Opinion
The anti-defection law—in effect, a chain to keep Dalits shackled
Our
system of elections started in the year 1932, when India went on to
create a unique electoral system to elect its representatives. Unlike
any of the modern nations, India not only had a social system of
treating its own people as untouchables, but ensured representation in
legislative bodies for its most oppressed communities of untouchables
and tribals through reserved seats. The scheme originally was planned
for only ten years in the 1950 Constitution and was extended solely to
ensure accelerated development of the untouchables and tribal
communities, who even after such unique representation were continuously
oppressed. This was probably a way the nation would wash its sins (and
the continuing sins) of thousand of years of oppression and alienation.
After eight decades of such a system of elections, almost a fourth of
Parliament today comprises of the Scheduled Caste (untouchable) and
Scheduled Tribe (tribal) members.
This all happened because on August 4, 1932, Dr B.R. Ambedkar secured
reserved seats for the untouchables from the British rulers in the
run-up to the 1935 Indian Constitution formation. Along with the
untouchables, minorities such as Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians and
Europeans also secured reserved seats. But Mahatma Gandhi objected to
the representation of untouchables and went on a fast unto death and
eventually an agreement, the ‘Poona Pact’ was agreed on, by which
Gandhiji ensured a formula whereby an untouchable candidate’s election
would be decided by the majority Hindu voters. In such a formula, the
untouchable voters have no role to elect their ‘own’ representatives,
unlike Muslims and other minorities, who had their own ‘separate’ seats.
Before Independence, India had two elections, in 1937 and 1946.
Ambedkar, forced by the fast-unto-death threat of Gandhi to sign the
pact in 1932, went on to later analyse the 1937 results when
untouchables were elected for the first time in history. Trying to save
Gandhi’s life, Ambedkar had said on September 19, 1932: “I however
trust the Mahatma will not drive me to the necessity of making a choice
between his life and the rights of my people. For I can never consent to
deliver my people bound hand and foot to the caste Hindus for
generations to come.” But the Mahatma ensured the latter.
In his 1945 magnum opus, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to Untouchables,
Ambedkar commented on the status of untouchable (SC) legislators in a
political party: “They were completely under the control of the Congress
party executive. They could not ask a question which it did not like.
They could not move a resolution which it did not permit. They could not
bring in legislation to which it objected. They could not vote as they
chose and could not speak what they felt. They were there as dumb driven
cattle. One of the objects of obtaining representation in the
Legislature for the Untouchables is to enable them to ventilate their
grievances and to obtain redress for their wrongs. The (party)
successfully and effectively prevented this from happening.” He observed
that the political parties chose less qualified SC persons while
selecting candidates for election. “And in the case of the Untouchables,
those with little or no qualifications were selected in preference to
those who had.”
When the new India Constitution was framed after Independence, the
same election formula continued and, as feared, untouchables were “bound
hand and foot to the caste Hindus for generations to come”. To vitiate
it further, at the fag end of 2012, a Scheduled Caste member of
Parliament elected from a Scheduled Caste reserved constituency in UP,
did something unprecedented. Under the directions of his upper
caste-dominated political party, during a Parliament session, he
snatched and tore up a legislative bill intending to restore promotions
in jobs to Scheduled Castes—a community he belongs to and was elected
from.
What made the MP act against the very purpose for which he was
elected from a reserved constituency? Well, the anti-defection law under
the Tenth schedule of the Constitution in 1985 grants such power to the
political parties whereby no member can speak or vote against the party
position in Parliament. Political parties have created a fear psychosis
over the anti-defection law and further bound elected members to their
commands.
The irony is that a political party from Uttar Pradesh—10 of its 22
MPs are from SC-reserved constituencies—employed these very MPs to act
in such a deplorable manner. In such a situation, there is no doubt that
it’s time the anti-defection law is amended so that its draconian
nature does not compel reserved seat legislators to use it against the
very purpose for which reserved seats were created by the founding
fathers of the Constitution.
(The author is an IAS officer. Views expressed are personal.)
Click here to see the article in its standard web format
