Jaya Bachchan is an established actress, but it is Sonia Gandhi, who is being accused by many in politics and media of enacting a drama. But why is it that nobody is talking about the villain of the piece. If the story that the Congress president, Sonia Gandhji, had a hand in the disqualification of the cine star-turn-Rajya Sabha MP of the Samajwadi Party is really true than the the big question is: Why has the Election Commission so willingly agreed to play into the hands of the ruling party and that too for the member of the Upper House, who is not a big political threat. And if this is not the case the Election Commission is no less responsible for throwing the country into a political turmoil by exhibiting rather unnecessary overactivism. If in the words of former secretary general of Lok Sabha and noted expert, Mr Subhash Kashyap, the Constitution has not defined the term office of profit how is it that the Election Commission alone interpreted the gray area and got removed an elected MP. And if it is the case of oversight than how is it that for so many decades nobody in our democracy was able to take notice of it.

In the case of Jaya Bachchan the issue of office of profit was raised at the time of her filing of nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha election in 2004. She resigned from the post of UP Film Development Corporation, contested election and 15 days later once again joined that post of office. This may be a case of cheating. But what about a large number of MPs, MLAs and MLCs all over the country who continued to enjoy the privilege of the office of profit below and after the poll.

Take the latest example of Bihar, which witnessed two assembly polls in 2005. Mr Nehal Ahmed, the chairman of Sunni Wakf Board of Bihar filed his nomination, contested the February and November 2005 assembly elections and won. The Election Commission gave him the certificate. Then who is responsible for this oversight, if not the Election Commission? There are many such examples in Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and elsewhere and not just at the Centre.

The issue is not just political as it is made out by the media. Who has the right to interpret and define hitherto undefined aspects? There is no scope for over activism everywhere. Our holy cows--the Election Commission, Judiciary etc--have started thinking that they are above everything.

When a senior IAS officer of West Bengal cadre, Mr. Saptrishi, accused the chief election commissioner, B B Tandon, of biasedness while conducting election in Bihar the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, put a full stop to this controversy by stating that the Election Commission is a constitutional body and should be respected. But the tragedy is that a few years back a senior member of judiciary, which undoubtedly, is a constitutional body, called Parliament, the highest constitutional body of the country, as a fish market.

In the name of activism neither the judiciary nor the Election Commission has the right to run down the authority of Parliament, the highest law making body of the country. The 3-2 Supreme Court judgment on Buta Singh’s decision to dissolve the Bihar assembly showed as to what extent go in even criticizing the President’s move to sign the cabinet’s recommendation. The tragedy is that one hardly witnessed any serious debate on the issue either in the media or other circle. Incidentally two of the five learned judges held a totally different view on the issue. Whether the cabinet sat at midnight or not to recommend the dissolution of Bihar assembly is not the issue of the Supreme Court judges to examine. If a judge can hold a court at midnight why not cabinet. And if a Kolkata high court judge can hold a court at the Howrah junction and summon the General Manager of the Eastern Railway, when he found his name deleted from the reservation chart of Rajdhani Express, why can not a cabinet sit at midnight to decide a fate of a state.

How much Buta was right or wrong was not the issue. The real issue was that when the House was dissolved on May 21 last year nobody, save Rabri Devi approached the governor Buta Singh, to form the government. The state had already been under the President’s rule since March 7, 2005. On May 19 and 20 the media--especially the electronic channel-- throughout highlighted as to how 18 out of 29 Lok Janshakti Party MLAs, certainly not two-thirds, were abducted and were virtually held hostage in Chaibasa in Jharkhand. The whole of country saw this drama for 48 hours and more and yet the SC judges deemed the dissolution of the House as a wrong move. Does not this amount to horse trading. And the order--even the interim--came too late to have any worth.

Be the Election Commission’s role in Jaya Bachchan case or the Buta Singh issue the public opinion makers, especially the media, the academics are silent. In fact a large section of them is eulogizing such activism. May be the activism shown by these two bodies have sometimes some positive impact too, but then no constitutional body has the right to exceed its limit. Two wrongs certainly do not make one right. If an MP or governor has committed some wrong the Election Commission or Judiciary would not be imparting justice by doing other wrong.

There are very few buyers of the theory--apart from the BJP, Samajwadi party and some self-proclaimed analysts--that Sonia Gandhi purposefully used the office of the Election Commission to settle score with Jaya Bachchan. True of late Gandhis and Bachchans are not in the best of term, but in the past they were very close. In fact Rajiv Gandhi put Amitabh Bachchan as a candidate of Congress party against V P Singh in the by election from Allahabad in late 1980s. Sonia is not such a stupid to knowingly open a Pandora Box by so senselessly getting Jaya Bachchan fixed for hardly any cause.

Very often the Press--or a section of it--indulge in its own type of over enthusiasm by reading too much between the lines.

comment

Comments...