Chief Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh
is misusing his constitutional position and crossing all lines. He is causing
immense damage to the country's democratic polity and openly abusing people.
He is acting in his discretion and taking decisions which can be legitimately
dismissed with a shake of head as politically motivated, partisan and highly
discriminatory and outrageous. He is dabbling into politics for all practical
purposes and seeking to create a feeling of hatred among the people inhabiting
different regions.
Consider, for example, his January
8, 2003, Shimla statement on the "people from the plains". Not to forget
he had gone to Shimla to personally make an on-the-spot assessment of the
political environment in the otherwise calm and quiet BJP-led Himachal
Pradesh and find if the same was conducive for election business. His Shimla
statement clearly smacks more of a bias against the BJP and a substantial
chunk of the Indian population rather than a resolve to hold elections
in HP in a fair and impartial manner. That day, he virtually spewed venom
and said: "Himachal is an orderly State, where people are well behaved.
Himachalis must ensure that people from plains are not allowed to come
to the State and abuse the elections, especially using religion and other
things...I want them to make sure as we don't allow outsiders to come and
make mess...The people of Himachal must stop all those (read BJP leaders
and their supporters) who wish to play the 'Hindutva' card in the elections".
But in the case of the BJP-ruled Gujarat the CEC adopted an altogether different approach. In fact, the way the CEC responded to the well-intentioned democratic suggestion of Mr Narendra Modi in favour of early elections in Gujarat in order to obtain people's verdict on his government, simply betrayed a deep sense of distrust on the part of the CEC against the BJP. He only went by the "secular" propaganda against the idea of elections under the "Hindutva brigade" led by Mr Narendra Modi and sought to bring Gujarat under President's rule with a view to ensure what he called "free and fair elections" there. He thwarted each and every offer of Mr Narendra Modi under one pretext or the other. Mr Narendra Modi's well- founded assertions that the situation in Gujarat was normal; that the Board Examinations, Mahashivratri and Muharram had all passed off without any communal incident; and that there was perfect peace and normality all over the State when the Hajis returned from Mecca had no effect whatsoever on him.
There are umpteen instances which one can refer to here in order to substantiate the charge that the CEC is biased against a particular political formation. Since it is not possible to catalogue here all such instances, I will very briefly refer to just two of them to make a point. One is his stand on the not-so-peaceful Nagaland, Meghalaya and Tripura. It needs to be underlined that he has announced the election schedule for these states without visiting any of them and this is something quite unusual and discriminatory.
The other is his January 11 New Delhi declaration that "he does not anticipate any problem in Nagaland". And, what was his argument? His sole argument was: "No- disruption assurance from the NSCN(I-M) militant leaders, Isaac Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah."
That he would visit Gujarat twice to personally assess the law and order situation there and reject outright all arguments advanced by Chief Minister Narendra Modi and repose all confidence in the Naga militants and order elections in the North- Eastern non-BJP-ruled states without meeting the mainstream political leadership of the region should clear all cobwebs of confusion. There is no doubt that Mr Lyngdoh is side-stepping the law and making humiliating distinctions between the BJP and non-BJP-ruled states.
It is no wonder that he has been
subjected to criticism. He would do well to follow the code of conduct
prescribed for him by the Constitution in the same way he expects the people
and political parties to follow the code of conduct laid down for them
by the EC. Not to do so would be to undermine the authority of such a crucial
institution as the one he is heading. Equally desirable on his part would
be to read and memorise what Naziruddin Ahmad said in the Constituent Assembly
on June 16, 1949: "Election is a most important item in a democratic set-up
and it is very necessary that it should be controlled and supervised by
a very competent, independent and impartial body".