Khurshid has violated norms
By Upendra Prasad
Salman Khurshid’s utterances against Election Commission of India have raised a valid question and that question relates to the Election Manifesto released by the political parties only after the declaration of election schedule. Congress leader Digvijay Singh says that if a political leader cannot make promises during the election campaign, then how come the election manifesto is released by the political parties. An election manifesto in India is nothing, but a bundle of promises made by a political party. It has become an important part of our political process. People in general and political observes in particular await the release of election manifestoes of parties eagerly.
Even Law Minister Salman Khurshid says that what he has said about the quota for Muslims is already contained in the Election Manifesto of his party. Now question is why can a leader not quote the election manifesto of his party during his campaign? Our Constitution has given us the right to freedom of expression. Does this right get suspended during the election? We have to find out the answer of these questions.
This is not the first case of this type. In fact a similar situation has arisen in 1994. Elections in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were going on. The election schedule of Bihar had also been declared. In Andhra Pradesh, the then Union Social Welfare Minister Sitaram Kesri had promised quota for Muslims in one of his campaign meetings. That promise was not liked by TN Seshan, who was asserting his power as an Election Commissioner more radically at that time. Mr. Seshan did not issue any notice to Sitaram Kesri, rather he wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao and asked him to dismiss Mr. Kesri from his cabinet. At that time, too, the question of the freedom of expression and making promises before the election arose.
Narasimha Rao was a seasoned politician. He intervened and placated Mr. Seshan and asked Mr. Kesri to avoid such promises. Mr. Seshan did not press for his demand for sacking Mr. Kesri and Mr. Kesri did not utter any word against the Chief Election Commissioner. Mr. Kesri did not raise the issue of Muslim quota in his later speeches during elections of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Bihar, though he was a star campaigner of his party and as the Social Welfare Minister his main concern was the welfare of Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, Women and Minorities.
There are some similarities between the two cases of Kesri and Khurshid. The issue of Muslim quota figures into the both cases. The period when Mr. Kesri was addressing the Muslims, was a period, when Muslims throughout India had turned against Congress, because of the failure of Narasimha Rao government to save Babri Mosque from demolition on 6th December, 1992. Mr. Kesri was the quota man of Rao government. He had implemented the OBCs quota after the Supreme Court Judgment in its favor. At that time he was a social face of the government, just like Manmohan Singh, who was the economic face of the union government.
This time, too, Congress is trying to appease Muslims and get their votes in UP election. But, there are some differences too. In case of Sitaram Kesri, the Muslim quota was just a talking point. This time the Union government has already given 4.5 percent quota to minorities, which include Muslim. In 1994 elections, there was no mention of any quota in any of the election manifesto of Congress, which was facing election in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Mr. Kesri did not have the support of any election manifesto to insist that what he had said was the saying of his party and had been a part of the promises made in the election manifesto. Anyway, at that time Narasimha Rao was a strong and tactful Prime Minister. He was able to calm the CEC and persuade Sitaram Kesri not to disrespect the Commission. This way, controversy was settled.
But this is not the case today. A lot has been said and done by the both sides. When Law Minister made promises to provide 9 percent quota to Muslims in the constituency, where his wife is contesting as Congress candidate, a show cause notice was issued against him by the Commission. His reply did not convince the EC and he was chided for his speech and was warned not to repeat that mistake. Salman Khurshid did not maintain the decency of Sitaram Kesri, who had not entered into any argument with Mr. Seshan.
Now Digvijay Singh and also Salman Khurshid himself is making election manifesto of their party their shield against the Election Commission. The question is why did not Salman talk this point to the Election Commission, when he had replied to his show cause notice? He did not do it, because, there is no mention of 9 percent Muslim quota in the election manifesto of his party. The manifesto reads that Union government has already given 4.5 percent quota to the minorities and if, the party succeeds in UP election, it will give quota according to the population. When Salman talks of quota in UP he talks of Muslim quota, but what the government has given is minorities’ quota. Even the quota of 4.5 percent to minorities has been given according to their population. According to the Mandal Commission Report, OBCs of all religious groups form 52 percent of population and OBCs of minorities form 8.6 percent of total population of India. Since, 52 percent of population was enjoying the 27 percent quota; hence 8.6 percent of population was given 4.5 percent quota. So the quota to minorities has already been given in the proportion of their population. That is why Salman could not plead with the EC that what he was promising was the promise already made by the party in its election manifesto.
Anyway, the question of promises made in the election manifestoes must be addressed to. It is true that Congress Manifesto does not speak of 9 percent quota to Muslims, but any such promises cannot be ruled out before any election. The Election Rule clearly spells out that people cannot be addressed by their religion before the election. So there should be no promises based on their religion too, in the election manifesto of any party. (IPA Service)