ATTACK ON THE INSTITUTION OF SPEAKER 

BJP Displays True Colours

EDITORIAL

THE BJP’s denigration of the institution of the speaker of the Lok Sabha, once again, shows the utter contempt with which it holds parliamentary democracy and institutions of constitutional authority in our country.  During the past six years, there has not been a single constitutional authority that the BJP has not denigrated. On every occasion, when a constitutional authority rose to uphold the tenets of secular democracy, the BJP spared no efforts at mounting abusive attacks. In the past, it has attacked the Election Commission when it decided not to oblige the BJP-led Narendra Modi government regarding the timing of the elections.  It attacked the National Human Rights Commission when it exposed the complicity of the BJP state government in the Gujarat carnage. It attacked the Supreme Court when it ordered the shifting of the cases pertaining to Gujarat communal carnage to be heard outside the state. It attacked the Comptroller and Auditor General, the institution of the governors when their decisions did not further its interests.  It attacked the office of the President of India and continues to engage in an acrimonious debate with the former president K R Narayanan.  With every passing day, the people of the country heave a sigh of relief that the BJP does not control the reigns of State power. For, if it had, then the process of undermining the constitutional authorities and subverting parliamentary democracy would have been graver.

The BJP’s lack of respect for constitutional authorities is a part of its overall outlook which is opposed to the secular democratic republican character of India. Being the political arm of the RSS, the BJP only articulates the desire to convert the secular democratic republic into a rabidly intolerant fascistic `Hindu Rashtra’.

The present attack against the institution of the speaker of the Lok Sabha has been mounted when the speaker suggested that he would convene a meeting of the presiding officers of the state assemblies to discuss the wider ramifications of judicial intervention in legislative domain.  In fact, being the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha, the speaker is duty bound to protect the sanctity of the legislative wing.  In any democracy, the delineation between the three wings of legislature, executive, and judiciary will have to be scrupulously adhered to.  As a democracy matures, many a course correction will have to be made in order to maintain this balance between the three wings.  All suggestions at refining and improving such balance which will ensure the relative autonomy of each of the  wings under the supreme sovereignty of the people exercised by  their elected representatives in the legislatures should be welcomed by all those who cherish democracy.

This, however, does not seem to apply to the BJP.  The immediate provocation for their outbursts was the decision of the speaker soon after the Supreme Court’s directive concerning the Jharkhand assembly. The BJP had earlier  denigrated the Jharkhand governor by likening him with nefarious underground personalities. Nobody can hold brief for any governor who does not uphold the highest standards expected of such an office. The CPI(M) has unambiguously maintained this on all instances in the past, including in the recent Jharkhand episode.

The BJP, however, had hailed  the former president Shankar Dayal Sharma when he invited Vajpayee to form the government at the centre in 1996 despite the fact that a majority of the Lok Sabha members submitted to the president that they are opposed to the communal forces being in government. In fact, this decision by the then president was made after the United Front elected H D Deve Gowda as its leader, who commanded a majority of the elected members.

Within 13 days, however, the wrong assessment of the then president was corrected on the floor of the Lok Sabha and the United Front government that commanded a majority was put in office.

Being inherently anti-democratic, the BJP refuses to accept that constitutional authorities and institutions are above the interests of any specific party. Their sole objective must be to strengthen the democratic structures and uphold unequivocally the secular democratic republican constitution.  An institution or an authority cannot be hailed when it decides in one’s favour and denounced when it does not. This is a principle that all parties wedded to parliamentary democracy would uphold but not so the BJP since its commitment is not to strengthening the secular democratic republic.  The farther they are away from holding State power, the better for the Indian Republic.