THE TALE OF INDIAN INSTITUTIONS
Directorate has summoned the CM’S brother in an old case, appears to be a visible pressure tactic.
To be sure, any case or alleged wrong-doing merits investigations — but the timing of the moves on the part of both the Centre and the Rajasthan government against political adversaries is probably not just a coincidence. The story is not that parties are doing this; the story is that investigative institutions are happy to play along.
The second is the role of the Speaker. In Rajasthan, the Speaker happens to be from the Congress. This probably explains why he has been willing to initiate disqualification proceedings against rebel legislators with speed. One can argue that when a party writes to the Speaker about its legislators, any Speaker would follow due process and do that. This is true. But think of a counterfactual. If the BJP was to initiate disqualification proceedings against members of its party who were moving to the Congress, would the Speaker have acted with the same sense of urgency? Or go back to other cases, most prominently Karnataka, where a friendly Speaker sought to take decisions that would give the Congress-janata Dal (Secular) government more room, or Manipur, where a Speaker who was elected on the BJP ticket, appeared to take decisions that helped the N Biren Singh government survive.
There is clearly a larger pattern here — which indicates that the office of the presiding officer of any legislature is often not the independent institution, above party loyalties, that it is meant to be. Past political allegiances of the Speaker play a key role in determining decisions.
The third institution is the office of the governor. In Rajasthan, Governor Kalraj Mishra has now agreed to convene the assembly on August 14, but this has come after a prolonged process of back and forth between the state government and the governor. Gehlot wanted a session from July 31 itself; the governor asked for a set of clarifications about the agenda of the session, suggested a 21-day notice period to convene the assembly; and asked about the social distancing protocols to be put in place — issues that did not necessarily fall within his mandate.
The first principles here are quite simple. Both the Constitution, and a series of Supreme Court (SC) judgments, has allowed the executive the right to ask for a session of the legislature. done so with greater gravitas, he might have sounded more adult and less adolescent. He wanted to expose the PM but ended up exposing himself.
The other example is very different. It’s a case of being torn between wanting to say something and not upsetting those who are its target. It’s what I call falling between two stools. Let me explain.
It’s said economist Rathin Roy resigned as director of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy because of differences with the government. An article he wrote for the
after Nirmala Sitharaman’s July budget of 2019, suggesting her revenue and expenditure figures were misleading, reportedly annoyed the finance ministry. Perhaps this is why he was dropped from the PM’S Economic Advisory Council when it was reconstituted last September. It’s also whispered he’s been told not to speak to newspapers and television channels critical of the government. But when questioned about this in a recent interview, Rathin Roy was caught between confirming the reports and not upsetting the government.
Asked whether his article had annoyed the government he first said: “If your question is were some people unhappy the answer is unquestionably yes.” But when questioned who had told him off, second thoughts got the better of him. “Maybe I don’t even know. I don’t know the precise quarter where that came from. What I heard I heard from hearsay.”
He answered with similar ambivalence when asked if he’d been told not to speak to certain media outlets: “It was conveyed to me sometimes that the particular outfit I spoke to was not one which would gather me many affirmative laurels in government.”
In both instances, the intention was to say yes but the message conveyed was confusion. A few might have understood Rathin Roy’s dilemma but many probably felt he doesn’t know what he wants to say.
So, now, do you get my point? When you speak in public you need to be sure of not just what you’re saying but also of how to say it. Otherwise, your message might not get the response you hope for. of natural resources, applying scientific knowledge in service of a tangible vision: A planet that is healthy and inhabitable for future generations.
The innovators from Africa focus on a vision of high-quality education for all children and universal access to adequate nutrition, health care, and clean water.
While these are just some examples, overall, two trends are evident. First, the recognition that we, collectively, need to do things differently, and that this will take some serious analysis and imagination. Second, though local and regional priorities may differ, our problems are interconnected, globally. So, too, should our solutions be.
Innovating for social impact is a worldwide project that requires localised knowledge as well as collaboration that spans sectors, boundaries, and borders.
We must reach across the barriers we have built for ourselves and ask each other: What futures do we want to build, and how can we create them, together?
SPACEMEN DRIVE TO BASE OF MOON'S TALLEST MOUNTAINS
Apollo-15's excited explorers drove their moon busy to the base of the moon's tallest mountains today and collected rocks and soil samples that might date back to the beginning of the solar system.
AUGUST 2:
The governor, in the case of state assemblies, or the President of India, in the case of Parliament, has limited discretionary room in this regard. It is also both an established custom, and good form, for any government to seek to prove its majority in the house — when there are doubts about its stability. The governor’s rejection of the government’s first three proposals gave rise to suspicions about whether Mishra — who has served as an important leader of the BJP — was seeking to give the Opposition and rebel legislators more time to rally their numbers. But this goes beyond Mishra. In Karnataka or Manipur, the fact that former BJP leaders are governors has helped the party in its political goals. And in the past, when the Congress has been in power, governors appointed by the party have acted in a similar way.
The story once again is not of one governor or the other. But it is about how a constitutional institution, meant to be non-partisan, has often acted in partisan ways, and in contravention of the spirit — if not the letter — of the Constitution. The fact that it is now almost a given that governors will behave in ways that suit their former parties is disturbing.
The fourth institution is the judiciary. In Rajasthan, the high court stepped in and effectively stopped the Speaker from initiating disqualification proceedings against the rebel legislators of the Congress. The usual judicial precedent, on such cases, so far, is respecting the autonomy of the legislative domain and of the Speaker, and reviewing decisions after they have been taken in case of a legal challenge. Once again, this goes beyond the state. In Karnataka, the SC, by allowing rebel legislators not to follow the party whip by saying they could not be compelled to participate in proceedings, weakened the Speaker’s authority — with major political implications.
The judiciary deserves, and has, the utmost respect of all Indian citizens, including political actors who often take their battles to the courts. It is the failure of the political class to be able to preserve the autonomy of the legislature that invites judicial intervention in the first place. But once it has been asked to intervene, it is important for the courts to act consistently, based on established doctrine and principles. Otherwise, decisions can end up generating controversies and suspicions which unnecessarily undermine its dignity.
Governments come and go. Political parties rise and fall. But the Constitution — and its vision of independent institutions — is permanent, and ensures both stability and legitimacy of the political system. The story of the erosion of institutional autonomy can, thus, erode both the stability and legitimacy of the system.
WHEN YOU SPEAK IN PUBLIC, YOU MUST BE SURE OF
NOT JUST WHAT YOU’RE SAYING BUT ALSO OF HOW TO SAY IT. OTHERWISE,
YOU MIGHT NOT GET THE RESPONSE YOU HOPE FOR