The Bill is meant to create an artificial controversy to divert Opposition rage and public attention away from real problems faced by the people
The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill is best understood as misdirection. It is meant to create an artificial controversy to divert Opposition rage and public attention away from real problems faced by the people, on which the ruling party and the government are on the back foot.
The Opposition should refrain from launching any major agitation on the bill or shifting focus from the government’s failure to protect Indian exporters from Prime Minister Modi’s friend Donald Trump’s wrath, the Election Commission’s (EC) high-handed move to deny hundreds of thousands of citizens the right of franchise, and the continuing failure of the economy to generate quality jobs in large numbers, even as the government kills hundreds of thousands of jobs by arbitrarily banning online games with a monetary dimension.
Also read: Amit Shah slams DMK, Stalin for opposing 130th Amendment Bill
What the Bill does
The bill seeks to amend the Constitution to give the President/Governor the right to remove from office ministers, including the head of the government, who are arrested for offences that attract a jail term of five years and are then arrested and kept in jail for at least 30 days.
It dismisses with airy contempt any need to prosecute an accused/arrested person successfully and convict them before treating them as being morally unfit for office.
The Opposition would do well to focus attention on the people’s real problems, instead of falling prey to the ruling party’s diversionary tactics.
An amendment to the Constitution calls for the support of a special majority of at least two-thirds of those present and voting, and a majority of the House, for it to be carried. The government lacks such a majority in either House.
Watch | 130th Constitution Amendment Bill: 'Passage impossible without Opposition consensus'
Reading Naidu's support
Among the government’s key supporters stands N Chandrababu Naidu, TDP leader and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, who had spent 52 days in custody when in the Opposition — arrested in a corruption case. Naidu is unlikely to lend his support to a move that would hold someone like himself hostage to the whims of the ruling party.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has a poor conviction rate for the cases it has prosecuted, and a pronounced bias towards the Opposition leaders when it comes to arresting politicians for corruption. Knowing this potential for political enforcement on behalf of the ruling party, why would someone like Naidu support such a constitutional amendment?
Earlier this month, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court observed that only 10 out of 400 Enforcement Case Information Reports filed by the ED have resulted in convictions. That is a conviction rate of 2.5 per cent. At the same time, the judge said, the ED had succeeded in keeping people in jail for four to five years, only to see them acquitted after their travail.
Lack of two-thirds majority
The ruling National Democratic Alliance’s (NDA) strength in the Lok Sabha is 293 out of the total of 543, far short of the two-thirds mark of 362. The case is similar in the Rajya Sabha as well. There is no serious possibility of the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill being passed by Parliament.
Why introduce it in that circumstance?
Also read: Rahul Gandhi says PM, CM removal bills like going back to ‘medieval times’
Here, we can be sure that the motivation for the bill is not moral outrage over corruption. Given the absence of any transparent system of political funding, the huge sums of money that political parties mobilise and spend round the clock, and not just during election campaigns, come from unaccounted sources.
Only a political lightweight, whose campaign is conducted wholly by the party without the candidate having to mobilise any of the campaign financing, can claim to have no knowledge of unaccounted funds fuelling politics. Neither Amit Shah nor Modi is a political ingenue. Nor is Rahul Gandhi or any other leader of the Opposition.
Diversion the only motivation
Let us set aside all moral pretexts for the bill as hogwash, only devoid of the nutrients that the wash from cleaning kitchen utensils and used dishes originally contained and used to be fed to pigs.
Among the government’s key supporters stands N Chandrababu Naidu, who had spent 52 days in custody when in the Opposition — arrested in a corruption case. Why would he support such a constitutional amendment?
That leaves diversion as the only motivation for the bill. The economy is not in good shape. Jobs are under stress, thanks to fiscal distress that prevents governments and public sector agencies from recruiting their full complement of staff, the rise of artificial intelligence to take away junior positions in a number of occupations, and the crushing impact of tariffs that US President Trump has deployed in the mistaken belief that these would make America great again.
Also read: Shashi Tharoor differs with Congress on 130th Amendment Bill
The government’s response so far has been to sell a dream of vikas (development), pit people of the majority faith against the minorities, try to whip up language chauvinism for and against Hindi, and exploit caste divisions by patronising caste groups and celebrating venerated figures of oppressed communities to instil the feeling that such iconic celebrity would mitigate hardship and discrimination in the real world.
Opposition should focus on real issues
The Opposition would do well to focus attention on the people’s real problems, instead of falling prey to the ruling party’s diversionary tactics.
In Bihar, the Supreme Court’s direction to the EC to use Aadhaar as a document of eligibility takes care, to a large extent, of the Special Intensive Revision excess. However, the commission’s failure to permit an audit of closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage from polling booths to find explanations for the mysterious surge in voting after 5 pm recorded in many places remains unaddressed.
Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar’s defence is that the commission destroys CCTV footage of voting booths soon after counting, to protect the dignity of womenfolk who come to vote. This is not just silly but also offensive to women. The CCTV footage in question relates to voting booths, not the intimate spaces of their residences.
Deploying the logic of the purdah, that women would be violated by being allowed to be part of the public space, to withhold evidence that could substantiate or dismiss charges of fraudulent voting is the most objectionable. The National Commission for Women should be filing a complaint against the CEC for his regressive tactic to keep the lid on CCTV footage.
Focus attention on substantive issues. The Opposition should not chase after red herrings randomly thrown out by the ruling party.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
