| Published on 31-07-2008 In General |
| Viewed 1045 times |
| PM was enslaved not by the Left, but by the 2004 mandate |
|
|
Written by
Nilotpal Basu |
Since the adoption of our republican Constitution and the inception of our parliamentary democracy, seldom has our political system faced such a serious question of credibility, as it has on the `trust vote'. Inducements, threats and allegations of offering bribes have indeed tainted the vote.
Paradoxically, even those members of Parliament who-as per provisions of the RPA -cannot contest the next general elections for having been handed more than two years of convictions, had been brought out of jail to cast their votes to ensure that the incumbent government earns the `trust' of the Parliament and through it – that of the people of this country. Though legally tenable-this act smacked of brazen political immorality.
Inducements included assurances of reopening the question of freshly drawing up boundaries of states as figuring in the present Indian political map. The member from outer Manipur – who happens to be an ethnic Naga pointed out in his intervention during the debate that in the past four years, he could not support the UPA because the NCMP had a moratorium on re-opening of the state boundary question. Now that there is an assurance for having a re-look, he will be supporting the government. Similarly, the member from the Bodoland area. The JMM also has been circulating a memorandum which includes the demand for including three West Bengal districts in Jharkhand which, they claimed, would be gone into sympathetically by the UPA government. The Congress MP from Darjeeling was being obstructed by the Gorkha Mukti Morcha. He was told that only if he can secure support of the government for a separate Gorkhaland, will he be allowed to vote. He has made a public statement to the effect that he has spoken to the UPA chairperson and apparently she has assured that this question will be given a sympathetic consideration. When one looks at all these ominous portents of the trust vote and contrasts this to the earlier bravado that the trust vote will be on the nuclear deal – one can not but be amused. At another level, of course, there is ought to be a sense of revulsion at such playing with fire – on vital questions of unity and integrity of the country.
The allegation of use of threats by Central agencies like the CBI to coerce people into voting for the government is also a matter of serious concern. One does not know which agency will investigate such charges. But, perhaps, alongwith the charge of offer of cash-for-vote, the Speaker could do well in expanding the terms of reference of the seven-member committee. This issue could be probed additionally as promised by the Hon'ble Speaker on the floor of the House.
Even the mainstream media which had been otherwise so supportive of the nuclear deal and most aggressively antagonistic to the Left for its resolute opposition to the deal to the point of forcing a trust vote – could not gloss over the sham nature of the vote. `Tainted Trust' is the screaming headline of The Economist, which is considered so venerable by the supporters of the deal and their international backers.
The question is – why did the trust vote had to degenerate to this level? The answer, surely, lies in the manner in which the government forced a show down on the Left parties – as if almost pushing them to withdraw support from the government. It was common knowledge about the proceedings of the UPA-Left committee that the government will not go ahead to formally approach the IAEA for the Safeguards Agreement which would signal the operationalisation of the deal. In fact, both the Prime Minister and the UPA chairperson, after having come to an agreement with the Left on this in November 2007, went public broadly confirming the `putting on hold' approach. But as it has been revealed now that – meanwhile, surreptitious efforts were on to woo the Samajwadi Party to reverse its earlier opposition to the deal and checkmate the Left. This was intrigue at its worst!
So, it is hardly a surprise that when a palace coup like intrigue reminiscent of the decadent days of monarchy forms the basis which many mainstream analysts have lauded as an act of `political master stroke' - what more can one expect? Manipulation and taint was the only possible outcome.
The Prime Minister has stated that he has unshackled himself from the state of 'enslavement' that he has suffered during the last four years. So, the trust vote was indeed not only the result of intrigue but also a strong streak of authoritarian unilateralism. The shackles that constrained the Prime Minister were inherent in the nature of the mandate in the 2004 elections. People did not trust any single party or its Prime Minister to have the blank cheque to go ahead with a policy direction of his choice. It was ordained by the nature of the mandate that not only will the Prime Minister be heading a coalition but that too a minority one. And, that would have to depend on the support of the Left. It was not a choice of the Prime Minister or the Left but that of the electorate of the country. In such circumstances, complaining about `enslavement' actually betrays an act of undermining the role of the sovereign – the people; notwithstanding, the sympathies and appreciation of his supporters. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
