Election Commission: Sonia & Left in the dock

---------Forwarded Message--------

Election Commission: Sonia & Left in the dock
By Sandhya Jain

Sonia Gandhi and her former Left comrades are in the dock in the current turmoil in the Election Commission, although it is true that the crisis began with BJP’s petition to President APJ Abdul Kalam seeking removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla on grounds of his pro-Congress affiliations.

As if to underline the extent to which constitutional bodies have been politicized by the Congress Party, the Assam State Election Commissioner Chandra Kanta Sarma resigned on 31 January 2009, and is now seeking a Congress ticket from Mangaldoi parliamentary constituency! Mr. Sarma was admitted to the Congress on 1 February, and submitted his request for the party ticket the same day.

Former Chief Election Commissioner Manohar Singh Gill is currently serving as a Minister of State in the UPA Government. Now, with a serving state Election Commissioner resigning to contest the forthcoming Lok Sabha polls, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which has called for a bar on former EC Members taking political posts or contesting elections, will have to take a call.

The CPM withdrew support from the UPA on the issue of the Indo-US nuclear deal last year, but has extended support to Mr. Navin Chawla and joined hands with the Congress in casting aspersions against Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami for recommending the removal of Mr. Chawla. This support is untenable and can be understood only when one perceives that like the Maoist regime in Nepal, the CPM is dominated by minorities, and this often gives the party a pronounced anti-Hindu edge.

The minority – or at least the non-Hindu – angle has played up at critical moments in national politics, and this may well be the time to ponder if there ought to be a statutory limit on the number of key constitutional posts that members of minority groups can hold at a given moment. This idea needs nation-wide debate, as the Hindu majority seems to be getting the short end of the stick in every crisis.

The current crisis broke into the public domain immediately after Election Commissioner S.Y. Qureshi (whose religious affiliations are self-evident) declared on an official trip to London that the Lok Sabha elections would be held between 8 April and 15 May 2009. The UPA took instant advantage of the information to sharply reduce the prices of petrol, diesel and cooking gas; more populist announcements are reportedly on the anvil, which Congress is keen to announce before the model code of conduct becomes operative.

As for Mr. Navin Chawla, he owes his position as next CEC-designate to his proximity to the Gandhi family, which began during the notorious Emergency of 1975-77, when Congress president Sonia Gandhi was close to her brother-in-law Sanjay Gandhi, and joined some of his business ventures, as subsequently brought out by a commission of enquiry. While Mr. Chawla’s religious affiliations are not known, he owes much of his fame to authorship of two books on the Albanian nun, Teresa, whose so-called sainthood is subject of much controversy in the West as well as in India!

It is pertinent that in March 2005, just two months before his appointment as Election Commissioner, Mr. Chawla was bestowed the Mazzini Award by the Italian government. Ms. Sonia Gandhi, as is well-known, is an Italian-born Roman Catholic. Her son and Amethi MP, Rahul Gandhi, has studiously refused to answer questions regarding the nature of his citizenship (given the Roman law) and whether he also holds an Italian passport, a situation untenable in Indian law.

While Mr. Chawla’s appointment naturally created misgivings that he had a pro-Congress leaning, it became unacceptable once the media exposed that he had received undue favours from the Ashok Gehlot regime in Rajasthan, and that Congress MPs had made huge donations from MPLAD funds to a private trust owned by him and his wife.

It was in this backdrop that over 200 MPs of the NDA signed a memorandum requesting President Kalam to remove Mr. Chawla from office. Later, BJP leader Jaswant Singh filed a petition in the Supreme Court in May 2006, which it withdrew when CEC Gopalaswami filed an affidavit saying he had the power to remove any Member for substantial reasons. BJP then forwarded its petition to the CEC. The CEC’s power under Article 324(5) was affirmed by the Supreme Court in T.N. Seshan vs. Union of India (1995).

In his letter to President Pratibha Patil citing 12 instances of partisan behaviour by Mr. Chawla, one of the key issues pertains to the Order of the Leopold Award conferred by the Belgium Monarchy upon Ms. Sonia Gandhi. A controversy over the citation led to an opposition demand for disqualification of the Congress president, and Mr. Chawla roped in the Ministry of External Affairs to bail her out.

Sources say that the Commission deliberated for over five months, during which period the PM’s principal secretary T.K.A. Nair visited the Commission to plead that there was no case against Ms. Gandhi and that the PM had already examined the matter. Though the Commission finally decided to issue notice to Ms. Gandhi, Mr. S.Y. Qureshi reportedly changed his mind and felt the notice should not be served. Ms. Gandhi has since replied to the notice, but Mr. Chawla has failed to furnish his comments and hence the Commission has not finalized its views on the matter.

Precisely these stonewalling tricks were deployed by Mr. Chawla in the matter of the CEC’s show-cause notice on the BJP petition. He sought the opinion of the Union Law Ministry, which has now publicly taken the stand that the CEC does not have the authority to take suo motu action on such petitions. Yesterday (2 February), Law Minister Hansraj Bharadwaj went a step ahead and declared Mr. Chawla as CEC-designate (Mr. Gopalaswami retires on 20 April 2009).

Mr. Gopalaswami’s recommendation for removing Mr. Chawla for ‘‘partisanship’’ comes close to the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections because the latter submitted his reply to the charges only on December 10. The CEC then submitted his report to the President on 16 January 2009.

The CEC delayed seeking Mr. Chawla’s explanation for six months, sending the notice only on 21 July 2008, owing to differences with the latter over the timing of the Karnataka elections, which ended in May 2008. On 12 September 2008, Mr. Chawla wrote that he was seeking the Law Ministry’s opinion on whether the CEC had the power to make a suo motu inquiry against an Election Commissioner. After the Karnataka election, Mr. Chawla went on a month’s leave, and this further delayed matters.

Although Mr. Gopalaswami wrote back on 17 September that he had the power to take cognizance of BJP’s petition even without a reference from the government, the Law Ministry on 7 November opined that the CEC could not proceed without a reference from the government. But the CEC persisted and Mr. Chawla finally replied on 10 December 2008. Thereafter, Mr. Gopalaswami sent his report to the President on 12 January 2009. He might have refrained from making the matter public, but for the indiscretion of Mr. Qureshi.

Amongst the instances of Mr. Chawla’s “partisan” behaviour, the CEC has cited his role in deciding the poll dates for Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh in 2007, besides his unilateral and startling decision to consult the Ministry of External Affairs about the notice to Congress president Sonia Gandhi for accepting a Belgian honour.

The CEC has also raised questions about Mr. Chawla’s role in the BJP’s CD case and the Bhagalpur by-election. When the Commission was discussing dates for the Gujarat election, Mr. Gopalaswami supported the state chief electoral officer’s suggestion for a three-phase poll; Mr. Chawla disagreed. The Home Ministry made arrangements of central paramilitary forces for a three-phase poll.

The three-phase poll was still an internal decision of the EC when a senior Congress leader called the Commission and asked why it could not be a two-phase poll. The CEC reportedly mentioned the unavailability of forces, but the person said the Home Ministry would help. Within hours, Mr. Chawla informed the CEC that more forces would be made available for Gujarat! And within the next few hours, Home Ministry officials called the Commission and offered more forces. Gujarat finally had a two-phase election.

Mr. Chawla also differed on the timing of the Himachal Pradesh polls, and tried to delay finalizing his decision on some pretext or other. He repeated these tactics when the Commission was discussing the schedule for the UP election, and Congress learnt of the dates.

Notwithstanding the desirability of his removal, it is evident from the brazen approach of the Congress and UPA government that Mr. Chawla is not only going to stay for the duration of the Lok Sabha elections, but going to be elevated as Chief Election Commissioner thereafter. Commissioner Qureshi has already proved convenient to the UPA government.

In these circumstances, a parliamentary election conducted by these two officers will lack public confidence and credibility. Hence it would be in the fitness of things if all political parties decide to complete the election process by 20 April 2009, when all three Commissioners are in office. As the current Parliament's term ends in April, this would be appropriate.

As for the BJP – if Mr. L.K. Advani is serious about becoming Prime Minister and not just NDA’s candidate for PM – it should train its guns on the foreign origins of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. There can be no doubt that as in the coloured and failed revolutions in the former Soviet Republics, external forces are monitoring and mentoring the rise and rise of Ms. Sonia Gandhi, triggering one crisis after another to expose national and societal weakness, and make inroads in critical areas of the polity, economy, and society.

The nation has never been in such acute danger as at present. The US-led West seems determined to aggravate tensions in our part of the world, from a troop surge in Afghanistan to increased strikes in Pakistan, and it is still unclear whether Washington is ultimately going to opt for peace with Teheran, or war.

Either way, the West needs a compliant India. Moreover, Britain seems determined to carve out an independent Kashmir, and it will suit London to have the Gandhi family at the helm if this is to be executed. After all, Ms. Sonia Gandhi met Mr. Rajiv Gandhi in London, and Mr. Rahul Gandhi agreed to give Foreign Secretary David Miliband a conducted tour of India’s rural poverty despite his execrable remarks about Kashmir being the core issue between India and Pakistan.

Mr. Advani will have to decide if he wants to fight and win, or play second fiddle to the Kuru-Gandhis. The abiding lesson of the Mahabharata is that victory belongs to the one who shoots the eye of the fish – not to those who skirt around the tail.

The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

Biased Election Commissioner Navin Chawla must resign

Thanks to a honest Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, people of Bharat have been informed just in time before a supposed nexus between the Election Commissioner Navin Chawla and Congress would have completely destroyed a highly respected independent constitutional body like Election Commission. He made other important suggestions too, but corrupt Congress and Left aren't listening as Mr. Gopalaswami's voice is too rational to be able to shatter formers arrogance.

In an interview with NDTV (posted at the end of this post) Mr. Arun Jaitley proved that the recommendation by CEC is binding and how preposterous and counterproductive it is to EXPECT a Government of a ruling party A (Congress in the present case) to ask the Chief Election Commissioner, who works for an independent constitutional body like Election Commission, to make a recommendation to remove the very Election Commissioner who is alleged and proven to be bias and partisan in favor of the same Party A which is ruling the country. Kudos Mr. Jaitley! No wonder may be that's why the current Prime Minister did not ask the CEC to investigate the written complaints made by the BJP to the Government in 2006 and the latter had no choice but to go to the Supreme Court.

Here is an excellent article "Fireballs of unrest in the time of election" by V Krishna Ananth in Express Buzz that clears the air about the unjust doubts which the sellout media is raising about the fair recommendation by CEC on Navin Chawla's biasness and partisanship. It also talks about the true intentions of Congress as to why it is dragging its feet on the issue.

Here is Chief Election Commissioner Mr. N Gopalaswami himself giving explanation as to why it took so long, how most of the time was wasted in the back-and-forth correspondence with him and Chawla due to latter. Please read, "I could not have acted sooner: CEC" by Abraham Thomas, The Daily Pioneer.

Following are some excellent views of prospective and deserving next Prime Minister of Bharat, Mr. Lal Krishna Advani on biased and partisan Election Commissioner Mr. Navin Chawla (as recommended by CEC) and the possibility that he will not be sacked because of his closeness to Congress and his loyalty to the empress Antonia Maino.

Why CEC’s recommendation with regard to Navin Chawla must be accepted by Government

Excerpts:

In the post lunch chat we had that day, I posed a question to Benazir: “How is it” I asked her, “that though both India’s as well as Pakistan’s political leadership had imbibed a similar political culture under British rule, India had managed its democracy with remarkable success but in Pakistan democracy had been a total failure.” Benazir’s reply was succinct: “I attribute your country’s success to two factors: firstly, your Army is apolitical; and secondly, your Election Commission is constitutionally independent of the Executive.”

Benazir had rightly identified the two guarantees for Indian democracy. For the first of these ― the Indian Army never nurturing political ambitions of any kind ― the credit goes entirely to our armed forces and those who have led it since independence, while credit for the Election Commission’s independence must be given to the Constituent Assembly.

On behalf of the BJP, Party General Secretary, Shri Arun Jaitley has rightly argued that the word ‘recommendation’ used in the second proviso of Article 324(3) must be construed as a binding recommendation. Jaitley has drawn attention to Article 217 of the Constitution relating to appointment of High Court Judges where the appointment is to be “after consultation with the Chief Justice”, the Chief Justice’s views has always been regarded binding.

The Party therefore, feels that the Chief Election Commissioner’s recommendation with regard to Shri Navin Chawla must be forthwith accepted by Government.

Continuance of a biased and partisan Election Commissioner is detrimental to the very idea of free and fair elections. It goes against Bharatiya constitution, democratic morals, and ethics. But these are nothing but buzzwords for those who made this nation a laughing stock by changing the constitution just to save one person. In case you don't know what I am talking about, don't worry allot of people have already forgotten about the undemocratic Office of Profit Bill which was nothing but slap on the face of a republic. Mr. Advani very aptly quotes from a letter that 2006 Chief Election Commissioner Mr. BB Tandon wrote to then Rashtrapati Dr. Kalam,

In 2006, the then Chief Election Commissioner Shri B.B. Tandon, in a well-argued letter addressed to Rashtrapati Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, had pleaded with Government that just as in the case of the Central Vigilance Commission and the National Human Rights Commission, the appointments are made not by the Executive but by Committees in which the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Leaders of Opposition in Parliament are also included, in case of the Election Commission also, a similar Committee should be authorized to do so. Shri Tandon concludes his letter to Dr. Kalam with the observation:

“This approach would not only be in keeping with the spirit and sentiment flowing from the debates in the Constituent Assembly but also further strengthen the faith of the people of our great democracy in the continued impartiality, neutrality and credibility of the Election Commission.”

Yes, every thing should be done to strengthen the faith of the people that Election Commission is impartial, neutral and credible. But is Congress led UPA Government listening? I guess not.

And for those pessimists questioning the timing of CEC's recommendation, here is your answer that 'CEC had told Chawla a year ago that he should be removed'.

Watch below how Mr. Arun Jaitley proves that the recommendation by CEC is binding and how preposterous and counterproductive it is to EXPECT a Government of a ruling party A (Congress in the present case) to ask the Chief Election Commissioner, who works for an independent constitutional body like Election Commission, to make a recommendation to remove the very Election Commissioner who is alleged and proven to be bias and partisan in favor of the same Party A which is ruling the country. Kudos Mr. Jaitley! No wonder may be that's why the current Prime Minister did not ask the CEC to investigate the written complaints made by the BJP to the Government in 2006 and the latter had no choice but to go to the Supreme Court.

Caution: Following video contains a news report from a news channel which has recently being reported as a gagger of the freedom of speech and may also have an Anti-Hindu biased viewpoint like some other channels, viewer discretion is advised.

Election Commissioner Gopalaswami blames Navin Chawla of bias

CEC recommends removal of Navin Chawla

The Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami has recommended to the government removal of the other Election Commissioner Navin Chawla. The BJP had alleged that Chawla was close to the Congress party.

Until now, it was known only in a hush-hush way through the newspapers that in addition to other respectable high posts like President, Vice-President and PM, even the supposedly unbiased nonpartisan post of Election Commissioner has been devalued under despot Antonia Maino's dispensation. Navin Chawla was accused to be working under her majesty's orders. But the cat is now out of the bag. It would have gotten worse when an outgoing Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) would have been silently replaced by the controversial Navin Chawla but the matter is now in the public domain and open for public scrutiny.

The recommendation comes about three months before Gopalaswami is to demit office on April 20 and is based on a petition by the BJP which had complained against the "partisan" functioning of Chawla.

In 2006, leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha L K Advani and 204 MPs had submitted a petition to then President APJ Abdul Kalam seeking the removal of Chawla as Election Commissioner on the ground of alleged partisanship. The main opposition party also took the matter to the Supreme Court.

Gopalaswami in his affidavit to the apex court had claimed that the CEC had suo motu power to recommend the removal of an Election Commissioner. Following which the BJP withdrew its petition in the apex court and again took up the issue with the CEC.

Government had maintained in the Supreme Court that the CEC had no suo motu power power to remove an Election Commissioner.

It seems Gopalaswami doesn't trust Chawla and the other commissioner to perform their duties in an unbiased and nonpartisan way.

Gopalaswami is understood to be of the view that Chawla and the other Election Commissioner S Y Qurashi could get together and ensure that the Lok Sabha elections could very well start after April 20 once he is out of the Commission.

Looks like history is repeating itself.

This is for the second time that removal of an Election Commissioner is coming up before the poll panel. In 1990, soon after the National Front government came to power, it removed two Commissioners appointed by the Rajiv Gandhi government by reducing the number of Commissioners from the three-member Commission just before the 1998 polls.

BJP demands firm action on CEC's recommendation on Chawla

Political detachment has never been Chawla’s virtue: Jaitely

President should sack Chawla: BJP

CEC's recommendation binding on government: Jaitley

CEC recommends removal of Navin Chawla

We feel vindicated, says BJP over CEC's action on Chawla

Welcoming Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami's recommendation for the removal of his colleague Navin Chawla, BJP on Saturday said the move would strengthen the autonomy and impartial nature of the poll panel.

"More than 200 MPs petitioned the President seeking the removal of Chawla as Election Commissioner. The Congress- led government did not act on that. We hope the President would at least act now," senior BJP Leader M Venkaiah Naidu told reporters in Hyderabad.

I will not resign, says Navin Chawla. Of course, laaj jaye par kursi na jaye!