While critics allege so, I have tried to believe that the Election Commission of India (EC) is not partial and discriminatory in implementing its constitutional obligation of conducting elections freely and fairly. However, recently — and much to my own disillusionment — I found that the allegations appear to be true. I tried to reach the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar last week to inform him that the four by-polls due on November 13 in Bihar would be seriously affected by the week long Chhath Puja celebrations just preceding them. As anyone familiar with Bihar knows, this Puja is the longest and most important festival in the state. This year it was scheduled from November 5 — although preparations began much earlier — and lasted until November 8. During these joyous celebrations, politics becomes an unwanted intrusion, and electoral canvassing extremely difficult. However, my repeated phone calls to his office either went unattended, or if I got through, my request to talk or meet him elicited no response. Every time I was told by his staff that he was busy, and my message would be conveyed to him. My messages on his personal mobile were delivered but not replied to. When I called, I was directed to a voice mail, where even though I left detailed reasons why I urgently needed to talk to him, it was to no avail. I know that anyone holding the exalted position of the CEC is a very busy person, and does not take calls from every Tom, Dick or Harry, but even if I was one such in his eyes, the professional purpose of my call, and my personal background in politics, had been given to his staff and conveyed to him. If nothing else, I thought that as his senior colleague in service, he could have shown the courtesy of responding. Other CECs before him have invariably been more accessible, and certainly — in terms of my own experience — less arrogant. During this period, the Jan Suraaj Party (JSP) sent a written representation to the EC, which was duly acknowledged but did not receive a reply, or an invitation for a hearing. Petitions from dozens of independent organisations of Bihar involved in the Chhath Puja, requesting for a postponement of the election date, were also received by the EC. Finally, only after crucial days had elapsed, Rajiv Kumar returned my calls. He was brusque, dismissive, and totally insensitive to such a genuine request, saying that if the EC took into account religious festivals it would be impossible to hold elections. He further said that even after November 8, there would be two days left for canvassing, and that the five days where it would be near impossible to do so, so close to the elections, was irrelevant. However, on my insistence, he did agree that since the party’s petition had been received, and so had the requests from Chhath organisations, he would have the matter examined internally, and inform me. Needless to say, in spite of my emphasis on urgency in the matter, I heard nothing further from him. Imagine my shock then when the same EC issued a directive shortly thereafter that the by-elections in UP, Kerala and Punjab, also due on November 13, would be deferred to November 20 on account of “large scale social, cultural and religious engagements”. These factors, the EC stated, may cause “inconvenience to large numbers of people, give rise to various logistic issues, and may lead to reduced voters participating during the poll”. The sheer insensitivity and disdain to precisely the same reasons in the case of Bihar, was an unacceptable insult to Biharis, their “religious engagements”, and their democratic participation. To my mind, therefore, it does appear to be true that the EC has — as more and more people allege — greatly diluted its constitutionally mandated duty to be an independent, autonomous and fair ombudsman for the conduct of elections in the world’s largest democracy. Worse, it appears that its three Commissioners who, in spite of a Supreme Court (SC) ruling to the contrary, are appointed through a process where the ruling party’s will prevails, are selected for their admirable pliability and lack of spine, reinforcing the perception that they are mere puppets in the hands of the powers that appoint them. Moreover, what lessons does this hold for a government that is a votary of “one nation, one election”, when the EC selectively changes the dates for even by-polls? If there is such arbitrariness in not sticking to one date for some states, and such inflexibility in enforcing the same date for others, in spite of legitimate if not identical reasons applicable to all, the only conclusion that one can come to is that where it suits a certain party, modifications in schedules are kosher, and where it does not, they are not. In the Haryana Assembly elections in October this year, the dates were changed to suit the religious requirements of the Bishnoi community, a decision I respect. When I mentioned this, the CEC’s disingenuous answer was that in this case the festival would take place on the polling date, as though the disruption of the democratic process for a week before the polling date was of no consequence. The JSP has approached the SC against such arbitrary double standards. While we await justice, the perception is growing that the EC only responds to the diktats of its political masters. As a citizen, I write this not only with a valid sense of indignation, but also great disappointment. A free and fair election, ensuring the functioning of a genuine democracy, is a basic structure of the Constitution. This is a principle which the highest court of the land has reiterated on more than one occasion. For ensuring this, a level playing field for all states, all political parties, and all politicians, is a must. For former IAS officers, or senior bureaucrats, who are supposed to have been apolitical during their official career, to so transparently jettison their conscience when they are appointed to a constitutional post as guardians of democracy, is a matter of deep anguish.
Source link
