Lyngdoh: Vindictive & Partisan-Act II

By Prof. Hari Om

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), JM Lyngdoh, is misusing his constitutional position and crossing all limits and thus causing damage to the country’s democratic polity. He is taking decisions that can be legitimately dismissed with a shake of head as politically motivated, partisan and highly discriminatory and outrageous. In fact, one is inclined to conclude that the CEC has become a “kingdom within a kingdom” and assumed the role of a “super government”. One is also forced to think that he has allowed his whole approach to the election-related issues and other developments, political or otherwise, to be significantly influenced by what may be described as his anti-BJP, and pro-Congress and pro-Left attitude.

Consider, for example, his January 8, 2003, Shimla statement on the “people from outside of Himachal”. And, do not forget that he had gone to Shimla to personally make an on-the-spot assessment of the political environment in the otherwise calm and quite BJP-ruled Himachal Pradesh (HP) and find if the same was conducive for election. His Shimla statement clearly smacks more of a bias against the BJP and a substantial chunk of the Indian population than a resolve to hold elections in HP in a fair and impartial manner. That day, he virtually poured venom and said : “Himachal is an orderly State, where people are well behaved. Himachalis must ensure that people from outside of the State are not allowed to come to the State and abuse the elections, especially using religion and other things..I want them to make sure, as we don’t allow outsiders to come and make mess... The people of Himachal must stop” all those who wish to “play the ‘Hindutva’ card in the elections”.

Now, who has given the CEC the authority to dub the people from outside of the State unruly, undesirable and disturbers of communal harmony? Who has empowered him to tell the people of HP to prevent the non-Himachalis from entering their State during the time of election?

At least, the law of the land does not permit him to make loose statements or paint certain selected political formations and people black. Anyone who is familiar with Article 324 of the Indian Constitution and the June 15 and 16, 1949 debates in the Constituent Assembly, as also with what one of the leading framers of our statute book KM Munshi said on June 16, 1949, would certainly share this view and surely opine that the CEC is abusing his constitutional position. I may be mentioned that K.M. Munshi had, among other things, said : “....There will be great political danger” if the Election Commission “becomes...a political power in the country”.

Again, look at Lyngdoh’s attitude towards the BJP and non-BJP-ruled States like Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, HP, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura. He found the situation in J&K in August 2002 absolutely normal and conducive for electoral exercise.  He completely overlooked the brutal killings and destruction in the terrorist-infested J&K. He also  ignored the fact that nearly three lakh Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs have been thrown out from their home, and have been languishing in the refugee camps in different parts of the country since January 1990, when the protagonists of Islamic rule unleashed their anti-India campaign and campaign of terror against the minorities in order to rid the Valley of all pro-India elements and implement their sectarian and religio-political agenda. The truth is that Lyngdoh repudiated all suggestions and passionate pleas outright against holding of elections in the State and virtually deprived the victims of terror of their right to vote. He, in addition, did not utter a single word against the terrorist-related violent incidents, which later on resulted in the brutal murder of over 800 persons in a short span of nine weeks commencing from August 2, when he announced the election schedule in J&K.

But in the case of the BJP-ruled Gujarat the CEC adopted an altogether different approach. In fact, the way the CEC responded to the well-intentioned democratic suggestion of the Narendra Modi in favour of early elections in Gujarat in order to obtain people’s verdict on his government simply betrayed a deep sense of distrust on the pat of the CEC against the BJP. He only went by the “secular” propaganda against the idea of elections under the “Hindutva brigade” led by Narendra Modi and sought to bring Gujarat under President rule with a view to ensuring what he called “free and fair elections” there, Lyngdoh  thwarted each and every offer of Narendra Modi under one pretext or the other. Narendra Modi’s well-founded assertions that the situation in Gujarat was normal, that the Board Examinations, Mahashivratri and Muharram had all passed off without any communal incident, and that there was perfect peace and normalcy all over the State when the Hajis returned from Mecca had no effect whatsoever on him. He went on deferring elections on the plea that a few thousand Muslims had left their homes and taken shelter in various relief camps due to communal riots, that the situation in the State was not really normal and that the electoral rolls were grossly incomplete. He ordered elections in the State- and much against his wishes- only when he was left with no other option by the ever-watchful Supreme Court. And, as expected, there was no election-related violence anywhere in Gujarat.

There are umpteen other instances that one can refer in order to substantiate the charge that the CEC is biased against a particular political formation. Since it is not possible to catalogue here all such instances, just three of them are referred to, to make a point. One is his stand on the not-so-peaceful Nagaland, Meghalaya and Tripura. It needs to be underlined that he has announced the election schedule for all these States without visiting any of them and this is something quite unusual. The other is his January 11 New Delhi declaration that “he does not anticipate any problem in Nagaland”. What was his argument? His only argument was : “No-disruption assurance from the NSCN (I-M) militant leaders, Isaac Swu and Thuinggaleng Muivah”. And, thirdly, his refusal to take action against a Meghalaya Minister, R.A. Lyngdoh, who, according to the January 18 PTI report, inaugurated a school building in his Sohiong constituency after the announcement of election date. His argument was that “the minister was not informed about the announcement”. Not just this, he also further added: “Had it happened elsewhere where people do things intentionally, the Commission would have taken stern action”.

That Lyngdoh visited Gujarat twice to personally assess the law and order situation there and rejected outright all arguments advanced by the man on the spot- Chief Minister Narendra Modi- but would repose full confidence in the Naga militants and order elections in the north-eastern non-BJP-ruled States without meeting the mainstream political leadership of the region should clean all cobwebs of confusion. There is no doubt whatever that J.J. Lyngdoh is sidestepping law and making distinctions between the BJP and non-BJP-ruled States.

It is no wonder that he has become an object of ridicule and criticism. He would do well to follow the code of conduct prescribed for him by the Constitution in the same way he expects the people and political parties to follow the code of conduct laid down for them by the Election Commission. Not to do so would be to undermine the authority of such a crucial institution as the one he is heading. Equally desirable on his part would be to read and memorise what Naziruddin Ahmad said in the Constituent Assembly on June 16, 1949. He had said : “Election is a most important item in a democratic set-up and it is very necessary that it should be controlled and supervised by a very competent, independent and impartial body”.

*The writer is member, ICHR and official spokesman, State BJP.  

Previous

Index

Next