no option but to accept the Prime Minister’s nominee, however unsuitable he may be on public ground”.
In 2006, the then Chief Election Commissioner Shri B.B. Tandon, in a well-argued letter addressed to Rashtrapati Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, had pleaded with Government that just as in the case of the Central Vigilance Commission and the National Human Rights Commission, the appointments are made not by the Executive but by Committees in which the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Leaders of Opposition in Parliament are also included, in case of the Election Commission also, a similar Committee should be authorized to do so. Shri Tandon concludes his letter to Dr. Kalam with the observation:
“This approach would not only be in keeping with the spirit and sentiment flowing from the debates in the Constituent Assembly but also further strengthen the faith of the people of our great democracy in the continued impartiality, neutrality and credibility of the Election Commission.”
In the context of the current controversy about Shri Navin Chawla, it would be educative to compare Art.124 dealing with the Supreme Court, with Art.324 laying down provisions relating to the Election Commission. Art.124 provides that neither the Chief Justice of India nor any other judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his office except by a process of impeachment laid down by Parliament. In case of the Election Commission, however, this kind of protection is provided only to the Chief Election Commissioner, and not to the Election Commissioners. In case of the other Election Commissioners the Constitution says that they “shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.”
On behalf of the BJP, Party General Secretary, Shri Arun Jaitley has rightly argued that the word ‘recommendation’ used in the second proviso of Article 324(3) must be construed as a binding recommendation. Jaitley has drawn attention to Article 217 of the Constitution relating to appointment of High Court Judges where the appointment is to be “after consultation with the Chief Justice”, the Chief Justice’s views has always been regarded binding.
The Party therefore, feels that the Chief Election Commissioner’s recommendation with regard to Shri Navin Chawla must be forthwith accepted by Government.
Monday, February 2, 2009
EC meeting with political leaders on LS polls
3 Feb 2009, PTI
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission is on Tuesday meeting with political leaders to invite their suggestions on the Lok Sabha polls likely to be held sometime in April-May.
In all 47 political parties including seven national parties have been invited for the meeting being chaired by Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami and other two election commissioners Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi.
This is the first time that all the three election commissioners would sit together to chalk out strategy for the Lok Sabha polls after the stand-off between Gopalaswami and Chawla and the report about the former seeking removal of the latter came out in public.
The EC will have a day-long review meeting with the chief electoral officers (CEOs) of all states and Union Territories tomorrow to review progress in revision of electoral rolls, the status of photo electoral rolls and distribution of Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC).
The Commission would hold discussions with chief secretaries and directors general of police of all states and Union Territories for two days from February five.
The meeting would also discuss an "advanced preparatory measure" for the massive democratic exercise.
The electoral rolls, the first and foremost requirement for conducting the elections, are ready in all the states as of January 22, except in six states and Jammu and Kashmir which went to assembly polls recently. The rolls in these seven states would be ready by February 10.
The meeting comes in the backdrop of reports quoting Quraishi that the Lok Sabha polls could be held between April 8 and May 15. However, the EC made it clear that no date has been finalized so far. The new Lok Sabha needs to be constituted by May 31.
The Lok Sabha elections in the country are the largest electoral exercise in the world involving 671 million voters.
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission is on Tuesday meeting with political leaders to invite their suggestions on the Lok Sabha polls likely to be held sometime in April-May.
In all 47 political parties including seven national parties have been invited for the meeting being chaired by Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami and other two election commissioners Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi.
This is the first time that all the three election commissioners would sit together to chalk out strategy for the Lok Sabha polls after the stand-off between Gopalaswami and Chawla and the report about the former seeking removal of the latter came out in public.
The EC will have a day-long review meeting with the chief electoral officers (CEOs) of all states and Union Territories tomorrow to review progress in revision of electoral rolls, the status of photo electoral rolls and distribution of Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC).
The Commission would hold discussions with chief secretaries and directors general of police of all states and Union Territories for two days from February five.
The meeting would also discuss an "advanced preparatory measure" for the massive democratic exercise.
The electoral rolls, the first and foremost requirement for conducting the elections, are ready in all the states as of January 22, except in six states and Jammu and Kashmir which went to assembly polls recently. The rolls in these seven states would be ready by February 10.
The meeting comes in the backdrop of reports quoting Quraishi that the Lok Sabha polls could be held between April 8 and May 15. However, the EC made it clear that no date has been finalized so far. The new Lok Sabha needs to be constituted by May 31.
The Lok Sabha elections in the country are the largest electoral exercise in the world involving 671 million voters.
Can CEC unilaterally ask for EC to be removed?
2 Feb 2009,
Bitterness — personal, political or social — has seldom avoided a journey to the courts. And, bitterness in the inner corridors of Election Commission is not new. In the past, imprudent or ill-timed government interventions or the egos of chief election commissioners and election commissioners had injected bitterness into the commission, constitutionally mandated to keep the health of democracy in shape by conducting free and fair elections.
The Supreme Court was seldom amiss in expressing its deep anguish over the ego clash and the government's poor handling of sensitivities attached to the commission. It had also never let go an opportunity to delineate the role, function and importance of the CEC and the ECs.
After 39 years of existence as a single-member body headed by CEC, the government on October 15, 1989, decided that it was time to make the commission a 3-member body and appointed S S Dhanoa and V S Seigell as ECs under chairmanship of CEC R V S Peri Shastri.
Even before the new ECs had settled down, the Centre abolished the posts of ECs on January 1, 1990. Dhanoa had cried foul and rushed to the apex court, which on July 24, 1991, gave its verdict upholding abolition of the posts saying it was within the President's discretion.
Two years after Dhanoa judgment, the Centre re-employed the old idea and appointed M S Gill and G V G Krishnamurthy as ECs to tame the no-nonsense CEC T N Seshan. It was the turn of Seshan to move the apex court terming the move a blatant attempt to dilute the mandate of Article 324 of Constitution. In 1995, the SC upheld the appointment of ECs, favoured a multi-member body and warned against concentration of wide undefined powers under Article 324 in a single person — the CEC.
In both Dhanoa and Seshan judgments, the SC, no doubt, treated the CEC and ECs as co-equals in terms of their working. It also had no hesitation in upholding CEC's superior role, mainly because he, and he alone under the Constitution, could recommend removal of ECs, a condition precedent for the President to act.
The present controversy, born out of CEC N Gopalaswami's recommendation to the President to remove EC Naveen Chawla, probably traverses a different path unchartered by earlier controversies. Does the CEC have unilateral powers to recommend removal of an EC or should he have to await a ‘reference' from the President? If CEC and ECs are co-equals, then how could the CEC be superior to rush such a missive? Is it binding on the President?
The timing of Gopalaswami's recommendation, despite his impeccable integrity, is extraordinarily inept, as eminent jurist Fali S Nariman put it on Saturday.
But, as asked by former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee, did the CEC exceed his constitutional brief in making a suo motu recommendation for removal of an EC?
May be not, for the Constitution does not restrain the CEC to await a presidential reference on a complaint alleging misconduct on the part of an EC to first inquire and then give a recommendation. If experts cite Seshan judgment, then they may be right on the print of the judgment. But, one should not forget that it was an anguished interpretation by the SC given the unsavoury facts and circumstances prevailing at a tense EC under a legally belligerent Seshan.
If complaints to the President, its reference to CEC, the inquiry by him and then the recommendation was the only available procedure for removal of an EC, then a CEC would be rendered a toothless chairperson of an important constitutional body even if he, to cite an example, saw grave misconduct on the part of an EC in the secret chambers of the commission where most important decisions about the health of a democracy is taken.
As such behaviour gets fertilised in the absence of public glare, no one would be competent to complain about it to the President. No reference on it could ever be sent to the CEC. And, the chairperson of the important body would helplessly watch an EC steadily injecting poison into the blood streams of a democracy. For, he could make no unilateral recommendation to the President under Article 324(5) second proviso!
The SC, sooner than later, would be called upon to decide this issue. Till then, we will watch political wrangling dirtying the already troubled waters
Bitterness — personal, political or social — has seldom avoided a journey to the courts. And, bitterness in the inner corridors of Election Commission is not new. In the past, imprudent or ill-timed government interventions or the egos of chief election commissioners and election commissioners had injected bitterness into the commission, constitutionally mandated to keep the health of democracy in shape by conducting free and fair elections.
The Supreme Court was seldom amiss in expressing its deep anguish over the ego clash and the government's poor handling of sensitivities attached to the commission. It had also never let go an opportunity to delineate the role, function and importance of the CEC and the ECs.
After 39 years of existence as a single-member body headed by CEC, the government on October 15, 1989, decided that it was time to make the commission a 3-member body and appointed S S Dhanoa and V S Seigell as ECs under chairmanship of CEC R V S Peri Shastri.
Even before the new ECs had settled down, the Centre abolished the posts of ECs on January 1, 1990. Dhanoa had cried foul and rushed to the apex court, which on July 24, 1991, gave its verdict upholding abolition of the posts saying it was within the President's discretion.
Two years after Dhanoa judgment, the Centre re-employed the old idea and appointed M S Gill and G V G Krishnamurthy as ECs to tame the no-nonsense CEC T N Seshan. It was the turn of Seshan to move the apex court terming the move a blatant attempt to dilute the mandate of Article 324 of Constitution. In 1995, the SC upheld the appointment of ECs, favoured a multi-member body and warned against concentration of wide undefined powers under Article 324 in a single person — the CEC.
In both Dhanoa and Seshan judgments, the SC, no doubt, treated the CEC and ECs as co-equals in terms of their working. It also had no hesitation in upholding CEC's superior role, mainly because he, and he alone under the Constitution, could recommend removal of ECs, a condition precedent for the President to act.
The present controversy, born out of CEC N Gopalaswami's recommendation to the President to remove EC Naveen Chawla, probably traverses a different path unchartered by earlier controversies. Does the CEC have unilateral powers to recommend removal of an EC or should he have to await a ‘reference' from the President? If CEC and ECs are co-equals, then how could the CEC be superior to rush such a missive? Is it binding on the President?
The timing of Gopalaswami's recommendation, despite his impeccable integrity, is extraordinarily inept, as eminent jurist Fali S Nariman put it on Saturday.
But, as asked by former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee, did the CEC exceed his constitutional brief in making a suo motu recommendation for removal of an EC?
May be not, for the Constitution does not restrain the CEC to await a presidential reference on a complaint alleging misconduct on the part of an EC to first inquire and then give a recommendation. If experts cite Seshan judgment, then they may be right on the print of the judgment. But, one should not forget that it was an anguished interpretation by the SC given the unsavoury facts and circumstances prevailing at a tense EC under a legally belligerent Seshan.
If complaints to the President, its reference to CEC, the inquiry by him and then the recommendation was the only available procedure for removal of an EC, then a CEC would be rendered a toothless chairperson of an important constitutional body even if he, to cite an example, saw grave misconduct on the part of an EC in the secret chambers of the commission where most important decisions about the health of a democracy is taken.
As such behaviour gets fertilised in the absence of public glare, no one would be competent to complain about it to the President. No reference on it could ever be sent to the CEC. And, the chairperson of the important body would helplessly watch an EC steadily injecting poison into the blood streams of a democracy. For, he could make no unilateral recommendation to the President under Article 324(5) second proviso!
The SC, sooner than later, would be called upon to decide this issue. Till then, we will watch political wrangling dirtying the already troubled waters
CEC's letter accuses Chawla of leaking info
3 Feb 2009,
NEW DELHI: Strange as it may sound but election commissioner Navin Chawla was in favour of issuing notice to Sonia Gandhi on her `Maut ke Saudagar' speech but did not want the outside world to know it.
In fact, the entire event is part of the CEC's letter of recommendation seeking Chawla's removal. It is believed the CEC and the two election commissioners were in favour of issuing notice to Sonia. After the decision, an 'outsider' called the CEC asking if there was a difference of opinion. When CEC denied it, the caller quoted Chawla as having told a senior media personality that he (Chawla) was not in favour of the notice but the CEC and S Y Quraishi's views to the contrary prevailed.
Next morning, news reports even said that. Chawla was confronted by the CEC about the source of the wrong leak. When the CEC accused Chawla of leaking it, the latter asked him to name his source. The CEC said he would tell Chawla on April 20, 2009, the day he retires.
This is what N Gopalaswami has pointed out in his January 16 recommendation to the President while seeking Chawla's removal.
The recommendation, running into over 90 pages, details other instances to back Gopalaswami's case that Chawla was not fit for the constitutional office.
Gopalaswami also refers to an instance during the 2005 Bihar assembly polls where Congress and RJD boycotted the voting in three polling stations of Bhagalpur assembly segment on the ground that K J Rao, then an advisor to the EC, had called them Pakistanis. Congress and RJD demanded repoll.
An investigation by viewing the CD of Rao's visit and district magistrate's report proved that Rao was innocent. But Chawla said even if Rao is innocent, there should be a repoll. With CEC and Quraishi on the other side, Chawla wanted to write a dissent note. Curiously, he wanted this, just like his file notings on issuing notice to Sonia, to be kept confidential.
A major part of the CEC's complaint relates to the manner in which Chawla is believed to have leaked information to outsiders — in most cases Congress leaders. The fact that Gujarat would have a three-phase poll was known only to the CEC and the two election commissioners. But when a Congress leader called the CEC requesting him for two-phase poll and even promised 150 more battalions of central forces which was followed by a call from the home secretary, Gopalaswami confronted Chawla. But he flatly denied having leaked it.
Gopalaswami has also alleged that in Sonia's Leopold honour case, every time the file went to Chawla, there was outside intervention. When the file went to Chawla first, principal secretary to PM, T K A Nair, came to meet the CEC.
The second time a file went to Chawla, a letter from Abhishek Singhvi arrived in EC about the notice to Congress president that was yet to be decided. Chawla wanted the EC to take cognisance of that letter since Singhvi could not have written it without Sonia's permission. Chawla went to the extent of saying, "I understand Congress culture."
NEW DELHI: Strange as it may sound but election commissioner Navin Chawla was in favour of issuing notice to Sonia Gandhi on her `Maut ke Saudagar' speech but did not want the outside world to know it.
In fact, the entire event is part of the CEC's letter of recommendation seeking Chawla's removal. It is believed the CEC and the two election commissioners were in favour of issuing notice to Sonia. After the decision, an 'outsider' called the CEC asking if there was a difference of opinion. When CEC denied it, the caller quoted Chawla as having told a senior media personality that he (Chawla) was not in favour of the notice but the CEC and S Y Quraishi's views to the contrary prevailed.
Next morning, news reports even said that. Chawla was confronted by the CEC about the source of the wrong leak. When the CEC accused Chawla of leaking it, the latter asked him to name his source. The CEC said he would tell Chawla on April 20, 2009, the day he retires.
This is what N Gopalaswami has pointed out in his January 16 recommendation to the President while seeking Chawla's removal.
The recommendation, running into over 90 pages, details other instances to back Gopalaswami's case that Chawla was not fit for the constitutional office.
Gopalaswami also refers to an instance during the 2005 Bihar assembly polls where Congress and RJD boycotted the voting in three polling stations of Bhagalpur assembly segment on the ground that K J Rao, then an advisor to the EC, had called them Pakistanis. Congress and RJD demanded repoll.
An investigation by viewing the CD of Rao's visit and district magistrate's report proved that Rao was innocent. But Chawla said even if Rao is innocent, there should be a repoll. With CEC and Quraishi on the other side, Chawla wanted to write a dissent note. Curiously, he wanted this, just like his file notings on issuing notice to Sonia, to be kept confidential.
A major part of the CEC's complaint relates to the manner in which Chawla is believed to have leaked information to outsiders — in most cases Congress leaders. The fact that Gujarat would have a three-phase poll was known only to the CEC and the two election commissioners. But when a Congress leader called the CEC requesting him for two-phase poll and even promised 150 more battalions of central forces which was followed by a call from the home secretary, Gopalaswami confronted Chawla. But he flatly denied having leaked it.
Gopalaswami has also alleged that in Sonia's Leopold honour case, every time the file went to Chawla, there was outside intervention. When the file went to Chawla first, principal secretary to PM, T K A Nair, came to meet the CEC.
The second time a file went to Chawla, a letter from Abhishek Singhvi arrived in EC about the notice to Congress president that was yet to be decided. Chawla wanted the EC to take cognisance of that letter since Singhvi could not have written it without Sonia's permission. Chawla went to the extent of saying, "I understand Congress culture."
2006 stand on EC removal returns to haunt Chawla
3 Feb 2009,
NEW DELHI: Navin Chawla, in the eye of a political and constitutional storm, had in 2006 firmly told the Supreme Court that no Election Commissioner could be removed without "a clear recommendation from Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)", a stand which stares him in the face today.
Filing an affidavit on oath in response to allegations made in a petition filed by BJP leader Jaswant Singh, Chawla had, however, para-phrased his understanding of CEC's constitutional powers with a clear statement that the Council of Ministers' aid and advice to the President held the key to the fate of an EC, even when there was clear recommendation from the CEC.
In his affidavit dated June 28, 2006, Chawla said: "The appointment of the EC is made by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. I further submit that even for the purpose of removal of an EC, the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers would be necessary."
Having said this, he added: "However, in addition to such aid and advice, a clear recommendation from the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) recommending the removal is also a condition precedent and must exist."
He also had appeared to be aware of possible political interventions at the whims and fancies of those in power to force the removal of an EC, which could erode the independence of the supreme election body and argued that there had to be cogent material for taking any decision on the fate of an EC.
"I submit that under Article 324 of the Constitution, cogent, irrefutable and convincing material is meant to exist for any kind of decision making. If indeed, tenuous allegations and flimsy material were to form substratum of a petition, it would be difficult to protect and preserve the integrity of the Election Commission," he said.
Interestingly, he had reposed his faith in the decision making capacity of N Gopalaswami. "When my case came up to be promoted as secretary to the Government of India, Shri N Gopalasawami, then Union home secretary, was a member of the Empanelment Committee headed by then cabinet secretary," he said to drive home his impeccable track record as a bureaucrat that saw him through in most promotions.
NEW DELHI: Navin Chawla, in the eye of a political and constitutional storm, had in 2006 firmly told the Supreme Court that no Election Commissioner could be removed without "a clear recommendation from Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)", a stand which stares him in the face today.
Filing an affidavit on oath in response to allegations made in a petition filed by BJP leader Jaswant Singh, Chawla had, however, para-phrased his understanding of CEC's constitutional powers with a clear statement that the Council of Ministers' aid and advice to the President held the key to the fate of an EC, even when there was clear recommendation from the CEC.
In his affidavit dated June 28, 2006, Chawla said: "The appointment of the EC is made by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. I further submit that even for the purpose of removal of an EC, the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers would be necessary."
Having said this, he added: "However, in addition to such aid and advice, a clear recommendation from the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) recommending the removal is also a condition precedent and must exist."
He also had appeared to be aware of possible political interventions at the whims and fancies of those in power to force the removal of an EC, which could erode the independence of the supreme election body and argued that there had to be cogent material for taking any decision on the fate of an EC.
"I submit that under Article 324 of the Constitution, cogent, irrefutable and convincing material is meant to exist for any kind of decision making. If indeed, tenuous allegations and flimsy material were to form substratum of a petition, it would be difficult to protect and preserve the integrity of the Election Commission," he said.
Interestingly, he had reposed his faith in the decision making capacity of N Gopalaswami. "When my case came up to be promoted as secretary to the Government of India, Shri N Gopalasawami, then Union home secretary, was a member of the Empanelment Committee headed by then cabinet secretary," he said to drive home his impeccable track record as a bureaucrat that saw him through in most promotions.
'BJP to fight 100-day war to capture power in New Delhi'
February 01, 2009
Guwahati: India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Sunday said it will launch its campaign for the upcoming general elections Feb 6 from Nagpur by fighting a '100-day war' to capture power in New Delhi.
"The election campaign will start from Nagpur. We have just about 100 days for the polls and so we have decided to fight a 100-day war to oust the Congress from power in the country," BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar told journalists.
The BJP leader was in Guwahati to attend a party workers' meeting to fine tune strategies for the Lok Sabha elections.
"The slogan by our leader L.K. Advani is for a prosperous, strong, and secular India. It is only Advani and the BJP that can provide a strong India," Javadekar said.
The BJP will launch its campaign during the three-day party national council meeting in Nagpur where more than 10,000 leaders - including 150 MPs, 1,100 legislators, chief ministers, deputy chief ministers, ministers, party whips, state and district unit presidents - are expected to take part.
"Our theme for the Nagpur conclave is change, which means 'replace the UPA government'," he said, adding the party will discuss issues related to internal security in the wake of Mumbai terror attack, economic recession, rising prices of essential commodities and agrarian crisis.
"The Congress-led government at the centre has failed on all fronts from issues relating to farmers to the country's security, economic recession, besides unemployment," the BJP leader said.
Javadekar also said the Hindutva issue would also be part of their agenda as it is an inseparable component of the party's ideology.
The BJP leader said the party would also be able to make a strong presence in the northeast during the elections.
"We are sure to do well in the 25 Lok Sabha seats in the northeast," he said.
Guwahati: India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Sunday said it will launch its campaign for the upcoming general elections Feb 6 from Nagpur by fighting a '100-day war' to capture power in New Delhi.
"The election campaign will start from Nagpur. We have just about 100 days for the polls and so we have decided to fight a 100-day war to oust the Congress from power in the country," BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar told journalists.
The BJP leader was in Guwahati to attend a party workers' meeting to fine tune strategies for the Lok Sabha elections.
"The slogan by our leader L.K. Advani is for a prosperous, strong, and secular India. It is only Advani and the BJP that can provide a strong India," Javadekar said.
The BJP will launch its campaign during the three-day party national council meeting in Nagpur where more than 10,000 leaders - including 150 MPs, 1,100 legislators, chief ministers, deputy chief ministers, ministers, party whips, state and district unit presidents - are expected to take part.
"Our theme for the Nagpur conclave is change, which means 'replace the UPA government'," he said, adding the party will discuss issues related to internal security in the wake of Mumbai terror attack, economic recession, rising prices of essential commodities and agrarian crisis.
"The Congress-led government at the centre has failed on all fronts from issues relating to farmers to the country's security, economic recession, besides unemployment," the BJP leader said.
Javadekar also said the Hindutva issue would also be part of their agenda as it is an inseparable component of the party's ideology.
The BJP leader said the party would also be able to make a strong presence in the northeast during the elections.
"We are sure to do well in the 25 Lok Sabha seats in the northeast," he said.
CEC ruling binding on govt: BJP
1 Feb 2009
NEW DELHI: BJP has rejected the contention that Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami's recommendation that election commissioner Navin Chawla be removed is non-binding, arguing that the government cannot adjudicate a case where it was the alleged beneficiary of Chawla's actions.
BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said that a reading of Article 324(5) of the Constitution showed only the CEC had the power to recommend removal of an errant commissioner. "How can the government claim to have a role in a matter where it is an interested party, where the commissioner has acted to favour it," he asked. The matter can be settled by an independent authority which the Constitution said was the CEC.
Jaitley said the literal provisions of the article had been backed by the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1995 during the tenure of T N Seshan as CEC. The procedure for the removal of a CEC was the same as for a judge of the Supreme Court through a process of impeachment. "In the case of an election commissioner, the CEC's recommendation is what matters and the government must act on it," he said.
The BJP leader, who has campaigned for Chawla's removal, said that there is ample evidence of the commissioner's bias in favour of the ruling party starting with his association with the notorious Emergency of 1975-77. "I am sure the CEC has attached evidence," Jaitley said which reflected on Chawla's functioning within the poll panel. On the possibility of Chawla becoming CEC after Gopalaswami's tenure ends on April 20, Jaitley said, "India cannot risk a rigged election under Chawla."
Though about half of the general election would be over by the time Chawla becomes CEC, the main Opposition fears that a lot of close calls that the panel has to take will go Congress's way. "Even now, we are told of instances where EC's confidential consultations have been leaked. The EC will cease to be a neutral umpire under Chawla," said BJP sources.
The party also countered the argument that Gopalaswami's recommendation did not reflect the opinion of the EC as a whole with Jaitley saying that Chawla was hardly expected to sign on a recommendation which indicted him. "If a commissioner is repeatedly found to be in error, that too in a deliberate manner, it is left to the CEC to act against the person concerned. How can the errant commissioner be part of this process?" he asked.
Jaitley said the SC had expressed no opinion on a petition filed by leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh which had been signed by 205 MPs. "When the petitioner asked for directions to the government to send the proposal seeking Chawla's removal to the CEC, the court noted that this could be done directly. There was no need to ask the government to do so, the EC could be approached by the petitioner," he said.
The BJP asked the government to explain what it intended to do on the CEC's recommendation. "The government must understand that media leaks are no substitute for transparency. Earlier a petition against Chawla submitted to the former President A P J Kalam was sent to the Prime Minister who did nothing. Now the CEC himself has recommended Chawla's removal. Not acting will only strengthen the suspicion that Congress has a vested interest in Chawla continuing in the EC.
Jaitley said NDA will discuss the development as will the BJP. Aware that the government had stoutly defended Chawla so far, BJP intends to keep up an embarrassing torrent on criticism in order to deepen the controversy surrounding Chawla. This would be aimed at putting Congress on the defensive having to bat for Chawla just as elections are round the corner.
NEW DELHI: BJP has rejected the contention that Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami's recommendation that election commissioner Navin Chawla be removed is non-binding, arguing that the government cannot adjudicate a case where it was the alleged beneficiary of Chawla's actions.
BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said that a reading of Article 324(5) of the Constitution showed only the CEC had the power to recommend removal of an errant commissioner. "How can the government claim to have a role in a matter where it is an interested party, where the commissioner has acted to favour it," he asked. The matter can be settled by an independent authority which the Constitution said was the CEC.
Jaitley said the literal provisions of the article had been backed by the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1995 during the tenure of T N Seshan as CEC. The procedure for the removal of a CEC was the same as for a judge of the Supreme Court through a process of impeachment. "In the case of an election commissioner, the CEC's recommendation is what matters and the government must act on it," he said.
The BJP leader, who has campaigned for Chawla's removal, said that there is ample evidence of the commissioner's bias in favour of the ruling party starting with his association with the notorious Emergency of 1975-77. "I am sure the CEC has attached evidence," Jaitley said which reflected on Chawla's functioning within the poll panel. On the possibility of Chawla becoming CEC after Gopalaswami's tenure ends on April 20, Jaitley said, "India cannot risk a rigged election under Chawla."
Though about half of the general election would be over by the time Chawla becomes CEC, the main Opposition fears that a lot of close calls that the panel has to take will go Congress's way. "Even now, we are told of instances where EC's confidential consultations have been leaked. The EC will cease to be a neutral umpire under Chawla," said BJP sources.
The party also countered the argument that Gopalaswami's recommendation did not reflect the opinion of the EC as a whole with Jaitley saying that Chawla was hardly expected to sign on a recommendation which indicted him. "If a commissioner is repeatedly found to be in error, that too in a deliberate manner, it is left to the CEC to act against the person concerned. How can the errant commissioner be part of this process?" he asked.
Jaitley said the SC had expressed no opinion on a petition filed by leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh which had been signed by 205 MPs. "When the petitioner asked for directions to the government to send the proposal seeking Chawla's removal to the CEC, the court noted that this could be done directly. There was no need to ask the government to do so, the EC could be approached by the petitioner," he said.
The BJP asked the government to explain what it intended to do on the CEC's recommendation. "The government must understand that media leaks are no substitute for transparency. Earlier a petition against Chawla submitted to the former President A P J Kalam was sent to the Prime Minister who did nothing. Now the CEC himself has recommended Chawla's removal. Not acting will only strengthen the suspicion that Congress has a vested interest in Chawla continuing in the EC.
Jaitley said NDA will discuss the development as will the BJP. Aware that the government had stoutly defended Chawla so far, BJP intends to keep up an embarrassing torrent on criticism in order to deepen the controversy surrounding Chawla. This would be aimed at putting Congress on the defensive having to bat for Chawla just as elections are round the corner.
Many in Cong want Chawla as CEC
1 Feb 2009,
NEW DELHI: With a history of hostility between CEC N Gopalaswami and Navin Chawla, there was a view in Congress that the latter be named as the "CEC-designate" amid lurking suspicion that the outgoing chief could embarrass the establishment ahead of Lok Sabha polls.
On Saturday, Congress defended Chawla strongly and indicated that he would continue.
It was felt that removing doubts on elevation of Chawla by naming him as the next CEC would pre-empt a revival of BJP campaign that a "Congress partisan" should not take over the election watchdog.
The apprehension was expressed in suggestions made by Congress leader Salman Khurshed recently during the Lok Sabha preparations to party troubleshooter Pranab Mukherjee.
It was felt the Centre nominate a new Election Commissioner around now against the vacancy to be created by Gopalaswami's retirement and in the process also seal the issue of future CEC. Given that the post would fall vacant in the middle of humunguous Lok Sabha exercise and the model code of conduct, there was sufficient cover to name the new EC without the Centre being seen as "too anxious" to clinch Chawla's elevation.
The fears of a controversy existed in many influential quarters in the ruling structure.
But, sources said, seniors settled against the suggestion as they just did not feel Gopalaswami could do an adverse act so close to retirement and risk his credibility.
In fact, there were hopes in Congress that CEC could himself name Chawla to settle the issue of "continuity" for Lok Sabha polls.
With the issue blowing up with Gopalaswami's recommendation to the President, Congress rubbished it as a motivated act with a political slant to it. "That it has come just two months before the CEC is to be succeeded raises suspicions about the accusation," Khurshed said.
The party indicated that Chawla would continue in his post. "He has been most impartial in his actions," said Digvijay Singh, AICC general secretary.
The Congress leaders were in a dilemma in reacting to the political drama, as rebuffing CEC or defending Chawla risked betraying a special party interest in the election officer under attack. So, while few were ready to speak, the view was that constitutional offices should not be politicised and guns were thus trained on BJP.
A cautious AICC did not drag Gopalaswami in its defence of Chawla as an "impartial" functionary but it has no love lost for the CEC, who is seen as an "LK Advani appointee". He is seen as the villain of the piece in party's loss in Karnataka, where he "misled" the Congress into early notification of delimitation, while he is seen as having tried to overrule the Centre on Kashmir.
NEW DELHI: With a history of hostility between CEC N Gopalaswami and Navin Chawla, there was a view in Congress that the latter be named as the "CEC-designate" amid lurking suspicion that the outgoing chief could embarrass the establishment ahead of Lok Sabha polls.
On Saturday, Congress defended Chawla strongly and indicated that he would continue.
It was felt that removing doubts on elevation of Chawla by naming him as the next CEC would pre-empt a revival of BJP campaign that a "Congress partisan" should not take over the election watchdog.
The apprehension was expressed in suggestions made by Congress leader Salman Khurshed recently during the Lok Sabha preparations to party troubleshooter Pranab Mukherjee.
It was felt the Centre nominate a new Election Commissioner around now against the vacancy to be created by Gopalaswami's retirement and in the process also seal the issue of future CEC. Given that the post would fall vacant in the middle of humunguous Lok Sabha exercise and the model code of conduct, there was sufficient cover to name the new EC without the Centre being seen as "too anxious" to clinch Chawla's elevation.
The fears of a controversy existed in many influential quarters in the ruling structure.
But, sources said, seniors settled against the suggestion as they just did not feel Gopalaswami could do an adverse act so close to retirement and risk his credibility.
In fact, there were hopes in Congress that CEC could himself name Chawla to settle the issue of "continuity" for Lok Sabha polls.
With the issue blowing up with Gopalaswami's recommendation to the President, Congress rubbished it as a motivated act with a political slant to it. "That it has come just two months before the CEC is to be succeeded raises suspicions about the accusation," Khurshed said.
The party indicated that Chawla would continue in his post. "He has been most impartial in his actions," said Digvijay Singh, AICC general secretary.
The Congress leaders were in a dilemma in reacting to the political drama, as rebuffing CEC or defending Chawla risked betraying a special party interest in the election officer under attack. So, while few were ready to speak, the view was that constitutional offices should not be politicised and guns were thus trained on BJP.
A cautious AICC did not drag Gopalaswami in its defence of Chawla as an "impartial" functionary but it has no love lost for the CEC, who is seen as an "LK Advani appointee". He is seen as the villain of the piece in party's loss in Karnataka, where he "misled" the Congress into early notification of delimitation, while he is seen as having tried to overrule the Centre on Kashmir.
CEC defends 'partisanship' charges against Chawla
2 Feb 2009,
NEW DELHI: Chief election commissioner N Gopalaswami has strongly rebutted the barrage of criticism on the timing of his recommendation for the removal of election commissioner Navin Chawla for "partisanship", just ahead of Lok Sabha elections.
Talking to TOI, the CEC asserted that if the recommendation for Chawla's removal came so close to the forthcoming general elections, it was because the latter had given his reply to the charges only on December 10.
"The timing was determined by circumstances beyond my control," Gopalaswami said, adding that he gave his report to the President on January 16, little over a month after he had received Chawla's response.
The criticism from legal experts, in most cases, focused on the sheer timing of his recommendation, and was shared even by those who felt that he had the competence to recommend Chawla's removal.
Detailing the sequence of events leading to the recommendation and the political battle it has triggered, Gopalaswami explained why it took him six months to seek Chawla's comments on BJP's petition against the latter. Though BJP had filed its petition to him on January 30, 2008, he wrote to Chawla only on July 21.
According to the CEC, he delayed writing to Chawla because of the differences he had developed with the latter over the timing of the Karnataka elections, which ended in May.
"I put the petition on hold till the Karnataka election was over, lest it be misunderstood," Gopalaswami said. There was further delay as Chawla proceeded on leave for a month.
The CEC further said that rather than responding to the charges framed by him on the basis of BJP's petition and other information in his knowledge, Chawla raised preliminary objections on September 12, saying that he was seeking the law ministry's opinion on whether the CEC had the power to make a suo motu inquiry against an election commissioner.
Gopalaswami replied on September 17, saying he had the power to take cognizance of BJP's petition even without a reference from the government, but the assertion did not settle the matter.
On November 7, the law ministry took the view that Gopalaswami could not proceed with the inquiry as any recommendation for the removal of an election commissioner under Article 324(5), in its opinion, could be given only on a reference from the government.
Still, it took, according to the CEC, several reminders for Chawla to finally give his reply on December 10. Having complied with the requirement of due process, Gopalaswami sent his report, an event without precedent, to the President on January 12.
On the controversy over whether he had the power to make a suo motu recommendation against an EC, Gopalaswami pointed out that at least Chawla, in his written arguments before the Supreme Court on a petition filed by BJP leader Jaswant Singh, had conceded that a CEC indeed had the competence.
According to Gopalaswami, Chawla's written arguments, settled by his senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, said, "The CEC, knowing from his personal knowledge that an EC is unfit to hold that office, must be thoroughly incompetent or corrupt himself if he takes no action at all."
That was not all. Reacting to the previous CEC's stand that he could not take action on BJP's earlier petition as it had not been forwarded to him by the President, Chawla's written arguments before SC said, "The assertion of the CEC that he could not have taken action unless his comments were called for by the President is wholly untenable."
NEW DELHI: Chief election commissioner N Gopalaswami has strongly rebutted the barrage of criticism on the timing of his recommendation for the removal of election commissioner Navin Chawla for "partisanship", just ahead of Lok Sabha elections.
Talking to TOI, the CEC asserted that if the recommendation for Chawla's removal came so close to the forthcoming general elections, it was because the latter had given his reply to the charges only on December 10.
"The timing was determined by circumstances beyond my control," Gopalaswami said, adding that he gave his report to the President on January 16, little over a month after he had received Chawla's response.
The criticism from legal experts, in most cases, focused on the sheer timing of his recommendation, and was shared even by those who felt that he had the competence to recommend Chawla's removal.
Detailing the sequence of events leading to the recommendation and the political battle it has triggered, Gopalaswami explained why it took him six months to seek Chawla's comments on BJP's petition against the latter. Though BJP had filed its petition to him on January 30, 2008, he wrote to Chawla only on July 21.
According to the CEC, he delayed writing to Chawla because of the differences he had developed with the latter over the timing of the Karnataka elections, which ended in May.
"I put the petition on hold till the Karnataka election was over, lest it be misunderstood," Gopalaswami said. There was further delay as Chawla proceeded on leave for a month.
The CEC further said that rather than responding to the charges framed by him on the basis of BJP's petition and other information in his knowledge, Chawla raised preliminary objections on September 12, saying that he was seeking the law ministry's opinion on whether the CEC had the power to make a suo motu inquiry against an election commissioner.
Gopalaswami replied on September 17, saying he had the power to take cognizance of BJP's petition even without a reference from the government, but the assertion did not settle the matter.
On November 7, the law ministry took the view that Gopalaswami could not proceed with the inquiry as any recommendation for the removal of an election commissioner under Article 324(5), in its opinion, could be given only on a reference from the government.
Still, it took, according to the CEC, several reminders for Chawla to finally give his reply on December 10. Having complied with the requirement of due process, Gopalaswami sent his report, an event without precedent, to the President on January 12.
On the controversy over whether he had the power to make a suo motu recommendation against an EC, Gopalaswami pointed out that at least Chawla, in his written arguments before the Supreme Court on a petition filed by BJP leader Jaswant Singh, had conceded that a CEC indeed had the competence.
According to Gopalaswami, Chawla's written arguments, settled by his senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, said, "The CEC, knowing from his personal knowledge that an EC is unfit to hold that office, must be thoroughly incompetent or corrupt himself if he takes no action at all."
That was not all. Reacting to the previous CEC's stand that he could not take action on BJP's earlier petition as it had not been forwarded to him by the President, Chawla's written arguments before SC said, "The assertion of the CEC that he could not have taken action unless his comments were called for by the President is wholly untenable."
CEC should not act like a 'political boss': Law minister
2 Feb 2009, PTI
NEW DELHI: Government on Monday virtually rejected the recommendation of Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami for removal of his colleague Navin Chawla and hinted at making the election commissioner (Chawla) the next CEC. ( Watch )
Law minister H R Bhardwaj said the government had a policy to have the senior-most election commissioner as the CEC and "our policy continues to be the same."
Describing the present controversy as "unfortunate", Bhardwaj said it should not affect Chawla's career as appointments in the Election Commission are based on merit.
"We will begin the process to put in place a new CEC well in time" so that the name of Gopalaswami's successor is clear before he retires on April 20, Bhardwaj said.
"Gopalaswami should do his work in EC and not become a political boss," he said on the sidelines of a conference here.
"It is rather unfortunate that when the country is preparing for general elections, such a controversy has been sparked off by him (CEC)," Bhardwaj said, clarifying that a suo moto recommendation by the CEC to the president for removal of a commissioner cannot be done.
The CEC has caused "embarrassment" with his comment on his colleague because they (all election commissioners) are equals, he said.
The Election Commission should be preparing the election rolls, not setline scores, but it's unfortunate that he (CEC) has sparked off the controversy, he said.
The CEC has no Constitutional authority to embarrass or comment upon his own colleague because they are all equals, he is only the administrative head of the Election Commission and he is not the boss," the minister said.
They are paid equal salaries, their status is equal and they are complementary to each other, he said. "It is a surprising way of saying that I (CEC) am the authority to recommend. His authority flows from the President and his opinion is sought on matters related to removal of an Election Commissioner. If the President asks for his opinion he can give. If he (President) does not ask how can he (CEC) say?" questioned the law minister.
"It is unfortunate that a person of such high rank and at the end of his office has made such a reaction and, thus, troubled the good name of the Election Commission," he said.
Noting that the country was moving towards the general election, he said the main work of the EC was to prepare voters' list. "It is unfortunate that the controversy has been started at such a time," he said.
The law minister said the President is the appointing and the removing authority for election commissioner members under the Constitution. "The role of CEC is as a measure of protection, if the government wants to remove an election commissioner, then CEC's opinion is sought," he said.
He said the file on the matter reached his office two days back and law secretary T K Viswanathan is studying it.
He indicated that he himself would also analyse the matter and the government's stand on the issue is likely to be firmed up very soon. "There is a (CEC's) letter with some papers and it will be disposed off," he said.
The internal tussle within the Election Commission has been going on ever since Chawla was appointed, "the EC's role is to prepare electoral rolls and not to settle scores".
NEW DELHI: Government on Monday virtually rejected the recommendation of Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami for removal of his colleague Navin Chawla and hinted at making the election commissioner (Chawla) the next CEC. ( Watch )
Law minister H R Bhardwaj said the government had a policy to have the senior-most election commissioner as the CEC and "our policy continues to be the same."
Describing the present controversy as "unfortunate", Bhardwaj said it should not affect Chawla's career as appointments in the Election Commission are based on merit.
"We will begin the process to put in place a new CEC well in time" so that the name of Gopalaswami's successor is clear before he retires on April 20, Bhardwaj said.
"Gopalaswami should do his work in EC and not become a political boss," he said on the sidelines of a conference here.
"It is rather unfortunate that when the country is preparing for general elections, such a controversy has been sparked off by him (CEC)," Bhardwaj said, clarifying that a suo moto recommendation by the CEC to the president for removal of a commissioner cannot be done.
The CEC has caused "embarrassment" with his comment on his colleague because they (all election commissioners) are equals, he said.
The Election Commission should be preparing the election rolls, not setline scores, but it's unfortunate that he (CEC) has sparked off the controversy, he said.
The CEC has no Constitutional authority to embarrass or comment upon his own colleague because they are all equals, he is only the administrative head of the Election Commission and he is not the boss," the minister said.
They are paid equal salaries, their status is equal and they are complementary to each other, he said. "It is a surprising way of saying that I (CEC) am the authority to recommend. His authority flows from the President and his opinion is sought on matters related to removal of an Election Commissioner. If the President asks for his opinion he can give. If he (President) does not ask how can he (CEC) say?" questioned the law minister.
"It is unfortunate that a person of such high rank and at the end of his office has made such a reaction and, thus, troubled the good name of the Election Commission," he said.
Noting that the country was moving towards the general election, he said the main work of the EC was to prepare voters' list. "It is unfortunate that the controversy has been started at such a time," he said.
The law minister said the President is the appointing and the removing authority for election commissioner members under the Constitution. "The role of CEC is as a measure of protection, if the government wants to remove an election commissioner, then CEC's opinion is sought," he said.
He said the file on the matter reached his office two days back and law secretary T K Viswanathan is studying it.
He indicated that he himself would also analyse the matter and the government's stand on the issue is likely to be firmed up very soon. "There is a (CEC's) letter with some papers and it will be disposed off," he said.
The internal tussle within the Election Commission has been going on ever since Chawla was appointed, "the EC's role is to prepare electoral rolls and not to settle scores".
Centre to examine CEC’s letter
Special Correspondent The Hindu
NEW DELHI: The government has said it will examine Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami’s letter recommending the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla.
“The government’s response will be made available in due course,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told journalists here on Saturday on being asked about the constitutional position in the matter
NEW DELHI: The government has said it will examine Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami’s letter recommending the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla.
“The government’s response will be made available in due course,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told journalists here on Saturday on being asked about the constitutional position in the matter
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
