Coincidentally, India is observing the anniversary of the solemn Maha Parinirvan Day of Dr B.R. Ambedkar on December 6, just a few days after the election results for state assemblies in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Mizoram were declared and the impartiality and fairness of the Election Commission (EC) in conducting elections was questioned.
Seventy-seven years after Ambedkar’s passing away, his apprehensions that in the absence of any provision in the Constitution preventing the executive to appoint a foolish, knave or a pliable person as election commissioner or chief election commissioner – making the EC, in his words, “the thumb of the executive” – have come true. He said so in the Constituent Assembly on June 16, 1949, during the debates on the draft Article 289 (now Article 324) of the Constitution dealing with the EC.
Has not the conduct of the EC in the conduct of elections to the aforementioned state assemblies testified to the apprehensions of Ambedkar that it would come under the thumb of the executive?
When the Model Code of Conduct was in operation and election campaign was at its peak, the EC did not prevent the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh when it released money to the people under the Ladli Behena scheme. In contrast it prevented the Telangana government from releasing money to farmers under the Rythu Bandhu Scheme. It clearly proved the point that the standard employed by the EC for BJP state governments was not applied to the Telangana government. The glaring differentiation in applying one norm for the BJP-led government in MP and the non-application of the same norm for Telangana is evocative of the doctrine of differential rights often employed by the colonial rulers in India to discriminate against Indians and favour the whites who wielded power. It is tragic that the same doctrine is in operation in the action of EC, which in the words of Ambedkar has “come under the thumb of the executive”.
Ambedkar’s apprehensions resonated in Supreme Court judgement
Ambedkar’s apprehension expressed in the Constituent Assembly in 1949 was also reflected by the Supreme Court which in its judgement of March 2, 2023 prescribed a group consisting of the prime minister, chief justice of India and leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha to select members of EC so that it is not reduced to a “servile commission”.
In fact, Ambedkar while moving the draft Article 289 in the Constituent Assembly on June 15, 1949 for setting up an Election Commission, had said,
“…[W]ithout any kind of dissent, that in the interest of the purity and freedom of elections to the legislative bodies, it was of utmost importance that they should be freed from any kind of interference from the executive of the day.”
The manner in which the EC only issued notices to some opposition leaders on the charge that they violated the MCC and completely ignored the complaints of opposition parties against BJP leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah for invoking religion for seeking votes clearly proved the point that the EC did not act impartially. It is in such tragic circumstances that Ambedkar’s cautionary words assume critical significance for summoning the collective energy for addressing the problem caused by the EC.
The intervention of the courts, in particular of the Supreme Court, in this regard is of utmost importance. The Modi government has prepared a Bill overturning the aforementioned order of the Supreme Court by replacing the CJI in the collegium-like committee to select members of the EC with a nominee to be appointed by the Government of India. It means that it wants to play out the apprehensions of Ambedkar that the EC would come “under the thumb of the executive”.
Ambedkar’s apprehensions on boycott of minorities
On the solemn occasion of Ambedkar’s death anniversary, it is instructive to see in retrospect his draft Constitution for the United States of India. He prepared it in 1945 and submitted it to a sub-committee of the Constituent Assembly. Anticipating that minorities in India would be boycotted in the social and economic realms on account of the discrimination meted out to them because of their faith, he dealt with the issue very elaborately and provided a separate section under the captions “Provisions for the protection of minorities”, “protection against social boycott.”
He defined boycott in very broad terms, which is applicable for our times marked by calls issued by several BJP leaders and many ‘dharma sansads‘ or Religious Parliaments for boycott of Muslims so that their exclusion from social and economic fields are ensured. He also dealt with measures which would amount to instigation and promotion of boycott and stated, “Whoever publicly makes or publishes or circulates a proposal for or makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to, or which he has reason to believe to be likely to cause, or in any other way instigates or promotes the boycotting of any person or class of persons, shall be guilty of the offence of instigating or promoting a boycott.”
He was farsighted when he said, “All these offences shall be deemed to be cognisable offences” and “the Union legislature shall make laws prescribing punishment for these offences”.
Tragically inside the Lok Sabha, a constituent of the Union legislature, a BJP member, hurled abuses against another MP on account of his faith and no penal action has so far been taken against him.
The measures provided by Ambedkar to deal with the existential crises confronting our republic are of critical significance for 21st-century India. Remaining sensitive to his concerns and taking remedial action for safeguarding the Constitution would constitute true tribute to him.
S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.
