📰 Preserving democracy in India
The presence of a vigilant Opposition is necessary not just for a vibrant democracy but for its very survival
•In January 2014, while addressing the Vijay Sankalp rally in Goa, Narendra Modi called on the audience to vote for a “Congress-mukt Bharat”. He said, “Be it dynasty politics, nepotism, corruption, communalism, divisions in society or poverty, getting freedom from all this is what I mean by a Congress-mukt Bharat.” Stating the BJP’s commitment to changing the future of India, he said, “We need efforts to integrate the nation, not divide it.” The events that have unfolded in the last few years, including the toppling of governments in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra and the selective arrests of Opposition leaders, show that we are perhaps heading towards an Opposition-mukt Bharat.
Parliamentary democracy
•The Indian Constitution adopted the parliamentary system and not the presidential system. B.R. Ambedkar provided the rationale for this: “A democratic executive must satisfy two conditions - (1) It must be a stable executive and (2) it must be a responsible executive. Unfortunately it has not been possible so far to devise a system which can ensure both in equal degree… In England, where the parliamentary system prevails, the assessment of responsibility of the executive is both daily and periodic. The daily assessment is done by members of Parliament, through questions, resolutions, no-confidence motions, adjournment motions and debates on addresses. Periodic assessment is done by the electorate at the time of the election... The daily assessment of responsibility which is not available under the American system it is felt far more effective than the periodic assessment and far more necessary in... India. The draft Constitution in recommending the parliamentary system... has preferred more responsibility to more stability.”
•Democracy is the basic feature of the Constitution. Parliamentary democracy does not envisage a condition where a one party-government becomes permanent. The presence of a vigilant Opposition is necessary not just for a vibrant democracy but for its very survival. When the Opposition criticises the government or carries on an agitation to arouse public opinion against a party’s misdeeds, it is performing a duty that is assigned by the Constitution. Without an effective Opposition, democracy will become dull and legislature will become submissive. The public will then think that the legislature is a sham and is unable to perform its functions and will lose interest in the functioning of Parliament.
•Before and after independence, the Congress was determined to keep other parties out. For a long time, the Opposition was considered unnecessary and somewhat burdensome. This had a deleterious effect on the functioning of our democracy. The very evils that Mr. Modi spoke about in Goa were the result. Yet, Mr. Modi and the BJP today seek to follow the same path. Recently, Home Minister Amit Shah publicly declared that the next 30-40 years will be the era of the BJP. Encouraging defections from the parties in power in States will sound the death knell for democracy. The Tenth Schedule has failed to serve its purpose. The Supreme Court, in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), while upholding the 52nd Amendment through which the Tenth Schedule was introduced, summed up the argument for and against it in these words: “On the one hand there is the real and imminent threat to the very fabric of Indian democracy posed by certain levels of political behaviour conspicuous by their utter and total disregard of well recognised political proprieties and morality... On the other hand, there are... certain side-effects which might affect and hurt even honest dissenters and conscientious objectors.” In upholding the law, the court held: “But a political party functions on the strength of shared beliefs... Any freedom of its members to vote as they please independently of the political party’s declared policies will not only embarrass its public image and popularity but also undermine public confidence in it which... is its source of sustenance — nay, indeed, its very survival.”
•Loyalty to the party is essential. The whip system is part of the established machinery of political organisation in the House and does not infringe on a member’s rights or privilege in any way. That is why some political thinkers have recognised as an additional device the ‘theory of recall,’ so that a member whose personal behaviour falls below standards expected of his constituents goes back and seek their approval. This power is particularly apt when a member shows disloyalty to his party but declines to resign from his seat and to fight an immediate by-election. The anti-defection law was supposed to be the justification underlying the power of recall. In the absence of resignation and re-election immediately following the violation of the whip or showing disloyalty to the party on whose label the member was elected, the floor test in meaningless. It only seeks to legalise what is otherwise illegal, unconstitutional and immoral.
•To see a flock of members of the governing legislative party in a State being flown from one destination to another in chartered planes, housed in five-star hotels, and taken to States run by the party in power at the Centre is a sign of a conspiracy. Given such circumstances, it is time for the Supreme Court to re-write that law, if necessary by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
•Equally alarming is the recent trend of the use of draconian powers, especially the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, against Opposition members. Nobody can condone illegalities. Individuals, if guilty, must be proceeded with under the law. But can one believe that such illegalities are committed only in the Opposition? There has not been a single case against a member of the ruling party since 2014. Is dishonesty the forte of only the Opposition parties?
The way forward
•The Prime Minister must seriously introspect on the erosion of public life and set things right. The judiciary must be aware of the ground realities and not allow such politically motivated investigations. Judges should readily grant anticipatory bail or regular bail in such matters. Political parties, the judiciary and civil society must take steps to ensure that democracy does not fail. The Opposition must be tolerated because if it is left for the party in power to decide what is healthy and unhealthy criticism, then every criticism of the latter will be treated as unhealthy.
•During the Constituent Assembly debates, Naziruddin Ahmad had warned: “If you are not desirous of creating anti-Congress feeling... it is very necessary for you to create an opposition, if necessary by some members volunteering to go to the opposition and making it healthy and strong.” Ramnarayan Singh went further and said, “ A government which does not like opposition and always wants to be in power is not a patriotic but a traitor government.”
•At the same time, while the Opposition must be credible and strong, it is for the Opposition to make itself credible and strong. It must feel the pulse of the people. Unless it makes itself respectable, it cannot demand any respect. This is the biggest challenge facing the nation today.
•The Opposition must also work constructively. Merely attacking the Prime Minister is not conducive for democracy. Our constitutional goal was to establish a sovereign, democratic republic. Mr. Modi and his party have a responsibility to ensure that India does not turn into an undemocratic republic.
Why is the notification controversial in the State? What were the earlier efforts of the State to draft ESZ notifications? How have the people of the State reacted to the directive?
•Nearly 30% of Kerala is forested land and the Western Ghats occupies 48% of the State.
•Kerala apprehends that the Supreme Court’s notification would adversely impact the interests of the State besides upsetting the lives of millions living near the protected areas.
•As it occurred during the post Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) days, a section of the Church has openly come out against the notification.
•The story so far: On July 7, the Kerala State Assembly unanimously passed a resolution urging the Central government to exclude the State’s human habitations, farmlands and public institutions from the purview of the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ), recently notified by the Supreme Court, to be set-up around all protected forests in the country. The Assembly also called upon the Centre to notify the zones by considering the State government’s proposals that marked the ESZ as zero around 10 protected areas of the State, urging the union government to enact laws for the purpose.
Why is the ESZ notification controversial in Kerala?
•The June 3 directive by a three-judge Supreme Court Bench consisting of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B. R. Gavai and Anirudha Bose to have a mandatory ecologically sensitive zones of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of every protected forest, including the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, has stirred the hornet’s nest in Kerala where any regulatory mechanism on land and land use patterns would have political ramifications.
•The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had notified the draft ecologically sensitive zones of 20 of the 23 protected areas in the State, while issuing the final notification of the Mathikettan Shola National Park way back in December 2020.
•However, the draft notification of the Periyar National Park, also called as Periyar Tiger Reserve, is yet to be published though the State government had submitted the proposal earlier.
•The State is yet to submit the draft ESZ of Karimpuzha Wildlife Sanctuary, the newest one in Kerala, located in Malappuram district.
•What worries the State is the possible impact of the apex court’s order on its unique landscape. Nearly 30% of Kerala is forested land and the Western Ghats occupies 48% of the State.
•Moreover, there is a network of lakes, canals, wetlands and the 590-kilometre-long coastline, which are all governed by a series of environmental conservation and protection legislations, leaving little space for its 3.5 crore population to occupy.
•With an average population density of 900 persons per square kilometre, much higher than the national average, the demographic pressure on the available land is unusually high in the State, as noted by the State Assembly’s resolution.
•The State Government apprehends that the Supreme Court’s notification may worsen the ground situation as it would adversely impact the interests of the State besides upsetting the lives of millions living near the protected areas.
How did the State’s earlier efforts to draft ESZ notifications go?
•Earlier, while preparing the draft ESZ notifications for its protected areas including the Malabar, Idukki, Aralam, Kottiyoor, Shendurney and Wayanad wildlife sanctuaries, the State Government had taken care to exclude the areas with high population density, government and quasi-government institutions, and public institutions from the ambit of the notification.
•The marking of the ESZ for the protected areas that shared the forest boundary with the neighbouring States was a peaceful affair as there were no human habitations in between.
•However, the apex court’s recent order has changed the picture and forced the State government to re-look the ESZs of at least 10 protected areas which were earlier marked as zero.
What has been the reaction to the directive?
•The apex court order comes a decade after the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report, aka Gadgil report, that had radically influenced the socio-political, economic and ecological narratives in the State. Though not to the level of the high-pitched public unrest and protests that the State witnessed during the days preceding the WGEEP report, the ESZ notification too has triggered state-wide protests. As it occurred during the post WGEEP days, a section of the Church has openly come out against the notification.
•The Church groups have also demanded the recalling of the apex court order.
•The Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council, a powerful body catering to the special needs of the apostolate in the State, termed the apex court verdict as unfortunate as it feared that the order will upset the lives of thousands of settler farmers and people living on the forest fringes. The forum apprehended that the order will effectively turn four lakh acres around the 23 wildlife sanctuaries in the State into buffer zones, thus affecting around 1.5 lakh families.
•Since June 3, both the ruling Left Front and the Opposition have observed hartals in the hilly districts of the State, protesting the Supreme Court directive.
What’s next for Kerala?
•Kerala is pinning its hope on the Centre’s stand that it was willing to discuss its concerns with the State government. The State government has also decided to explore the option of approaching the Central Empowered Committee, as directed by the Supreme Court in its order, to convince the forum of the need to maintain zero ecologically sensitive zone in the areas of human habitation.
•It may also approach the apex court seeking exemption from the one kilometre ecologically sensitive zone regime and to limit it to zero wherever required.
📰 Navy decommissions Sindhudhvaj
The Kilo class submarine, acquired from Russia, had been in service for 35 years
•The Navy’s Kilo class submarine INS Sindhudhvaj was decommissioned from service on Saturday at Visakhapatnam after 35 years in service. With this, the Navy now has 15 conventional submarines in service.
•“The traditional ceremony was conducted at sunset, with an overcast sky adding to the solemnity of the occasion when the Decommissioning Pennant was lowered and the submarine was paid off after a glorious patrol of 35 years,” the Navy said in a statement on Sunday. The event was attended by 15 of the former Commanding Officers, including Commander S.P. Singh (Retd.), the Commissioning CO, and 26 Commissioning crew veterans.
•The decommissioning of the submarine had been delayed by about a year.
Many firsts
•“She had many a firsts to her credit, including operationalisation of the indigenised sonar USHUS, indigenised satellite communication system Rukmani and MSS, inertial navigation system and indigenised torpedo fire control system,” the Navy said. She also successfully undertook mating and personnel transfer with Deep Submergence Rescue Vessel and was the only submarine to be awarded Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) rolling trophy for Innovation by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it stated.
•Commissioned into the Navy in June 1987, Sindhudhvaj, was one of the 10 Kilo class submarines India acquired from Russia between 1986 and 2000. Of these, Sindhurakshak was lost in an accident in Mumbai harbour in August 2013, while Sindhuvir was transferred to Myanmar in 2020, making it the Southeast Asian nation’s first underwater platform.
•The Navy’s sub-surface fleet now includes seven Russian Kilo class submarines, four German HDW submarines, four French Scorpene submarines and the indigenous nuclear ballistic missile submarine Arihant. The last two of the Scorpene class submarines are in various stages of trials and outfitting.
