Dear Friends,
A lot has happened over the past few
days. The all-party meeting, responses of leading parliamentarians, media
coverage of the events, editorial comments – all these are in the public
domain, and we need not list them here. Let me focus on the campaign for
electoral reforms.
On 9th July the meeting was
held with all activists spearheading the campaign. Among others the
following participated:
Sri L.C.Jain
Dr.Subash Kashyap
Dr.N Bhaskara Rao(CMS)
Sri Kuldip Nayar
Sri Ajay Ranaade(ADR)
Justice Rajinder Sachar
Dr. Trilochan Sastry (ADR)
Admiral Tahiliani (Transparency
International)
Sri Sharad Kumar (AGNI, Mumbai)
Sri Jagadaananda (CYSD, Orissa)
Mrs Tara Sinha
Sri A K Venkatasubrahmanian (Catalyst Trust, Chennai)
Prof. Partha Shah (Centre for Civil
Society) General Vinod Saighal
Ms. Maja Daruwala (CHRI)
Ms. Pinky Anand
Sri Suresh Balakrishnan ( Public Affairs
Centre, Bangalore)
Dr.Manmohan Malhoutra (Rajiv Gandhi
Foundation)
Sri Sanjay Parikh (PUCL)
Sri Aravind Kumar ( Parivartan)
Sri Promod Chawla (Parivartan)
Sri Manish Sisodia (Parivartan)
Sri Naveen Surapaneni
(CMS) Sri Nahata
Sri H K Singh
Sri A N Kaul
Sri Pankaj Agarwal (Transparency
International)
There were several other colleagues and
representatives of participating organizations. Scores of other
organizations and hundreds of activists and concerned citizens sent messages
of support.
One excellent news is we now have strong
endorsements and commitment to lead the effort from four of India’s leading
civil society movements. Ms. Aruna Roy and Nikhil De sent a warm message
expressing unreserved support and willingness to guide the effort. They also
pledged the support and participation of partner organizations in National
Campaign for Right to Information. This is excellent news, and will
immeasurably strengthen the campaign for electoral reforms. Ms. Aruna Roy’s
distinguished leadership and acceptability will be of immense value.
Sri Manubhai Shah of CERC and Sri RM
Tripathi of AVARD pledged strong support and leadership. The leadership of
these stalwarts with vast experience and insights will greatly strengthen
us.
I have had the privilege of interacting
with Sri Anna Hazare recently, and we can count on his blessings, leadership
and guidance.
The meeting was lively and candid, and
the discussion was rich and insightful. It was decided to launch a National
Campaign for Electoral Reforms. The details of the meeting, names of some of
the key participating/supporting organizations, and those of several
activists and concerned citizens who are promoting the effort are enclosed.
One key decision at the meeting was to
educate the public and explain to parties and media that the Supreme Court’s
directive was in pursuance of right to information guaranteed to citizens as
per Art 19 (1) of the Constitution, and cannot in any way be construed as
usurpation of legislature’s jurisdiction.
In the pursuance of the decisions at the
meeting, a letter was sent to all political parties, along with
clarifications on the EC’s order. These have already been communicated to
all friends.
A press meet was held on 10th
July at CMS, New Delhi. The Citizens’ view point was explained to the media.
One of the key decisions at the meeting
was to meet leadership of the political parties explain to them citizens’
point of view, allay some of their apprehensions, and seek their support for
the disclosure norms.
Accordingly, Sri Kuldip Nayar, Admiral
Tahiliani, Ms Maja Daruwala, Dr. N Bhaskara Rao, Gen.Vinod Saighal,
Dr.Trilochan Sastry and I called on Dr.Manmohan Singh, the leader of
opposition in Rajya Sabha at 11 AM on 11th July. The interaction
was extremely fruitful.
Dr.Singh explained to us that Congress
Party was in principle in favour of disclosures. However, he felt that the
discretion given to the Returning Officer to verify the details furnished,
and reject the nomination in case of defects of substantial character in the
affidavit poses a great hurdle. If the Election Commission ensures that the
ROs do not have any discretion to decide on the veracity of disclosures,
then Congress may be in a position to support the disclosures.
The delegation called on the President of
BJP, Sri Venkiah Naidu at 3 PM on 11th July. Sri Naidu
appreciated the efforts of non-partisan, concerned citizens. He was
particularly appreciative of the sensitivity of the National Campaign in not
projecting politics and parties as villains. He explained that the
government has announced its intention to bring in suitable legislation. He
promised to bring our views and contents of National Campaign’s letter to
the notice of the Dy. Prime Minister Sri L K Advani, Law Minister Sri Jana
Krishnamurthy and Minister of State for Law Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad.
The group had impromptu discussion after
these meetings. The broad view which emerged from the two meetings was,
while disclosure of details at the time of nomination was necessary for the
health of our democracy and therefore non-negotiable, there is a case for
reconsidering the discretionary power given to the Returning Officer to
reject a nomination if he concludes that the disclosures suppressed
information, or there was false disclosure. The view emerged that
realistically there is no time or opportunity before scrutiny of nominations
to verify the truth of disclosures. Also the apprehensions of
parliamentarians that the ROs might act in an arbitrary way are genuine,
though not well-founded.
It was therefore decided that the
National Campaign should bring to the Election Commission’s notice that the
difficulties political parties foresee, and ask the Commission to address
these legitimate concerns. The group was unanimous in the view that
non-disclosure, or blank proformas under any major head should entail
rejection of nomination. We can only ask the EC to consider clarifying that
the RO would not have any arbitrary or discretionary power.
Accordingly an appointment was sought
with the CEC. In a brief meeting at 4.30 PM on 11th July, Sri J M
Lyngdoh, and EC Sri T S Krishnamurthy, this view of major political parties
was explained to the Commission. The Commission promised to examine the
issue in all aspects and take a considered view on the matter.
As can be seen from the minutes of the
meeting, four groups were constituted to guide the various facets of the
campaign from Delhi. Sri Kuldip Nayar, Admiral Tahiliani, Dr. N. Bhaskara
Rao, General Vinod Saighal and others have agreed to meet other major
political parties and seek their support for disclosures, and electoral
reforms.
Sri L C Jain and the activists with
grassroots support and contacts have agreed to involve all other like-minded
voluntary organizations, movements and activists in the campaign.
Sri S V Sista, Mrs. Tara Sinha,
Dr.N.Bhaskara Rao and Ms. Maja Daruwala have agreed to coordinate the public
education campaign and media strategies.
All these groups will use the National
Campaign for Electoral reforms to pursue the activities and take all
necessary steps from time to time in pursuance of the decisions of the
National Campaign meetings.
The next meeting can be held in Delhi
after the situation about the proposed law becomes clearer.
All activities may kindly be intimated to
the two coordinating centers given below:
Dr. N Bhaskara Rao
CENTRE FOR MEDIA STUDIES
RESEARCH HOUSE
Community Centre, Saket,
New Delhi – 110017
Ph: 011- 6867348, 6864020, 6851660 Fax:
011-6968282
LOK SATTA
407, Nirmal Towers
Panjagutta
Hyderabad – 500082
Ph: 040-3350778, 3350790, 3352487 Fax:
040-3350783
This will facilitate effective
communication to all and better coordination.
To sum up, while the parties’ public
stance seems clear, there are several shades of opinion when you delve
deeper. There are four possible scenarios:
a) The EC will address the parties’
concerns about the discretionary powers of ROs. Then the major parties may
reconsider the issue and support the disclosure norms as per EC’s order.
b) EC will not address these concerns,
and the ‘discretion’ in the hands of the ROs as “unguided missiles” will be
an irritant, and parties will write to bring in an alternative, but diluted
legislation.
c) The EC will issue a clarification; but
the parties may anyway go ahead with a legislation which satisfies them,
even if it means public dissatisfaction.
d) Parliament may legislate a law in
keeping with public opinion clearly expressed, but excluding the discretion
to RO. In this case, Parliament may see it as assertion of its own
legitimate role, and it is more an issue of principle than the outcome.
Obviously, all of us would be happy to
see either (a) or (d) to come true. We will have to respond to the situation
as it emerges. Meanwhile our campaign to consolidate public opinion will
have to continue, with each of us playing our roles. We should, of course be
in constant consultation to be able to quickly respond to the developing
situation.
with warm regards
Jayaprakash Narayan
The Mother India
