BINAYAK DATTA
The month that went was replete with thrills of keenly awaited results of five important Assembly elections, with unexpected twists and turns, non-stop suspense. Yet, at the far end of the month, at West Bengal for example, nobody seems to be wiser about what the actual “modified” numbers of seats are for the victors and the vanquished, or in which grouping of “Ayes and Nays” the elected champions of the hustings stay arrayed. I thought I’ll take a look at the spate of “floor-crossings” at our elected Houses, purely through the eyes of an unbi ased elder in this country’s civil society. It’s nearly a regular matter now, the current rounds in volve the Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha Members’ Group in Delhi, the just-elected West Bengal Assembly Mem bers’ Group, the West Bengal Lok Sabha Members Group, the Maharashtra Lok Sabha Members’ Group (Episode-2) and not to be left behind, now the Karnataka Assembly Members Group.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
In a way these “bulk cross overs” (in place of the “retail” ones seen in Haryana and many other States in the six ties and seventies, where for instance, a single member, one Gaya Lal of the Congress could cross-over parties three times in the same day, laying the foundations of the “Aaya Ram – Gaya Ram” politics in Indian Legislatures, today thanks to the Anti-Defections Law since 1985, it’s all in bulks! The spectacle of MPs and MLAs in bulk, crossing over to the side Opposite to the one their voters sent them to, pious ly adhering to the requisite thresholds of the Anti-Defec tion Law. Needless to say the migration is always to the side wielding the power, and need less to say again, the motiva tion could be the attractions of Office without accountability in facing re-elections, or prob ably a perceived safe-haven for members with baggages if any, or clarity of future pros pects. And it’s common to many of our political parties in varying degrees, excepting perhaps for the Left.
Whichever way it is, the question is: can this be con strued as a wholesome and healthy means, as envisaged by our founding fathers when they agreed on our Consti tution 76 years ago? I would think they would not have contemplated an eventuali ty where the very anatomy of the legislature itself—viz., what numbers constitute ma jority, what constitutes abso lute majority and what consti tutes special majority—could change, along with cross overs, with electors as hapless onlookers on the sidelines to the show. Just to recapitulate the law, inserted in 1985: a defec tor is one who doesn’t vote along party lines or one who changes his party mid-term and stands disqualified. But there’s an exemption, if his party merges into another (merger here means at least two-thirds of elected mem bers of his party merge with another). And on ground: In West Bengal last month, when after the debacle of the Trinamool Congress in the Assembly Elections 60 of the 80 new members choose to defect, ostensibly to participate in the newly discovered virtues of the “Vikas Programs” of the victorious State BJP. So they come out in the open and claim “real ownership” of the original party and pledge to work “constructively” with the NDA, the Block they ac tually were elected against! They fulfil the “two-thirds” bar. They’re “Real,” they claimed! The Speaker, is quick to grant them proper status as Leader of Opposition along with its Office, And the effects? The voters of Bengal had elected an op position of 80 in a House of 294… now there’s effectively no opposition, everybody is “constructively” supporting everybody else!
Could this ever have been the will of our Founding Fathers? The case now rests in the High Court! The second case in West Bengal again, is even more intriguing! 20 of the total 29 Trinamool Congress MPs now coincidentally walk another mile and fish out an “unrec ognised” political party with out any members (nobody ever heard of its name), and in a jiffy the 20 MPs “merge” themselves into this un known party. This new party overnight brushes aside the mighty Telugu Desam and becomes the second-largest constituent in the NDA never having faced an election seri ously on its name, symbol and manifesto (if there ever were any)! But the point is: yes, they “merge,” and yes, they claim the two-thirds majority! Was this the intention behind the law? The case lies with the Speaker of the House and there are no time-limits pre scribed for a ruling, so the golden word is patience! The third slightly earlier case is that of the Aam Admi Party’s Rajya Sabha Group of 7 out of 10. They had the two-thirds in numbers and merged with the BJP. The rea sons advanced were the (late) discovery of “Centralisation of power” in the AAP and its “Toxicity”! The fourth was the Shiva Sena (Udhhav Group) where no arithmetic teacher was re quired to advise 6 of 9 should cross over and merge with the other Shiva Sena (Shinde group in the NDA) soonest for reasons statedly of disap pointment with an “ideolog ical drift” and “difficulties in accessibility” to the top. As I see it: In my view, a Member should be free to change his party mid-term, and if he chooses to, he should resign his seat and go back to hus tings for a fresh mandate on the new party’s tickets. In other words, any change in the candidate-party-seat ma trix would invite the hustings.
I would think it’s best to have an unbiased non-polit ical Authority to decide dis qualifications. And there has to be a reasonable pre-de fined time-limit for this deci sion. (In the Maharashtra ear lier case, the Supreme Court had recommended 3 months as “Reasonable”!) Any well matured system in my view, assumes certain conventions and conduct from operators and stake holders. Some of our past Speakers and ECs for exam ple have exemplarily pre served neutrality of the posi tion even going against their own political interests. Recall Somnath Chatterjee’s refusal to vote against the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement 2008 or GV Mavlankar’s remarks to Nehru on the Newspaper Controversy 1955 on an As sembly Speakers’ functions vis-a-vis the State Executive or Election Commissioner Sukumar Sen’s pragmatism, shifting of the First Gener al Elections to March 1952, (from October 1951) and giving the Nation a great Elections.
And before I part: Seven ty-six years ago, the Constit uent Assembly debated late evening the 17th September 1949 and Dr Ambedkar’s response to Amendments proposed by Brajeshwar Prasad, HV Kamath and Dr P S Deshmukh that the re quirement for a two-thirds majority for Constitutional Amendments was to actually make sure of a broad national consensus across parties and regions. I think it’s for elec tors and the elected to choose exactly how they propose to live upto the dreams of our founding fathers! Needless to say the mi gration is always to the side wielding the power, and need less to say again, the motiva tion could be the attractions of Office without accounta bility in facing re-elections, or probably a perceived safe-haven for members with baggages if any, or clarity of future prospects (The author is a retired Finance professional)
