| Why Somnathada gets angry so often? | |||
|
|
By: S R Ramanujan
March 16, 2005 
FeedbackThe grand old man of the Red brigade is too angry for his age. He doesn’t care for anyone, either for the ‘sarkar’ which survives on his party’s barking support or for the Opposition though he is supposed to be neutral when he holds the position of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. A committed communist that he is for several decades, there was a lingering doubt whether the great parliamentarian Somnath Chatterjee will be able to hold the scales even when the choice fell on him to be the custodian of Lok Sabha, its prestige and dignity as the supreme forum of the people of this country. There were quite a few occasions in the last nine months that he was occupying the chair, when this nagging doubt gave room for an uncomfortable feeling that his ideological commitment gets the better of him. His equation with the main Opposition in the Lok Sabha both inside and outside the House was not as smooth as it should be. On several occasions, NDA partners, rightly or wrongly, had to cross swords with him over the manner he dealt with them. At one stage, Somnathda went to the extent of saying quits. He said he would rather face the Chair rather than occupying the Chair. To be fair to him, he can’t be otherwise because of his unflinching loyalty to his political ideology. Can we imagine Balasaheb Thackeray to be in that Chair and be fair to everyone? If Thackeray is considered a “communal fundamentalist”, Somnathada is a “secular fundamentalist”. By nature, communists of any brand are uncompromising, self-righteous and suffer from an extreme intolerance of other political thoughts. They think that they are the sole custodians of political correctness. It is in this background we have to understand the anger of Somnathda and his red brigade over the Supreme Court directives to the Jharkand governor and speaker on the composite floor test to be taken in the Jharkand legislative assembly. The former chief minister of W Bengal, Jyoti Basu was no less sparing of the highest court of the land. He blurted: “Who are they (the court)?” “I will go to Delhi and find out. The Court is saying who will vote, who will not. It is also deciding about the timing of voting. This has never happened before”. This was the tone and tenor of the outbursts of most communist leaders on the issue. For example, CPI leader Suravaram Sudharkar Reddy lambasted the Court saying that the SC had no business to interfere in the affairs of the legislature. The Left’s aversion for judiciary is not something new. When the Calcutta High Court banned rallies and processions during specified hours on weekdays in Kolkatta, the CPI-M said: “judiciary is not above politics”. The party also gave an unsolicited advice to the court saying it (court) should ensure that it performed its role to protect people’s democratic rights. It wanted to seek both legal and extra-legal means to fight out the order. The result was it directed its cadre to defy the court orders. This is only applicable to cases where they believe “democratic rights” of the people are trampled upon. When it comes to Ayodhya where people’s faith is involved, everyone has to abide by the judicial verdict though it may drag on for decades. Judiciary can decide on historical realities and people have to accept it even if it militates against their faith. What was the stand of the Left when the Supreme court gave a landmark verdict on the right to strike. It wanted a review of the judgement. Coming back to the Speaker’s stand on the Jharkand controversy, let us look at the timeline which might give a clue to his impatience and anger in taking on the judiciary which is not expected from a constitutional authority like the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Besides the language of a constitutional authority against another especially the Apex court which is the final authority in interpreting law and the constitution, his “disturbed conscience” should also find answers for the following questions:
Why does the Speaker’s conscience prick him now when it did not bother him
all these days? Yes, there is a reason for Somnathda’s anger and that is
where his commitment to ideology becomes thicker than his constitutional
position. More than UPA, it was the Left which could not stomach the upset
for the so-called “secular” forces in the elections to the Bihar and
Jharkand Assemblies. After seeing the Lok Sabha poll performance last year
by RJD and JMM, it was taken for granted that it was going to be a clean
sweep for both these parties and there was no chance of NDA, notably the
BJP, showing any signs of comeback. Let us not forget the fact that the
Left parties are allies of the RJD in Bihar for the February polls. For
the Left, family misrule of the RJD comprising of kidnappers,
extortionists, murderers and thugs is acceptable than governance by
“communal” forces. In fact, the Left tried to interpret the results as a
vote for “secular forces” and President’s rule was not to its liking.
Atleast in Jharkand, Sonia’s advisers and the Left wanted to prevent NDA’s
return to power by hook or by crook. And the Supreme Court came in the way
with a bang. The Court’s observations were too strong to be taken lightly
by any lovers of democracy. So, the anger was directed against the Court
for facilitating the return of “communal forces”. Do you wish to reach IndiaCause readers? |
Previous
by: S R Ramanujan BJP protests too much July 11, 2004 All roads lead to villages July 03, 2004 Power centers and Power brokers June 24, 2004
|