Thursday, December 25, 2025

Is Yogi Adityanath BJP’s master card for 2019?

By
Mudit Mathur
-

22045828_720096041533074_7726638672169828482_nThe saffron-clad head priest of Gorakhnath Mutt and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, has emerged as a champion of “Hindutva” across the country. The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh(RSS), has excessively trusted his art of master oratory and exceptional potential of influencing targeted Hindu masses in the electioneering of other states.

Now, the BJP seems to be using Yogi as its ‘Brahmastra’ in the run-up to the 2019 general election, making sure the high profile star campaigner is deployed to places where even the party’s chief orator, PM Narendra Modi, is failing to make his presence count.

Campaigning for BJP in Gujarat, Himachal, Telangana, Tripura and recently held Karnataka elections, Yogi delivered dividends to the utmost satisfaction of BJP’s top strategists who identified pockets where the clout of his religious ‘Nath sect’ following have to be galvanised into its fold. Being head priest of the Gorakhpur-based Gorakhnath temple, named after Guru Goraksh Nāth, famous all over India as a distinguished saint of Nath sect, Yogi is the most sought BJP chief minister for election rallies out of 22 BJP ruled states. In contrast, other BJP chief ministers have been hardly visible in election campaigns or had very little role assigned to them.

Most of Yogi’s election speeches include a soft hint of Hindutva ideology. Here is the excerpt of his speech that he delivered in Karnataka, “While Ram was born in Uttar Pradesh he found his most trusted loyalist ‘Hanuman’ in Karnataka,” By blending the Ram and Karnataka elements, he attempted to make direct connections with the masses. “By mentioning religion and talking of our great ancient heritage, he tried to bridge the geographical and linguistic divide between North and South (Karnataka),” explained his media adviser, Mrityunjay Kumar, who accompanied him during his trail. Campaigning at the communally sensitive Murdeshwar and Kumta towns of the coastal district Uttara Kannada, he targeted Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah for protecting ‘Jihadis’ in his rhetoric to polarise voters.

BJP skillfully used his religious metaphor throughout the campaign that had stopovers at various temples and mutts, many of which were connected with the CM’s Nath sect. The party methodically organised his public meetings in coastal areas of the State that was the stronghold of Congress and Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah.“Karnataka’s influential Lingayat and Vokkaligas communities have great faith in these mutts which is the reason why the BJP roped in Yogi for Karnataka poll campaign,” said political analyst professor Harshvardhan.

The reflections of the upcoming 2019 parliamentary elections are quite visible behind the series of actions aimed at giving political impetus to the BJP’s strategy to revoke the ‘Ram Temple’ issue once again. Meanwhile, the party is calculating its moves while it awaits the Supreme Court of India’s judgement on the Ayodhya title suits. BJP plans to use it in a big way once again to give momentum to the sidelined Ram Temple movement. This time Sabka Sath Sabka Vikas (Collective efforts, Inclusive Growth) could not be a hit slogan as on performance front people seem to be unsatisfied and small and medium traders, farmers, labours and working classes have been facing undue hardships,” said businessman Vimal Gupta, who had been a strong supporter of BJP. He hoped that this time only Ram can save us (Ab Ramji karege beda paar). He feels, “The alliance between Samajwadi and Bahujan Samaj Party could adversely jeopardise BJP prospects to come back to power.” That is why BJP must realign its strategy to focus on the core agenda of “Hindutva” that flourished its prospects to power in 22 states.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath are working together in a coherent manner to compliment and supplement each other by acting on a well-scripted plan. PM Modi landed in Janakpur, revered as the birthplace of Sita, and along with Nepal Prime Minister KP Oli and inaugurated a direct bus service between Janakpur and Ayodhya as part of a ‘Ramayan Circuit’ to promote religious tourism. He also extended a Rs 1 billion aid to Nepal to develop Sita’s birthplace, Janakpur.

Having come back from Karnataka after a hectic campaigning schedule, an untiring Yogi Adityanath readily reached Ayodhya to welcome 66 passengers from Nepal by the new bus service. They were given warm welcome on the banks of the river Saryu.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) organises a ‘Ram Barat’ (marriage procession) from Ayodhya to Nepal every year to recreate the route taken by Ram to Janakpur, where Sita won him as her husband, according to the “Ramayana”.
By taking an active interest in the development of Ayodhya, the Chief Minister Adityanath has only reiterated BJP’s commitment to building Ram temple. A BJP leader said the bus service would not just help in cementing the bond between Nepal and India, but also restate the party’s commitment to Hindutva. A RSS leader on condition of anonymity said the narrative is likely to grow further as 2019 nears.

“Yogi is a blend of religion and politics. His twin designations as the head priest of Gorakhnath temple and that of UP CM are handy in convincing the masses that Hindutva and development are one,” said Chandramohan, a BJP leader with the RSS background.

RSS ideologues and a larger circle in BJP strongly feel that as a measure of last resort, Yogi Adityanath will be the best bet who can carry forward the baton of Hindutva in the upcoming assemblies and parliamentary elections in 2019, especially with ‘Modi Magic’

diminishing compared to his peak of popularity in 2014. “It would not be surprising if Yogi, having a clean image and mounting following among his ranks and file, could emerge an alternative choice of the mentors for the top leadership,” commented a party functionary.

letters@tehelka.com

UP eyes foreign investors for Kumbh Mela 2019

By
Kulsum Mustafa
-

Highly enthused with the success of its national investors summit organised in Lucknow earlier this year, the government is all set to lure in global investors to the state. Part of this ambitious plan is also to unfold and promote the government’s Hindutva flagship project, Ardh Kumbh Mela, on foreign land, presently slated to be held at Allahabad from January 15 to March 4, 2019. The UP team ensured that they used this project to promote Ardh Kumbh Mela as both tourism and spiritual opportunity, especially to the NRIs.
INDIA HINDU FESTIVAL

A high-level government delegation led by Siddharth Nath Singh, State Health Minister visited the US earlier this month. Singh informed the press that some major companies in the health, Information Technology, defence, are ready to invest in Uttar Pradesh in a huge manner. He said that the US is just the beginning; the state government delegation will be planning trips to Europe, Korea and other countries to invite investment in the state.

Happy with the ‘positive feedback’ from the US, Singh said that they were told by the US representatives that “never before Uttar Pradesh was represented in such a planned, structured way.” The minister said that he is confident that Indo-US strategic partnership, with special reference to Uttar Pradesh, is in an expansion mode. Singh said that the representation was able to stress the great hidden potential of UP. He said Uttar Pradesh is the backbone of the country and its progress will have an overall effect on the prosperity of the country and also on the foreign investments.

The minister said that several international companies including Boeing, Lockheed Martin have shown interest to invest in the UP government’s ambitious defence corridor project. The 20,000 crore defence corridor covering 3,000-hectare land will run through Aligarh to Chitrakoot via Kanpur, Lucknow and Jhansi.

He said that the government will also be speaking to the Indian partners like Jet, Tatas and Mahindra. It may be pointed out here that the state government is finalising the UP Defence and Aerospace Manufacturing Policy 2018. In IT sector, they met giants like Oracle, Intel, Sisko who have shown interest in investing in Noida, Uttar Pradesh’s IT city.

Appreciating the US’s focus on ‘preventable’ strategies in the health sector, Singh said that as health minister he is all up for this model and UP will collaborate on JE prevention strategies study with Stanford University.

The minister also talked about low-cost technology developed by Indian diaspora in the US that will be deployed in place of MRI procedure. Initially, this technology will be used in the trauma centre.

The major collaborations are going to be in the Indian aviation industry which is increasing by 15 percent and as many new airports are coming up but there is still no Maintenance and Repair Overhaul (MRO) units for repair of aircrafts in India and aircrafts are being sent to Sri Lanka for this. After this agreement, MRO units will be set up in Meerut in Uttar Pradesh.

The e-marketing giant Amazon which is promoting khadi may soon tie up with the state government to help promote the concept of ‘One District, One Product (ODOP)’ through this. This said the minister will bring nearly five crore artisans on a single global platform.

Another important area of collaboration will be on traffic decongestion. Here the university has shown interest too and public health services.

letters@tehelka.com

Supreme Court: Government must discard ‘let the court decide’ attitude

By
Charanjit Ahuja
-

Suprem Court by Shailendra (14)While dismissing the appeal of Government of India in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Pirthwi Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. of 2018 arising out of Diary No. 8754 of 2018 Date of Judgment : April 24, 2018), the Supreme Court has imposed cost of 1,00,000 on the Government. The Judgment says that after dismissal of the batch of appeals, the Union of India filed yet another appeal on the same subject being Civil Appeal No. (blank) of 2018 (Diary No. 4893 of 2018) entitled Union of India & Ors. v. Ex. Nk.

Balbir Singh. That appeal came up for consideration before the Supreme Court on March 9, 2018, and was dismissed following the decision in Balbir Singh Turn. While dismissing the appeal, it was noted that it was filed well after several similar matters were dismissed by this Court.

The Supreme Court observed that conduct of the Union of India in filing Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions after the issue is concluded by this Court was not appreciated. It was noted that the Union of India must take full responsibility for unnecessarily adding to the burden of the justice delivery system.

Indictment

To ensure that the Union of India is far more circumspect, costs of 1,00,000 were imposed and it was observed that the Union of India must shape up its litigation policy. Unfortunately, the Union of India has learnt no lesson and has continued its non-cooperative attitude.

The Apex Court in its Judgment said that the present appeal was filed on March 8, 2018, which is also well after the decision in Balbir Singh Turn. “We would have expected that with the dismissal of the appeal relating to Balbir Singh Turn, the Union of India would take steps to withdraw this appeal from the Registry of this Court so that it is not even listed and there is no unnecessary burden on the judges.” But obviously, the Union of India has no such concern and did not withdraw its appeal from the Registry itself.

Adding to Court burden

“The Union of India must appreciate that by pursuing frivolous or infructuous cases, it is adding to the burden of this Court and collaterally harming other litigants by delaying hearing of their cases through the sheer volume of numbers. If the Union of India cares little for the justice delivery system, it should at least display some concern for litigants, many of whom have to spend a small fortune in litigating in the Supreme Court.”

The Apex Court observed that on June 23, 2010, the Union of India released the ‘National Legal Mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years’ and this document is called ‘National Litigation Policy’.

The National Litigation Policy is based on the recognition that Government and its various agencies are the pre-dominant litigants in courts and tribunals in the country. Its aim is to transform Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. This policy is also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of citizens, to respect fundamental rights and those in charge of the conduct of Government litigation should never forget this basic principle.

The efficient litigant means “focusing on the core issues involved in the litigation and addressing them squarely. Managing and conducting litigation in a cohesive, coordinated and time-bound manner. Ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are not needlessly persevered with. A litigant who is represented by competent and sensitive legal persons: competent in their skills and sensitive to the facts that Government is not an ordinary litigant and that litigation does not have to be won at any cost.”

The responsible litigant means that litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating. That false pleas and technical points will not be taken and shall be discouraged, ensuring that the correct facts and all relevant documents will be placed before the court. That nothing will be suppressed from the court and there will be no attempt to mislead any court or Tribunal. Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded.

The easy approach, “Let the court decide,” must be eschewed and condemned. The purpose underlying this policy is also to reduce Government litigation in courts so that valuable court time would be spent in resolving other pending cases so as to achieve the goal in the National Legal Mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years. Litigators on behalf of Government have to keep in mind the principles incorporated in the National mission for judicial reforms which includes identifying bottlenecks which the Government and its agencies may be concerned with and also removing unnecessary Government cases. Prioritization in litigation has to be achieved with particular emphasis on welfare legislation, social reform, weaker sections and senior citizens and other categories requiring assistance must be given utmost priority.”

Lack of concern

The Apex Court observed:“None of the pious platitudes in the National Litigation Policy have been followed indicating not only the Union of India’s lack of concern for the justice delivery system but scant regard for its own National Litigation Policy. The website of the Department of Justice shows that “the National Litigation Policy, 2010 is being reviewed and formulation of the National Litigation Policy, 2015 is under consideration. When this will be finalised is anybody’s guess… There is also an action plan to reduce Government Litigation which was formulated on June 13, 2017. Nothing has been finalised by the Union of India for the last almost about eight years and under the garb of ease of doing business, the judiciary is being asked to reform. The boot is really on the other leg. “

Interestingly, the Action Plan mentions, among others, two interesting steps to reduce pendency: (i) Avoid unnecessary filing of appeals — appeals should not be filed in routine matters — only in cases where there is a substantial policy matter. (ii) Vexatious litigation should be immediately withdrawn. These pendency reduction steps (particularly (ii) above) have been conveniently overlooked as far as this appeal is concerned.

Financial liability

To make matters worse, in this appeal, the Union of India engaged 10 lawyers, including an Additional Solicitor General and a senior advocate. This is as per the appearance slip submitted to the Registry of this Court. In other words, the Union of India created a huge financial liability by engaging so many lawyers for an appeal whose fate could easily be imagined on the basis of existing orders of dismissal in similar cases. Yet the Union of India increased its liability, asking the taxpayers to bear an avoidable financial burden.

The real question is: When will the Rip Van Winkleism stop and Union of India wake up to its duties and responsibilities to the justice delivery system? To say the least, this is an extremely unfortunate situation of unnecessary and avoidable burdening of this Court through frivolous litigation that calls for yet another reminder through the imposition of costs on the Union of India while dismissing the appeal. Do we hope that someday some sense, if not better sense, will prevail on the Union of India with regard to the formulation of a realistic and meaningful.

The judgment is an indictment of Union of India for pursuing frivolous or infructuous cases adding to the burden of the top Court and collaterally harming other litigants by delaying hearing of their cases through the numbers or sheer volume. If the Union of India cares little for the justice delivery system, it should at least display some concern for litigants, many of whom have to spend a small fortune in litigating in the Supreme Court.

The Union of India that engaged 10 lawyers, including an Additional Solicitor General and a senior advocate created a huge financial liability by engaging so many lawyers for an appeal whose fate can be easily imagined on the basis of existing orders of dismissal in similar cases. The moot question like the Shakespearean “to be or not to be” is when will the Government wake up to its duties and responsibilities to the justice delivery system?

letters@tehelka.com

SC collegium controversy refuses to fizzle out

By
Vipin Pubby
-

158116We have a situation now in which finger of suspicion is being pointed out against the Chief Justice of India himself, where his four senior-most brother judges held a press conference to speak out against his way of functioning and where charges of corruption have been levelled against a few sitting and retired high court judges.

And even as there appears to be an internal rift within the higher judiciary, it is also at daggers drawn with the government of the day. In what is an unprecedented development, the government has returned the proposal of the collegium to appoint Justice K M Joseph, Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court, as a Supreme Court judge.

The government not only returned the recommendation, it sought to underline its opposition to his appointment by accepting the recommendation for appointment of a senior lady Advocate as judge of the Supreme Court. It had perhaps never happened in the past that the government had accepted only a part of the proposals from Supreme Court collegium.

The grounds on which it did are also significant. The common belief, and very obvious to everyone concerned, was that Justice Joseph had ruled against the imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand in 2016 leading to restoration of the Congress government in the state. The decision came on the eve of the Assembly elections in that state and was a setback for the BJP at the Centre as well as the State. Although in the subsequent Assembly elections, BJP won with a thumping majority but apparently it had not forgotten the slight it received at the hands of Justice Joseph.

A spokesman of the BJP, pooh-poohing this as the cause of objecting to Justice Joseph’s appointment, asserted that Justice Joseph’s judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court where the then Judge J S Khehar too had endorsed the judgment of Justice Joseph and still he was elevated to the position of the Chief Justice of India. The argument, however, has few takers as not elevating Khehar could have led to several other questions and controversies.

One of the reasons given by the union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, which has the approval of the Hon’ble President and the Hon’ble Prime Minister, was that Justice Joseph ranked 42nd in seniority among all high court judges in the country. He, however, conveniently forgot that Justice Joseph was way ahead of other high court chief justices in the matter of seniority. In fact, the next Chief Justice of any high court in the country has lesser experience as Chief Justice by about two years as compared to Justice Joseph.

The law minister, in his communication to the CJI, also mentioned that the High Court of Kerala, to which Justice Joseph belongs, has “adequate representation in the Supreme Court”. By this, he meant that there was already another judge from the Kerala High Court while several states remained unrepresented in the apex court. This too was a fallacious argument as it is not for the Centre to decide on representation to different regions and such appointments have to be done purely on merit. Besides, there are several high courts such as Delhi and Mumbai which are much smaller but have contributed more judges to the Supreme Court. He further sought to make his point that “there is no representation of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes communities in the Supreme Court since long.”

Again what the law minister forgot was that appointments to the high court have to be made purely on merit and decided by the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice of India. Besides, there are seven other vacancies and the names of judges to be elevated are yet to be recommended. The issue has not yet been resolved and all those concerned for the hard-earned democracy in the country would hope and pray that the crisis is resolved at the earliest.

Unfortunately, the BJP government at the Centre appears to have arraigned itself against the SC’s stand and is sitting tight over more than 60 vacancies of high court judges.

Former Chief Justice of India Justice R S Thakur broke down in public over the government not clearing so many appointments which had led to piling up of about a crore cases in higher judiciary.

Similarly, the Congress has not covered itself with glory while dealing with the judiciary. Its Ill-advised move to impeach the Chief Justice of India, which was thankfully rejected by Rajya Sabha chairman, has done much harm to the institution. The Congress knew well that impeachment is a complicated process and it does not have the strength to win the motion. Several of its own stalwarts including former prime minister Manmohan Singh and at least two former Union law ministers from the party disassociated themselves with the move to impeach the CJI. It even moved the Supreme Court itself against the rejection of its motion. The party’s stand was quite unnecessary and uncalled for. The latest reports, thankfully, indicate that the party has let the issue die down and may not pursue it.
Members of the Constituent Assembly, who drafted the constitution, deliberately set up a tough procedure for an impeachment. For any impeachment to take place, a three-fourths majority of Parliamentarians must vote in favour of the motion and there should be proven evidence of misbehaviour or corruption against the judge in question. He is also given the right to present his case in Parliament. No wonder no judge has ever been impeached since the independence.

The current CJI Dipak Misra is set to retire after a few months and an impeachment motion against him can’t even reach the preliminary stage. In any case, he is not escalating the issue. Whatever the charges against him, he has not spoken against his brother judges and has not come out in the public like them. He has, in fact, endorsed their proposal to resend the name of Justice Joseph for elevation.

The situation has perplexed the people and particularly the three crore litigants whose cases have been pending in the carious courts, particularly in subordinate judiciary, since long. The current imbroglio has certainly dented the image of the judiciary which is the last hope for the common man. It would be in the interest of all concerned, and most importantly of the democracy, that interference in each other’s domain should be strictly avoided by the constitutional institutions of democracy.

While it is given that there would be pulls and pressures from the three pillars of democracy with each trying to have a greater say, the maturity of the nation would be reflected in the three coming together to resolve issues in a more objective and sensible manner.

letters@tehelka.com

Unilateral truce offers a bleak hope in Kashmir

By
Riyaz Wani
-

25On April 9, the mainstream parties in J&K went into a huddle to deliberate about the worsening situation in the state. At the end of it, the Chief Minister, Mehbooba Mufti, called on them to announce a unilateral ceasefire in the state for a peaceful upcoming month of Ramadhan and two-month-long Amarnath Yatra. The participants in the meeting, also, suggested a meeting of all-party delegation with the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, to urge him to review his government’s iron-fist policy on the state and announce a political initiative geared to resolve the deeply troubled situation in the state.

“The parties also suggested that the Centre offer the ceasefire as former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had done in November 2000,” Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti told the reporters after the meeting of all regional parties at Sher-i-Kashmir International Convention Centre. Standing by her side was the senior BJP leader and the Deputy Chief Minister, Kavinder Gupta.

Three days before the meeting, ten people comprising five civilians and five militants were killed in South Kashmir, in what was the second bloody Sunday in less than a month. Among the slain militants was the assistant professor from Kashmir University, Mohammad Rafi Bhat, who had taken up arms just two days ago.

Earlier on April 2, also a Sunday, twenty people comprising thirteen militants, four security personnel and three civilians were killed.

Another development that occasioned the rare CM-led meeting was the killing of a tourist from Chennai in a stone pelting incident.

Incidentally, the meeting was held ten days before the scheduled visit to the state by the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, on May 19, to inaugurate a few development projects and participate in a university convocation. So, the all-party meeting is understood to have the centre’s blessing too.

Will the PM, thus, announce a Kashmir truce? There is every chance that he might, even though his party in the state has gone back on such a demand. But, if a ceasefire announcement does come along, after all, the trigger for it would not be the recommendation by the all-party meeting or its opposition by the BJP, but, the deterioration in the state’s situation despite the centre’s hardline approach towards the militancy in the state in past four years.

The figures for the past 40 days reveal a grim state of affairs: Seventy people, including 28 civilians and a tourist have died.

What is more? The situation looks poised for a fresh turmoil. Militancy, which this hardline approach sought to curb is growing from strength to strength, despite an ever-increasing number of the killings of the militants. More local recruitment is taking place complemented by the infiltration from across the border. So despite killings, their depleted numbers of the militants are replenished sooner than later. In the past four months alone, around 40 local youth have joined militancy.

In 2017 alone, security forces had killed 218 out of 282 militants — the highest number in last seven years — but by the beginning of 2018, there were still 230 militants left. Around 117 local youth had taken up the gun last year.

So, it is a dead-end scenario in Kashmir as neither the security forces are in a position to completely wipe out the militancy nor the militants can hope to win the battle, a fact also acknowledged by the Army Chief, General Rawat, in an interview. He said he doesn’t attach much importance to the killings of the militants as “there are fresh recruitments happening.”

But, would a unilateral ceasefire make any difference? It wouldn’t except for the fact that it would help New Delhi to once again humanise its approach to the state — albeit it might have already been too late for it. Moderate Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has already termed the call for a truce a “farce”.

“The all-party meeting of the pro-India parties convened by Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti is nothing more than a farce to mislead people into believing that they are serious about addressing the prevailing oppressive situation in the state,” Mirwaiz said in a statement.

Another reason for an apparent pointlessness of such a ceasefire would be the less time in power remaining for the Modi-led government in New Delhi. As a result, there won’t be enough time for any reconciliatory process to reach its logical conclusion.

Similarly, there won’t be time enough for a dialogue with Pakistan. With both the countries looking forward to their respective national elections — Pakistan in 2018 and India in 2019 — it looks unlikely that there will be substantive efforts to engage each other. The window is thus fast closing. Pakistan is already in an election mode circumscribing the chance and the space for talks with India. And, by later this year, the government in New Delhi will have an eye on the 2019 polls, dissuading it from a troubled engagement with its neighbour. Or for that matter with Kashmiri dissident groups. The period thus will hardly be conducive for a purposeful dialogue.

There is still the space for substituting the hardline policy on Kashmir with a benign and understanding approach. An announcement of truce can be supplemented by Confidence Building Measures like a political outreach and the release of political prisoners. Ending the use of the lethal riot control gear like non-lethal weapons would also send right signals.

This could go some way to address the deepening alienation in the state and nuance the public perception that the Modi government is compulsively antagonistic towards Kashmir. As the situation stands, there are fewer takers in Kashmir that the centre would even be ready to soften its hardline policy, let alone embark on a dialogue process.

“Is centre changing tack on Kashmir? Looks like it is. But not quite. The signacenterm New Delhi are still ambivalent,” an editorial in a local daily said. “One hopes that PM Modi, for once, doesn’t talk only about the development on his visit to the state but offers a credible political process. Only such a process can be hoped to make a positive difference. There is no other option.”

letters@tehelka.com

Karnataka polls: Modi magic helps BJP emerge as largest party

By
Anil Sinha
-

The BJP — which emerged as the single largest party in the Karnataka Assembly polls but fell eight seats short of a majority — finally managed to make its candidate BS Yeddyurappa chief minister on May 17. After a high-voltage legal battle in the Supreme Court over the issue, Yeddyurappa was sworn in as the chief minister of Karnataka for second time. The 75-year-old Lingayat strongman has been given 15 days to prove his majority in the Assembly.

KPN Photo

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court had refused to stay Yeddyurappa’s swearing-in as Karnataka CM after a rare pre-dawn hearing which saw the Congress-JD (S) combine making a last-ditch attempt to stall the saffron party’s surge in the southern state. The apex court, which commenced the hearing at 2.11 am and ended at 5.28 am, however, made it clear that the swearing-in and the government formation in the state would be subject to the final outcome of the case before it.

The whole political drama of forming the government had begun soon after the results were out on May 15. While the Congress had backed third-placed rival JD(S) for a post-poll alliance in bid to keep the saffron party out of power, Yeddyurappa had also staked claim to form the government.

Not everyone was happy with the Yeddyurappa’s oath ceremony. Senior lawyer and jurist Ram Jethmalani moved the Supreme Court in his personal capacity against the Karnataka governor’s decision to invite the BJP to form government in the state, saying it was a “gross abuse of constitutional power”.

Accusing the BJP and the RSS of capturing every democratic institution in country, Congress president Rahul Gandhi has lashed out at the BJP-led government at the Centre, saying Constitution was under “severe attack” in the country where an atmosphere of fear prevailed. Puducherry Chief Minister V Narayanasamy has also slammed the Karnataka Governor’s invite to Yeddyurappa to form the government, saying the state now “witnesses murder of democracy”. The senior Congress leader said Vala’s action was not correct particularly when the Congress-JDS combine had the numerical strength required to form the government.

The BJP bagged 104 seats, a gain of 64 , while the Congress notched 78, a loss of 44 seats, though its vote share was nearly two percentage points more than the saffron party. The JD(S) secured 37 seats, down by three from its previous tally. In terms of vote share Congress secured 38 percent compared to rival BJP’s 36.2 percent.

In a roller-coaster ride for BJP, it initially appeared that the party was set to return to power after a five-year hiatus with a resounding majority. However, at the end of counting of votes it came tantalisingly close to 112 needed to form the government. “I thank my sisters and brothers of Karnataka for steadfastly supporting the BJP’s development agenda and making BJP the single largest party in the state. I salute the stupendous work of BJP karyaakartas (workers) who toiled round the clock and worked for the party,” tweeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi who was the main campaigner and the face of BJP in the assembly elections.

The Congress was confident of defeating the anti-incumbency with its social engineering and emotional regional appeal. Results show that the party overrated Chief Minister Siddarmaiah’s capability and almost gave him a free hand in choosing the candidates. The man could not come up to the expectations. However, the percentage of votes he could secure for the party proves that had he worked out a better management strategy, he would have won the elections.

Siddaramaiah himself lost by a huge margin of 36,042 votes in his traditional constituency of Chamundeshwari in Mysuru to JDS’ G T Deve Gowda. He, however, managed to scrape through in Badami in north Karnataka, where he won by a slender margin of 1,696 votes after a see-saw battle against BJP’s B Sriramulu, a close associate of the mining baron Reddy brothers. Yeddyurappa won the Shikaripura seat by a margin of over 35,000 votes while Kumaraswamy won convincingly in both Channapatna and Ramanagara.

The free fall of the Congress in Karnataka – where it shrank from 122 to 78 seats – was blamed largely on its failure to improve its standing among the state’s most backward castes despite CM Siddaramaiah focusing on them through schemes that provided free milk to students and free grain to the poorest families. Of the 224 seats in Karnataka, 51 are reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes; the Congress cornered just 18 as compared to 26 in the last poll.

KPN PhotoSiddarmaiah, according to experts, also ignored the ground situations and social equations in different parts of Karnataka. Local people say that he tried to form a caste alliance which was not suitable for the state. In the process, he ended up gaining support of his own caste only. JDS successfully mobilized the support of dominant Vokaliggas and the BJP of Lingayats. They are very in high numbers. The support of Mayawati’s BSP also helped HD Deve Gowda’s party to win more seats.

BSP, on its part, got its first ever MLA N Mahesh, elected from Kollegal seat, in the southern state and their first in 25 years, while the JDS won as many as 11 out of 38 seat, piggybacking on support from Dalit-dominant outfit, in comparison to ending up as first or second-runner up in 2013 in the same corresponding seats. These seats include Mallavali, Mandya, Nagamangala, Hunsur, Sakaleshwara, Srirangpatna, Devanhalli, Ramnagara and Channapatna.
The Karnataka Pragyavantha Janatha Party (KPJP) – which was in turmoil due to the differences between its founders and actor Upendra – also opened its account, as its candidate R Shankar won Ranebennur constituency. Though an independent candidate has won Malur constituency, he is backed by the Congress.

Rahul Gandhi and his party are facing challenges from the non-BJP parties since drubbings in the UP assembly polls last year in gaining the leadership of a proposed anti-BJP front. Thus, the Karnataka polls were crucial in more than one ways. The defeat of SP-Congress alliance had led non-Congress opposition parties to assert that he was not fit enough to sway the polls.

Internally, a tough fight put up against Prime Minister Modi in Gujarat gave the Congress the confidence to elect him to the post of party president. Since then, the party is eyeing the leadership of the anti-BJP coalition, which is yet to take a formal shape. Many opposition leaders including NCP supremo Sharad Pawar and senior socialist leader Sharad Yadav had lent their support to the idea of creating a Congress-led anti-BJP front to take on Narendra Modi’s party in 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

KPN PhotoUnfortunately, the latest Karnataka results may hurt the prospective proposition. Now, Congress may not be able to vie for the leadership of the proposed anti-BJP coalition for the 2019 general election. An indirect attack has already come from West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who has been working for an alliance of all the regional parties to defeat the saffron party. She has been trying to form an alliance with Congress at national level. Mamata, the first to bat for the secular alliance between Congress and JDS, tweeted that had it been a Congress-JDS alliance, results would have been very different.

The proposed coalition has other problems too. In few states that include Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Congress is fighting against regional parties. Sending out a message for the grand old party of India, Banerjee emphasised on the need for national parties to recognise the significance of regional players in the evolving political scenario. “India is a vast country. Every state has their own identity. National parties have to consider the regional aspiration and regional expectation of the people. Both Congress and BJP must realise this,” she said.

The Left, among the biggest proponents of opposition unity, had welcomed the Congress’ decision to support JD(S). CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said this was the need of the hour to defeat the BJP but advised the Congress to be more “realistic and accommodative of regional parties”. The CPI blamed the Congress for its failure to take the “initiative to forge secular forces’ unity” because of their “over-confidence”. CPI general secretary Suvarna Reddy said if the post-poll “wisdom of unity” had prevailed before the elections, Congress and JDS could have produced better numbers together.

The usual practice is for the governor to call the leader of the single largest party or pre-poll alliance to form the government, and in the event of a hung Assembly, asks him to prove the majority on the floor of the House. The Constitution empowers a Governor to appoint a chief minister, but remains silent on the order or precedence in case of a fractured mandate.

letters@tehelka.com

Supreme Court rap to government for being compulsive litigant

By
Charanjit Ahuja
-

Supreme CourtThe rap from the Supreme Court of India in a recently decided case saying that the government must shape up its litigation policy and cease to be a compulsive litigant, is a clear indictment of the Union Government. The Court has observed that the Union of India must appreciate that by pursuing frivolous or infructuous cases, it is adding to the burden of this Court and collaterally harming other litigants by delaying hearing of their cases through the sheer volume of numbers. Government litigation reportedly constitutes nearly half of all litigation in the Indian judiciary. If the Union of India cares little for the justice delivery system, it should at least display some concern for litigants, many of whom have to spend a fortune in litigating in the Supreme Court. What is needed is an implementable action plan to ensure that common people are not forced to file cases against the government and its agencies and to find out litigation-prone departments and formulating solutions unique to each department. Any attempt to reduce the backlog would be applauded once “litigation for the sake of litigation” is shunned. To reduce government litigations which burden the national exchequer, Central ministries need to ensure that courts are approached only as a last resort and cases, where chances of winning are lean are not pursued. The pendency of cases in courts besides being burden upon public exchequer also diverts attention of government from meaningful governance.

Ironically, the website of the Department of Justice shows that the National Litigation Policy, 2010 is still being reviewed. It shows that nothing has been finalised by the Union of India for the last almost about eight years and under the garb of ease of doing business, the judiciary is being asked to reform. The boot is really on the other leg. The aim of the “National Litigation Policy” (NLP) is to transform the government into a “responsible and efficient” litigant. This concept obligates the government to be a model litigant. The policy idealistically suggests an implementation mechanism, greater accountability regarding governmental litigation, and mandates “suitable action” against officials violating this policy. The website also shows that the formulation of the National Litigation Policy, 2015 is under consideration. When this will be finalised is anybody’s guess. There is also an Action Plan to reduce government litigation which was formulated on June 13, 2017. However, all these measures have not yet seen the light of the day. The reasons could be varied. It seems that the disinterested bureaucracy is not sufficiently motivated to come out with a comprehensive and foolproof Policy. But could a disinterested bureaucracy be an excuse for not acting on a pressing issue?

US Senate confirms Gina Haspel as first woman director of CIA

By
Tehelka Web Desk
-

RTS1QM05-1-770x433Senate approves 61-year-old veteran spy Gina Haspel to head the CIA (US espionage agency) on May 17.

Following the appointment, Haspel has become the first ever woman to become the director of CIA.

US President Donald Trump nominated the name of Haspel to fill in the position of CIA head. She attained the esteemed position with a 54-45 split voting.

She became deputy director of the CIA last year only and has also served in directorial capacities in various organizations like the National Clandestine Service. Haspel had played an extremely hard role as a spy in interrogation program after 9/11 attack.

“My highly respected nominee for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, has come under fire because she was too tough on Terrorists,”  earlier Trump had tweeted.

From the past three decades Haspel has been working as a spy in secret torture cells. Reportedly she played a massive role in the brutal handling of suspected al Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah who even lost his eye due to extensive torture.

The new CIA director has been awarded with a number of high-profile awards and medals, including Presidential Rank Award and George H W Bush Award.

Vacate official bungalows: UP govt to 6 ex-CMs

By
Tehelka Web Desk
-

In compliance with the Supreme Court orders, the Uttar Pradesh government has asked six former CMs to vacate government bungalows within 15 days.

The notices were sent by the Estate Department served to Union home minister Rajnath Singh, Rajasthan governor Kalyan Singh, SP patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav, BSP chief Mayawati, SP president Akhilesh Yadav, and senior Congress leader ND Tewari.

“The former CMs have been asked to vacate the government accommodation within 15 days,” said UP estate officer Yogesh Shukla.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court has quashed Uttar Pradesh government’s law which granted permanent residential accommodation to former chief ministers of the state.

The SC in its May 7 ruling had observed: “Whether retention of official accommodation by the functionaries mentioned in Section 4(3) of the 1981Act after they had demitted office violate the equality clause guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India?”

The apex court said that Section 4(3) of Uttar Pradesh ministers (salaries, allowances and miscellaneous provisions) Act, 2016 was unconstitutional.

Uttar Pradesh: 9 Pilgrims Killed On Their Way To ‘Punyagiri’

By
Tehelka Web Desk
-

Nine pilgrims who were part of a group of 250 were mowed down by a speeding truck in Uttar Pradesh’s Bareilly district on Friday.
Police said, the deceased were walking bare foot and were on their way to the temple of ‘Purnagiri’, which is located close to the Nepal border.
The mini-truck coming from Sitarganj ran over 30 pilgrims, killing nine and injuring at least 21, who have been admitted to nearby medical facilities, where condition of five is stated to be critical.
Along with the district authorities, Army is also aiding in the rescue and relief operations
The family members of all the nine deceased have been informed of the tragedy.

1...1,4831,4841,485...1,606Page 1,484 of 1,606

MOST POPULAR

Load more

HOT NEWS

Tehelka
TEHELKA is the fastest growing national news group for English & Hindi news magazines. The core value of the brand is to uphold the truth with a free, fair and fearless attitude. The company has a high standard of excellence in journalism and a commitment to assist in India’s fight against corruption. News is published in the maximum number of languages to maintain a stronger circulation base across the country.
Contact us: wecare@tehelka.com