The Election Commission’s holding Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s khooni panja remark as “injurious to the cause of decorous political discourse” raises fundamental issues regarding the measure of freedom available for political campaigning in India, and specifically whether the content of political speeches should be vetted by the Commission in real time in a manner that could dampen the momentum of political parties and their leaders.
The Commission previously reprimanded Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi for alleging that Pakistan’s ISI was in touch with Muslim youth of Muzaffarnagar following communal riots there some months ago. Not only was Gandhi unable to substantiate his claims, his campaign rhetoric maligned and scandalised a community beyond the parameters of an election campaign and may legitimately invite other provisions of the penal code.
Rahul Gandhi also accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of instigating communal riots and stirring communal tension. In reality, the sequence of events that triggered the Muzaffarnagar riots is in the public domain, and the Supreme Court on November 21 directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to withdraw its notification offering compensation only to Muslim victims. Since the Election Commission cannot possibly go into the merits of such issues, it has to satisfy itself with directing the concerned actors to observe higher standards of political decorum.
While this is unexceptionable, legitimate questions arise over the kind of campaign rhetoric that falls within the right to freedom and speech and expression under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, and what transcends the boundaries of decency and morality or poses a threat to public order. And, as in the case with defamation laws, what is permissible on grounds of ‘truth’. If one recalls correctly, Congress had to change its election symbol (a point repeatedly pressed by the BJP in this election) whenever there was a split in the party. After the cow-and-calf symbol was frozen, Indira Gandhi opted for the open palm (Abhay Mudra) which is equally evocative in the Indian tradition. At that time, its rivals would warn the electorate that the ‘hand’ would turn into a slap or even a fist after the elections. This was taken as par for the course; there was no moving the Election Commission against stalwarts like Jagjivan Ram, Choudhary Charan Singh, and other leaders.
Somehow, a perceptible intolerance of a particular class towards the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate has led to his being labelled as a ‘polarizing figure’. There is palpable eagerness to look for ‘lapses’ that can be taken to the Election Commission. In fairness, however, can the Congress, against which the People’s Union For Democratic Rights (PUDR) and People’s Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) documented grave acts of commission during the 1984 carnage in Delhi, legitimately object to references to khooni panja and zaalim haath in the absence of justice to the victims even after all these years?
Is it not true that sheer frustration to get justice in India led the families of survivors living in the US to approach the American courts for justice? An American district court took cognizance of the complaints and had notice served on the Congress president during her last visit for a medical check-up in that country; this could even make it difficult for Sonia Gandhi to return to America for treatment in future. Today she may have a diplomatic passport to save her from arrest, but matters will change if the UPA loses the 2014 election, as seems most likely. Congress’ allocation of a ticket to the son of Sajjan Kumar to fight the Delhi Assembly elections is already being cited as evidence of Sonia Gandhi’s complicity in the anti-Sikh riots, and will figure as an issue in the American court.
In this connection, it would seem that Narendra Modi was within his rights to call Sonia Gandhi beemar (sick), and surprising that the BJP did not see fit to defend him in the matter. Sonia Gandhi’s visits to the United States for medical treatment of an undisclosed malady are publicly announced by a Congress spokesperson each time she leaves the country for medical reasons. In the last session of Parliament, she publicly left the House to go to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for treatment, and her son, Rahul Gandhi, has made references to her sickness in his own rallies. So how is it objectionable if a reference is made by the leader of another party? Congress has taken offence that Narendra Modi amused the electorate for asking if the Central funds made available to Chhattisgarh came from Rahul Gandhi’s (maternal) uncle, a subtle dig at Sonia Gandhi’s Italian origins. As election rhetoric, this was par for the course, and moreover, it contains the kernel of truth. In no circumstances can this be said to impede the conduct of free and fair polls.
The Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj’s calling Rahul Gandhi “confused” is hardly tantamount to a “personalised attack aimed at exposing Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi to ridicule in the eyes of the public”. It is neither an infringement of his private life nor “derogatory and uncivilized.” None of these objections can match Sonia Gandhi’s shrill maut ka saudagar denunciation which was reportedly a speech input from a gifted script writer associated with the NGO that made the Gujarat riots of 2002 an international scandal; since the Tehelka scandal broke out, the gentleman has spared no effort to whitewash the image of Tarun Tejpal, a task that is heroic and admirable on account of the odds stacked against him.
The secret of Congress’s low tolerance seems to be the dwindling presence at Congress rallies in the poll-bound States, particularly Delhi where two rallies addressed by Rahul Gandhi were universally acclaimed as “flops” and caused grave embarrassment to Chief Minister Sheila Dixit. Maybe political parties would show maturity in not rushing to the Election Commission on each and every issue that agitates them, and instead take their grievances to the people, who anyway are the ultimate arbiters in a democracy.
Niticentral.com, 22 November 2013
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/11/22/is-it-namo-vs-election-commission-160490.html