Muntadhar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi Journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush at a press conference in December last, would indeed be very proud if he ever discovers the sort of impact his courageous (although spontaneous) act has had on the Indian polity in particular and the Indian society in general.
Drawing inspiration from Mr. Zaidi, sections among the Indian populace have successfully weaponised the commonly available piece of footwear. The most well-known of such groups (the members of which are considered by some to be radical social vigilantes), has taken upon itself, the extremely daunting task (especially in the Indian context) of publicly humiliating every such person who is worth humiliating publicly, and who fully deserves to be so humiliated.
The incidents of shoe throwing have steadily increased in frequency as well as ambition (especially over the past few months) and the Indian media’s responsible coverage has further contributed to justifiably terrorizing those sections of the Indian society who may expect to find themselves at the receiving end of such attacks. This has led to the target section exercising such levels of caution as may be considered to be bordering on paranoia which has unintentionally resulted in providing quite a bit of comic relief to the people of this country.
P. Chidambaram (Cabinet Minister for Home Affairs), L.K. Advaini (Leader of the Opposition)and Manmohan Singh (Prime Minister of India) are just some of the eminent personalities who have recently had shoes thrown at them (although, I must concede that not all of these acts of shoe throwing were justified). In fact, on the 13th of April, the Coimbatore police had compelled Shri. Advani’s supporters to remove their footwear before allowing them to enter the Airport to greet him, just so the supporters/party workers didn’t try anything ‘adventurous’
(http://news.in.msn.com/national/indiaelections2009/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2928649). And this was a mere three days before the actual fiasco (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37081§ionid=90&secid=0). Needless to say, their Madhya Pradesh counterparts were not as prudent.
However, these are merely cases which have come to light as they involved famous and influential individuals. Shoe throwing has become a much more common phenomenon which brings us to the second category of individuals, who simply need a flimsy excuse to remove their shoes and fling them at another person. My personal experiences which solely relate to individuals who may be included in this group, have not been detailed by me as they may sound extremely far fetched. None the less, the point on which I want to lay emphasis is that this group does in fact exist.
My Take:
Although, Prima Facie, the incidents of shoe throwing seem comical and trivial, this trend has gathered strong significance in the present day Indian scenario and also underscores the growing dissatisfaction among the people of India (mainly the intelligentsia) with respect to continued political and administrative complacency and abuse. Personally, I wholeheartedly support the first group of individuals. A responsible citizen needs an active/radical medium of expressing his justified frustration against the Government and related authorities. An expression, which, without being lethal or physically harmful, would be capable of causing such amounts of psychological discomfort so as to compel such a Government/authority/politician to at least make an honest attempt at judicially exercising the power that has been so given to them. In the absence of such an effective mechanism, the supposed rulers would deliberately ignore the fact that they are merely elected representatives and have absolutely no right to misuse their authority towards the end of exploiting the nation, its diversity and its people for their own personal gain.
Immediately post independence and until the early 90s, this medium of expression was the Indian Press. But in today’s context, when the Indian Media has become largely commercial, has lost quite a bit of its credibility and is usually ignored, it is but natural for concerned Indians to yearn for an alternative and more drastic mechanism of expressing themselves.
Mr. Zaidi’s act was undoubtedly the strongest and the most effective insult not only with respect to a widely hated political leader, but also against the carnivorous economic/foreign policies as well as the adamant, dominant and indifferent attitude of the United States. He, along with his courage and his shoes, achieved that which even a bullet would have failed to accomplish. No person, irrespective of his/her race, nationality or religion would consider Mr. Zaidi’s actions to be dishonourable (unless of course such person happens to be a US republican, a Neo-Nazi, a Fascist, has political leanings similar to the previously mentioned ideologies or is simply unreasonable). It is because this approach is considered honourable and effective, that it is steadily being adopted as an alternative mechanism in India and its use is becoming all the more frequent.
However, it cannot be denied that this expression is not completely free from misuse. An act of shoe throwing has the intended effect only as long as it’s honourable i.e. it is done for the urgent redressal of a genuine set of public grievances which have no other reasonable alternate remedy. The moment it ceases to be honourable, it ceases to be effective. Widespread, unnecessary, wrongly motivated or casual use of this act would automatically deride its influence. For that reason it is important to avoid resorting to this act as a means of political vendetta, personal revenge or general amusement. Nevertheless, the act of shoe throwing is liable to be widely misused at all levels in the months to come and therefore this trend may well be temporary, as more moderate-but-equally effective mechanisms will also gradually evolve. Moreover, it would also amount to committing the offense of assault against the who happens to be the victim of such an attack (although all victims so far have been very magnanimous by refraining from pressing charges against their attackers probably due to fear of a consequent public relations disaster). But, as long as it lasts, and is responsibly used the incidents of shoe throwing will not only ensure greater transparency and diligence on part of the administration but also promote careful responsibility on part of the Media by enabling it to determine relevant social issues and bringing the same to the forefront.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Article 49-O?
Since its election time in India, I have decided in my first post, to discuss about a certain “Article 49-O of the Indian Constitution”. A few months ago, I received the following E-Mail:
A must read for all responsible Indian citizens. Section 49!VO of the
Constitution
Did you know that there is a system in our constitution, as per the1969
act, in section "49!VO" that a person can go to the polling
booth,confirm his identity, get his finger marked and convey the
presiding election officer that he doesn't want to vote anyone!
Yes such a feature is available, but obviously these seemingly notorious
leaders have never disclosed it. This is called "49!VO".
Why should you go and say "I VOTE NOBODY"... because, in a ward, if a
candidate wins, say by 123 votes, and that particular ward has received
"49!VO" votes more than 123, then that polling will be canceled and will
have to be re!Vpolled. Not only that, but the candidature of the
contestants will be removed and they cannot contest the re!Vpolling,
since people had already expressed their decision on them. This would
bring fear into parties and hence look for genuine candidates for their
parties for election. This would change the way; of our whole political
system... it is seemingly surprising why the election commission has not
revealed such a feature to the public....
Please spread this news to as many as you know...Seems to be a wonderful
weapon against corrupt parties in India... show your power, expressing
your desire not to vote for anybody, is even more powerful than vote.
Being a Law student and having studied Constitutional Law as a subject for almost a year I was surprised never to have come across this particular provision of the Constitution. Although, I initially assumed the mail to be a hoax as most E-Mails of a similar nature usually are, I decided to conduct my own independent research into the existence of ‘Article 49-O’. As it turned out, the above E-Mail was seriously (although not completely) flawed in its assertions and therefore utterly misleading. However, Indian law does provide for a provision which allows a voter to cast a ‘non-vote’. It is explained in detail below:
Facts
The provision which permits a voter to abstain from exercising his franchise in favour of any one candidate and consequently register a ‘non-vote’ is not Article 49-O as claimed by the mail but in fact Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. The Rule in its actuality reads as under-
49-O. Elector deciding not to vote.-If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.
Although the above rule needs no further explanation, it is imperative to note that this particular legislation does not make any stipulation as to the cancellation of a candidate’s election followed by re-polling with a completely new set of candidates in the event of the number of non-votes exceeding the number of actual votes cast. Moreover, its implementation has become increasingly difficult in recent times with the introduction of EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) throughout India, as a voter who wishes to cast a non-vote would have to personally inform the Presiding Officer of the Polling Booth of his intentions (as EVMs do not carry any provision for casting a non-vote) resulting in an unavoidable violation of the secrecy of ballot.
There have been several attempts by various NGOs as well as Government Bodies to reaffirm Rule 49-O by pressing for suitable amendments in the relevant legal provisions as well as the procedure for conducting elections, most noteworthy of which was made by the Election Commission in the year 2004 (Draft Proposal for Electoral Reforms submitted to Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India). However, no concrete steps have so far been taken by the Legislature or the Government in this regard.
My Take
Article 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India guarantee to every citizen of India the right to exercise his/her franchise based on universal adult suffrage. The right to vote may also be inferred from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which bestows on a Citizen the freedom of speech and expression (voting being a form of personal expression). As such, a citizen eligible to vote has a claim to exercise the right in a manner which suits him/her best, including the right to cast a non-vote and the same is merely explicitly recognized by Rule 49-O. In my opinion, the Rule, in its present form, is substantially impotent and therefore redundant as the number of non-votes shall not be taken into account while ascertaining the final tally of votes which will ultimately determine the result of that particular election. It is necessary to add teeth to this Rule in order to make it more meaningful, by at least giving the number of non-votes due consideration and in the event of the non-votes exceeding the number of normal votes cast, by canceling the specific election and subsequently rescheduling it with additional candidates who are eligible to contest. These changes, by adding an element of referendum to the whole process, would eventually streamline elections and would also further tip the balance of political power in favour of the common man. Although, banning of candidates who are considered eligible and have contested in elections which have registered a majority of non-votes, should not be considered, as that would be contrary to the spirit of democracy.
However, the lack of legislative interest in the implementation of Rule 49-O, even in its present form, seems apparent by the authorities' unwillingness to designate a special non-vote button on the EVMs until date, despite being fully aware that this small modification will go a long way in preserving the secrecy of ballot. For that reason, suffice to say that amendments which shall make Rule 49-O as effective as it actually needs to be, would not be made anytime in the near foreseeable future.
A must read for all responsible Indian citizens. Section 49!VO of the
Constitution
Did you know that there is a system in our constitution, as per the1969
act, in section "49!VO" that a person can go to the polling
booth,confirm his identity, get his finger marked and convey the
presiding election officer that he doesn't want to vote anyone!
Yes such a feature is available, but obviously these seemingly notorious
leaders have never disclosed it. This is called "49!VO".
Why should you go and say "I VOTE NOBODY"... because, in a ward, if a
candidate wins, say by 123 votes, and that particular ward has received
"49!VO" votes more than 123, then that polling will be canceled and will
have to be re!Vpolled. Not only that, but the candidature of the
contestants will be removed and they cannot contest the re!Vpolling,
since people had already expressed their decision on them. This would
bring fear into parties and hence look for genuine candidates for their
parties for election. This would change the way; of our whole political
system... it is seemingly surprising why the election commission has not
revealed such a feature to the public....
Please spread this news to as many as you know...Seems to be a wonderful
weapon against corrupt parties in India... show your power, expressing
your desire not to vote for anybody, is even more powerful than vote.
Being a Law student and having studied Constitutional Law as a subject for almost a year I was surprised never to have come across this particular provision of the Constitution. Although, I initially assumed the mail to be a hoax as most E-Mails of a similar nature usually are, I decided to conduct my own independent research into the existence of ‘Article 49-O’. As it turned out, the above E-Mail was seriously (although not completely) flawed in its assertions and therefore utterly misleading. However, Indian law does provide for a provision which allows a voter to cast a ‘non-vote’. It is explained in detail below:
Facts
The provision which permits a voter to abstain from exercising his franchise in favour of any one candidate and consequently register a ‘non-vote’ is not Article 49-O as claimed by the mail but in fact Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. The Rule in its actuality reads as under-
49-O. Elector deciding not to vote.-If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.
Although the above rule needs no further explanation, it is imperative to note that this particular legislation does not make any stipulation as to the cancellation of a candidate’s election followed by re-polling with a completely new set of candidates in the event of the number of non-votes exceeding the number of actual votes cast. Moreover, its implementation has become increasingly difficult in recent times with the introduction of EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) throughout India, as a voter who wishes to cast a non-vote would have to personally inform the Presiding Officer of the Polling Booth of his intentions (as EVMs do not carry any provision for casting a non-vote) resulting in an unavoidable violation of the secrecy of ballot.
There have been several attempts by various NGOs as well as Government Bodies to reaffirm Rule 49-O by pressing for suitable amendments in the relevant legal provisions as well as the procedure for conducting elections, most noteworthy of which was made by the Election Commission in the year 2004 (Draft Proposal for Electoral Reforms submitted to Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India). However, no concrete steps have so far been taken by the Legislature or the Government in this regard.
My Take
Article 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India guarantee to every citizen of India the right to exercise his/her franchise based on universal adult suffrage. The right to vote may also be inferred from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which bestows on a Citizen the freedom of speech and expression (voting being a form of personal expression). As such, a citizen eligible to vote has a claim to exercise the right in a manner which suits him/her best, including the right to cast a non-vote and the same is merely explicitly recognized by Rule 49-O. In my opinion, the Rule, in its present form, is substantially impotent and therefore redundant as the number of non-votes shall not be taken into account while ascertaining the final tally of votes which will ultimately determine the result of that particular election. It is necessary to add teeth to this Rule in order to make it more meaningful, by at least giving the number of non-votes due consideration and in the event of the non-votes exceeding the number of normal votes cast, by canceling the specific election and subsequently rescheduling it with additional candidates who are eligible to contest. These changes, by adding an element of referendum to the whole process, would eventually streamline elections and would also further tip the balance of political power in favour of the common man. Although, banning of candidates who are considered eligible and have contested in elections which have registered a majority of non-votes, should not be considered, as that would be contrary to the spirit of democracy.
However, the lack of legislative interest in the implementation of Rule 49-O, even in its present form, seems apparent by the authorities' unwillingness to designate a special non-vote button on the EVMs until date, despite being fully aware that this small modification will go a long way in preserving the secrecy of ballot. For that reason, suffice to say that amendments which shall make Rule 49-O as effective as it actually needs to be, would not be made anytime in the near foreseeable future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
