18.08.2019
Indian opposition in disarray, what should the Muslims
do?
Asad Mirza
The passage of
abrogation of the Art 370 of the Indian Constitution in the parliament
recently, clearly bought out the fissures within the opposition parties.
It has also shown
to the public the essential role played by an opposition in a parliamentary
democracy and also the impact of a well sustained and managed campaign, in this
case by the ruling party.
The Congress faced
a vertical split within the party over opposing the government’s move to
withdraw special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the
Constitution.
Members of several
regional parties took a stand, which was not in consonance with the official
stand of their respective parties, thereby strengthening the government’s hand
and weakening the opposition further.
The All India
Trinamool Congress, strongly opposed the government in both Houses of
Parliament. Their leaders spoke against the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation
Bill and walked out before the voting. However,
the party’s chief whip in the Rajya Sabha, Sukhendu Shekhar Ray, took to
Twitter on the same day to voice his opinion when the bill was presented in the
upper House. “Decades old Comedy of Errors are (sic) being rectified now. It
was a thunderbolt today. Many more in the offing’.
Within Bahujan
Samaj Party, the party line always comes from its chief Mayawati and everyone
follows it. However, the leader of the party in the Lok Sabha and Amroha MP,
Kunwar Danish Ali, was not in favour of the party supporting removal of Article
370 in Parliament. Before that, Ali was also unhappy with the party’s decision
to walk out over the triple talaq bill. Because of his stand, Ali lost the
position of party leader in the Lok Sabha to first-time MP Shyam Singh Yadav.
JDU, a member of
the BJP-led NDA, opposed the government on Article 370 in Parliament and staged
a walkout during the voting on the bill. However, later the party’s Rajya Sabha
member RCP Singh said that once the bill had been passed there was no point
opposing it and everyone should welcome it. Earlier, another party leader, Ajay
Alok, who seemed to be unhappy with the party leadership, had urged party chief
and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar on social media to rethink party’s stand
on Art 370.
The Samajwadi
Party also saw a sharp division on the issue, with two Rajya Sabha members,
Surendra Nagar and Sanjay Seth, leaving the party just before the debate on
Article 370 was initiated in the Rajya Sabha. Both the leaders joined the BJP
on August 10.
Sharad Pawar-led
Nationalist Congress Party was among the parties, which walked out during
voting from both the houses. However, senior NCP leader Ajit Pawar came out in
full support of the BJP government over the decision. He said that the decision
to abolish Art 370 was necessary to keep the country intact and create communal
harmony.
The only bloc,
which seemed united in this episode, were the Left parties. Though in the Lok
Sabha elections of 2019, India’s Left parties registered their worst poll
performance in over six decades representing only just five seats across the
country now.
All this shows
that the opposition in India is in complete disarray. Even within the parties
fissures are apparent. Most of the rebels are keen to join or have joined the
ruling BJP. This does not augurs well for a vibrant and strong parliamentary
democracy to function as it is supposed to be. The BJP juggernaut has proved
that once it got the absolute majority in the parliament, it was able to
deliver on many of its promises made in its election manifestos over the years.
But the brutish manner in which it has dealt with the opposition and also broke
its ranks, clearly does not promises a rosy future for the functioning of
parliamentary democracy in India.
What has happened
or is happening, the Opposition too is to be blamed for it. In the last
elections the whole opposition seemed to be completely lost and unable to face
the challenges thrown by the BJP and change the narrative amongst the electorate.
The opposition should realise that it should have at least one idea, which
appeals to or is attractive to a sizeable population.
There were great
hopes of the Mahagathbandhan in the UP, but within two months it fell flat on
its face, due to megalomaniac thinking of BSP and SP leaders.
But due to
opposition’s poor showing, we should not lose faith in the democratic
traditions of the country. Still there are a large number of secular, rational
thinking leaders in the civil society and the judiciary.
Senior Advocate K
M Vijayan was scheduled to deliver a lecture on abrogation of Art 370, in
Chennai on 14 August, however, the Madras Bar Association cancelled it due to
opposition from its members. Later Advocate Vijayan opined that the
Presidential Order issued on August 5 and 6 without the concurrence of State
Government amounted to a ‘colourable exercise of power’. Articles 370(1) and
(2) cannot be invoked without consultation or concurrence of the Government of
Jammu & Kashmir, he said. He also said that it was redundant to call Art
370 temporary after nearly 70 years of existence.
Meanwhile, last
week some retired bureaucrats and military officers moved Supreme Court over
abrogation of Article 370, and bifurcation of Kashmir. Terming the presidential
order on abrogation of Article 370 as “constitutionally invalid”, the petition
states that a presidential order under "Article 370(3) of the Constitution
requires the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir to recommend a
presidential notification under Article 370(3) declaring that Article 370 shall
cease to be operative". The petitioners also challenged the Jammu &
Kashmir Reorganisation Bill.
The petitioners
include former Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak, Retired Major General Ashok Mehta,
former IAS officers Hindal Haidar Tyabji, Amitabha Pande and Gopal Pillai, and
former member of the Home Ministry’s Group of Interlocutors for J&K Radha
Kumar. The petition has been drawn by advocates Arjun Krishnan, Kaustubh Singh
and Rajalakshmi Singh and settled by Senior Advocate Prashanto Sen.
The petition
describes the amendments "as striking at the heart of the principles on
which the State of J&K integrated into India, especially as they had no
affirmation/sanction from the people of J&K which, according to the
petition, is a constitutional imperative as far as the State of J&K is
concerned."
The petitioners
also said that the brazen unconstitutionality of the act is unprecedented.
Challenging the division of the state into two union territories, the petition
states that downgrading the status of J&K and creating two union
territories could not have been exercised without the consent of the state of
J&K.
The above examples
show that still all is not lost for the common secular, literate Indian. In
this scenario it becomes imperative for the Indian Muslims to strengthen such secular
forces and also start thinking strongly about constituting a strong party,
which could ensure safeguarding their interests, along with the support of 60%
of secular Indians.
---ends---
Comments
Post a Comment