India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

Gujarat poll in December, BJP gets ready for the survival battle

	November 04, 2002

With the Election Commission’s announcement that Assembly elections in Gujarat will be held on December 12, political activity is in full swing. Even before the Election Commission (EC) announced the date for the poll, top leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) held an emergency meeting to discuss the nitty-gritty of campaigning in the State. The Deputy Prime Minister, L.K.Advani, the BJP president, Venkaiah Naidu, the general secretaries, Arun Jaitley and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, and Ramdas Aggarwal, in charge of the BJP’s Gujarat affairs, discussed their party’s strategy for the coming poll.

The BJP says the meeting was internal but it is believed that it was an exercise to thrash out some of the points agreed upon at the party’s Campaign Committee meeting held in Ahmedabad recently. Aggarwal was asked by the party leadership to proceed to Ahmedabad immediately to ensure that the entire process of recommending the names of candidates by the State Election Committee proceeded smoothly and the exercise was completed as early as possible.

As far as the elections in Gujarat are concerned, the BJP is expected to go through a very tough time. On the one hand, there are differences within the Central leadership regarding the poll strategy. The hardliners believe that Hindutva (Hindu chauvinism) should be made the main item of the poll agenda. They argue that the party should bank on the Hindutva wave created by the riots that hit the state very badly a few months ago. It is believed that the Deputy Prime Minister is in favour of this strategy. The Narendra Modi-led Gaurav Yatra (pride march) held by the BJP in the State confirmed this. The speeches of the caretaker Chief Minister Modi have been communal to a large extent.

Another section in the BJP camp is of the opinion that the party will have to go through a very difficult time because of its “anti-minority policy”. The popularity of the BJP has also suffered due to this and thus the BJP should concentrate more on an agenda that focuses on development in the State than a particular community.

Political observers feel that it is high time Prime Minister Vajpayee intervened, took firm action and applied the hate-speech law to Hindutva fanatics. He should be seen as standing up for constitutional values and take on the hardliners in the saffron camp.

However, some political analysts are of the view that there are political compulsions behind the BJP’s “communal” policy in Gujarat. The State suffered a major earthquake in early 2001 which left lakhs of people homeless and dead. The BJP Government in the State was widely criticized for its “inefficiency” in rehabilitating the earthquake victims. The popularity of the BJP suffered a major setback and the Central leadership replaced the then Chief Minister, Keshubhai Patel, with Narendra Modi. The Hindutva agenda was adopted in order to divert the people’s attention from weak governance.

Moreover, the Central Government had literally no major achievement that it could boast of. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government had been attacked for its political and economic policies. The country has $ 65 billion in foreign exchange reserves and 65 million tonnes in granaries, amidst rampant deprivation, joblessness and starvation deaths. The public finances were obviously mismanaged.



BJP differences, apprehensions

The other difficulty that the Central leadership has to face is differences between top BJP leaders in Gujarat. It is very well known that the State BJP is divided into two groups- one group loyal to Narendra Modi and the other group loyal to Keshubhai Patel. The differences have been very obvious on few occasions. On September 15, during a speech in the second phase of the Gujarat Gaurav Yatra, Modi faced awkward moments when Patel’s supporters interrupted him to shout slogans in praise of the former Chief Minister.

It is quite likely that the differences would become even more pronounced at the time of ticket distribution for the elections. Both Modi and Patel would try to lobby with the Central leadership for weightage to the group loyal to them. That would help them at the time of selecting a leader for the Chief Ministership should the BJP manage to secure a majority in the new Assembly.

The group loyal to Keshubhai does not approve of Modi’s style of functioning and the fact that the latter has the backing of Deputy PM Advani further intensifies the rift. In a number of speeches Advani made it clear that Modi would be the Chief Minister if the BJP forms the next Government in Gujarat.

On the other hand, Keshubhai is a more practical and shrewd politician. He has seen every election in the State since 1952 from close quarters. He is very crucial in Gujarat politics and can play a significant role in determining the final outcome of the December 12 poll in several parts of the State, particularly Saurashtra.

Recently Keshubhai said the tradition in the party has been that legislators always elect their leader and there is no reason that even after the forthcoming Gujarat elections, the same convention would not be followed. This clearly indicates that Modi cannot take anything for granted.

Several members of the dissolved House have apprehensions that the Chief Minister may try to accommodate Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) elements instead of BJP activists in the list of probable candidates which would be forwarded to the Central leadership in New Delhi for approval. In this context, tension between some BJP aspirants and VHP members is slowly brewing.

There is another important element that would play a crucial role in the poll. The caste factor in Gujarat is much more significant than the Hindutva agenda.”It is to be seen whether this form of Hindutva can overcome the caste factor,” commented a BJP leader from the State. The Patels are the most dominant community followed by Kolis and Brahmins who have backed the BJP in the past. Kshatriyas (Gujarat Congress chief Vaghela’s community), Harijans (Scheduled Caste Hindus), Adivasis (tribals) and Muslims who constitute the KHAM factor are likely to support the Congress. Kolis are already unhappy with the BJP because their leader has been marginalised in Gujarat politics. Brahmins are upset because several prominent leaders like Jai Narain Vyas and Haren Pandeya have been sidelined and if Patels distance themselves from the BJP, the party could be in deep trouble.

The fact is that a majority of people in the State want peace and prosperity as they feel that conflicts could contribute to day-to-day tension which may be very difficult to cope with in the long run.

Moreover, the Congress would certainly cash in on the internal differences of the BJP. The Congress has become organized and strong Vaghela. Vaghela, a former BJP person and an experienced politician of Gujarat, would exploit the crisis within the BJP to suit his own political advantage.



EC examining Govt. actions

The Election Commission is now apparently determined to repeat its J&K performance of free and fair poll in Gujarat as well and will closely monitor developments in the State till elections take place. With the model code of conduct having come into immediate effect in the State following the announcement of a one-day election on December 12, all actions of the Narendra Modi-led caretaker Government are now being sharply scrutinised by the EC on a day-to-day basis.

The EC has already issued orders to reverse some of the Modi Government moves that would have benefited it in the poll. The EC has sent a directive to the Government to transfer all senior and middle-level administration and police officials who have occupied their posts for four years or more. The Commission has decided to allow diplomats and representatives of independent civil rights groups to visit Gujarat during the campaign and polling.

The Election Commission is likely to review the recent transfers of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers in Gujarat. While postponing the elections on August 16, the Commission had, in its 40-page order, directed the State Government to ensure that police officers who performed their duties fearlessly to contain the riots were restored to their original postings. The order said that a common complaint received was that the officers were punished for their impartiality.

Despite the Commission’s directive over two months ago, the Government has not yet restored these police officers to their original postings.

In an order on March 24, the Government had transferred as many as 27 IPS officers. Most of them were punished for”doing their duty “ that’s checking the mobs from targeting the Muslims and damaging their religious places. Meanwhile, the State Government has transferred 60 police inspectors and 360 sub-inspectors.



BJP glosses over SC ruling on EC powers

The ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) on the Presidential reference on Gujarat has been a major blow to the BJP. The SC’s decision made it quite clear that the Government should concentrate more on issues of political nature than that of constitutional ones. The five-judge bench upheld the order of the EC deferring the poll in Gujarat, saying that it was not bound to conduct Assembly elections within six months of the House’s last sitting if it was prematurely dissolved.

The Centre has been arguing that as per Article 174 of the Constitution there should not be more than six months of gap between the two sittings of the House and therefore elections should be held as early as possible to meet this requirement. However the Supreme Court has ruled that this is applicable to the live Assembly and not the dissolved one as in the case of Gujarat. The Supreme Court’s decision bears a close resemblance to the position staked out by the Congress, which had argued from the very beginning that Article 174 did not apply in cases where Houses had been dissolved and was intended only to ensure that existing legislative Assemblies were convened at least twice a year.

The Election Commission had deferred the poll in Gujarat a few months ago because it felt that the situation in the State was not yet conducive for free and fair elections after the riots. A majority of the minority section was in the relief camps and fresh electoral rolls had to be made keeping in mind that a large number of people were either displaced or died during the riots. Thus the Election Commission under Article 324 decided that polls could not be held under such circumstances. Article 324 gives the Commission the complete responsibility for the conduct of free and fair elections.

The Supreme Court’s ruling held that the EC is the supreme authority to decide on poll dates can only be seen as an endorsement for the poll panel which emphasized this point in great detail in its August 18 order rejecting early polls. The Bench said that in view of its opinion that Article 174 (1) was inapplicable to a dissolved Assembly, “the question that the Election Commission is required to carry out the mandate of Article 174 (1) does not arise”. “It is the Election Commission... which is empowered to decide as to when an election, that is, a free and fair election, can be held.”

There has been a serious legal battle between the Election Commission and the Centre whether Article 174 gives way to Article 324. The EC had earlier maintained that Article 174 (1) was mandatory but this provision cannot be read in isolation and must yield to Article 324 which provides for supervision, control and conduct of polls by the Election Commission.

The Supreme Court has held that Article 174 does not apply to Gujarat at all as it applies to live Assemblies and not dissolved ones and thus questions about the possible conflict between Articles 174 and 324 and about which takes precedence over which become irrelevant. The Court’s view suggests that since the two Articles operate in different spheres, one is not subject to the other.

The issue about whether President’s rule should be imposed in the event that elections are not held six months after the last sitting of an Assembly has also been rendered irrelevant. The question of the applicability of Article 356 simply does not arise since there is no constitutional crisis in the event of the six-month period being breached. The Bench said: “The question of applicability of Article 356 on the infraction of Article 174 loses much of its substance and, therefore, application of Article 356 is not required to be gone into”.

The latest ruling also focuses light on another important aspect. Though the Supreme Court maintained that the EC has a right to postpone elections under Article 324 if there are law and order problem but the Commission must ensure that they are held at the earliest. The Bench said that “ordinarily the law and order or public disorder should not be the occasion for postponing the elections and it would be the duty and responsibility of all concerned to render all assistance and cooperation to the Election Commission for holding free and fair elections”. In his separate but concurring opinion, Justice Pasayat said the consequential fallout of not holding elections for a long time was the functioning of a caretaker government, which was contrary to the principles of responsible government. Therefore, even in the case of premature dissolution, the Election Commission must hold elections in time so that a responsible government was in office. Thus the apex court made it clear that though the EC has every right to take any decision regarding polls it should ensure that they are held at the earliest.

Undoubtedly the Supreme Court views on the Presidential reference has been a major cause of embarrassment for the BJP. The original plans of the party to bank on the communal waves created by the riots have been defeated. Thus Chief Minister Modi’s decision to dissolve the House before the scheduled time has backfired. The elections were not held according to the BJP’s interpretation of Article 174 and the BJP also lost the legal battle.

The Supreme Court’s decision must have disappointed the BJP but the party decided to put on a brave face and interpreted the decision to suit its own political agenda. Political observers feel that as the party is well aware of the fact that the Court’s decision would prove a major political embarrassment, as elections are to be held now in December, the senior BJP leaders have decided to welcome it and highlight the positive aspect of it. The BJP has decided to explain to its cadres “salient” aspects of the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Presidential reference on Gujarat elections. The objective will be to demonstrate, through booklets, that the court had not demolished the party’s case totally.

BJP spokesperson Arun Jaitley admitted that on Article 174, his party’s view had not been upheld by the Supreme Court which had set a new time-limit of “six months after the dissolution of an Assembly” for holding elections without attracting Article 356 related to imposition of President’s rule. However, on the “basic question” that Article 324 “does not control Article 174” Jaitley claimed “vindication” of the BJP’s point of view.

The BJP is also happy that the Court had said law and order situations should not be a reason for delaying polls. Although it was not said as much by party leaders, the BJP did indicate that it saw in this opinion an indirect reference to the Election Commission. The EC cannot defer elections beyond constitutional deadlines. Article 324 which gives the powers to the Commission did not give it overriding powers.

In fact, the caretaker Chief Minister of Gujarat welcomed the apex court ruling saying that it had vindicated the BJP’s stand on imposing President’s rule in the State. Addressing a public meeting on the seventh phase of his ongoing Gaurav Yatra, Narendra Modi said: “I am extremely glad that elections in the State would give an opportunity to five crore Gujaratis to elect a government of their choice”.

The Congress reaction has been very positive to the decision. The interpretation of Article 174 of the Constitution, which was the most important issue before the Bench has been clearly in favour of the Congress Party.

Legal experts feel that the political parties should be more careful in future on making adverse pronouncements on constitutional authorities. The ruling has been very important both to political parties and the legal experts because it dealt with many grey areas in the Constitution.



Schools run by minorities: Apex court lays down guidelines

Overruling two of its landmark judgments delivered within the last 10 years, the Supreme Court has set the stage for sweeping changes in the way educational institutions enroll students and administer themselves. An 11-judge Bench, the largest in 30 years, wrapping up the politically sensitive case of the rights of minority institutions, tried to strike a balance. Even as it said that it endorsed the verdict in the St. Stephen’s College case of 1992, the court set aside the 50 per cent quota it granted then to aided minority institutions to admit candidates of their choice.

The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India B N Kirpal said that “rigid percentage cannot be stipulated. It has to be left to authorities to prescribe a reasonable percentage having regard to the type of institution, population and educational needs of minorities.”

In an even more far-reaching move, the Supreme Court declared as “unconstitutional” the scheme framed by it in the Unni Krishnan case of 1993 to check capitation fee in all private medical and engineering colleges, whether minority or not.

Affirming the principle that “there should not be capitation fee or profiteering,” the Bench said that “reasonable surplus to meet cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities does not, however, amount to profiteering.” Thus, the main judgment of the bench written by Chief Justice Kirpal and signed by five other judges has increased the scope for State intervention in aided minority institutions while denationalising admissions to private professional colleges.

Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, who was praised by the court for assisting it “in a fair and objective manner,” expressed satisfaction with the judgment. “It does not erode the rights of minorities. At the same time, it recognises the rights of the majority community. It is a balanced judgment,” Sorabjee said.

The Unni Krishnan verdict, which has been over-ruled, had allowed private professional colleges to fill up only 15 per cent of the seats with their candidates for any quantum of fee. Out of the remaining 85 per cent of the seats, 50 per cent were “free” seats and 35 per cent for a fee fixed by the Government.

As a result of the latest Supreme Court ruling, all private and recognised professional colleges can now charge any fee they can command subject to the bar against profiteering. “Fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be regulated but no institution should charge capitation fee,” the Bench said. But the admission of candidates to all such professional institutions will continue to be on the basis of entrance examinations conducted by respective States.

Settling the debate over aid to minority institutions, the court ruled that “a minority institution does not cease to be so the moment grant-in-aid is received by the institution.” It clarified that an aided minority institution is entitled to have the special right given by Article 30(1) of the Constitution to admit students belonging to that particular religious or linguistic group. But at the same time, the aided minority institution would be required to admit “a reasonable extent of non-minority students” to comply with the non-discrimination guarantee to all citizens in Article 29(2).

Thus, the court said “the rights under Article 30(1) are not substantially impaired and further the citizens’ rights under Article 29(2) are not infringed.” Since the extent of reservation for non-minorities warranted in each case varies, the court ruled that the state “has to notify the percentage of non-minority students to be admitted.”

The Bench upheld the right of a minority institution to have “its own procedure and method of admission as well as selection of students” but added that “such a procedure must be fair and transparent and the selection of students in professional and higher education colleges should be on the basis of merit.” Stressing that the procedure adopted or selection made should not “tantamount to maladministration,” the court said that “even an unaided minority institution ought not to ignore the merit of the students for admission” to professional or higher education courses.

But the court maintained that “the regulatory measure of control should be minimal” in the case of unaided minority institutions.

Though unaided minority institutions also have to comply with the conditions of recognition and affiliation to a university or board, there should not be “any external controlling agency” in the matter of day-to-day managements like the appointment of staff. In a bid to dilute the existing autonomy, the court said that “a mechanism will have to be evolved” for redressing the grievances of those employees of aided and unaided institutions who have been either punished or sacked.

The court in fact went on to propose that “appropriate tribunals could be constituted and till then such tribunals could be presided over by a judicial officer of the rank of district judge.”



HIGHLIGHTS

Pvt professional colleges

Present: Only 15 per cent seats at management’s discretion, 50 per cent ‘free’ seats through open exam (fees as per govt rates), 35 per cent for a higher fee fixed by Govt

Now: No such quotas.

Govt-aided minority educational institutions

Present: Could fill up to 50 per cent of seats with minority students

Now: If they get Government money, quota to be fixed by the State Government depending on the population, students’ need and the type of institution.

Meanwhile, HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi has welcomed the Supreme Court’s order that minority educational institutions be subject to State Government rules if they accepted funds, saying the Ministry’s stand had been vindicated. “It has been accepted by the court that Government-aided minority educational institutions should come under the State,” senior HRD Ministry officials said.

The SC had asked the Government to make its stand clear on the status of minority institutions and the definition of the term “minority”. Following that, the Solicitor General had took the HRD Ministry’s help and formulated the Government’s stand. “What is heartening is that the court has accepted our view on transparency in the admission process and in the administration of institutes, especially Government-aided ones. They have to demarcate a percentage of seats for the majority community too,” officials said.

The balanced SC verdict has drawn no adverse reaction from the BJP camp or the minority institutions.



Different interpretations

The complexity of the Supreme Court judgment on the running of minority institutions in the field of education is reflected in the differing ways it has been interpreted by constitutional experts, educationists and the media. But this is perhaps inevitable, given the fact that it was a complicated issue that was being decided; that it involved the largest judicial Bench in 30 years of 11 judges; that Their Lordships were expected to look into no less than 11 aspects of a sensitive issue; and also that it was a 317-page order!

A number of cases had accumulated over the years on the often contentious issue of the right of minorities to establish and run educational institutions of their choice and fresh clarity was urgently required. This was what the apex court attempted to provide and, hopefully, over time some of the unresolved doubts that have arisen as a consequence of this judgment will be clarified.

Much depends on how the judgement gets translated into actual practice. One of the apprehensions expressed was that the State can now interfere more directly in the administration of minority educational institutions than earlier - and not just in Government-aided institutions at that. Not only can the State now decide the percentage of non-minority students to be admitted to an aided minority-run institution, it can introduce regulations to ensure “educational excellence” in an unaided one.

The court has also set aside the 50 per cent quota that was granted to aided minority institutions so that they could admit candidates of their choice. The fear is that in the current climate where communal harmony has been vitiated in several parts of the country, State involvement may turn out to be blatant interference, dictated by an agenda that may have little to do with the requirements of “educational excellence”. There is a fear that if State Governments do not exercise scrupulous care and sensitivity in this matter, they could seriously undermine the right of the minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions as guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution.