Karnataka’s Rajya Sabha choices: Questions Remain
Four candidates have been elected unanimously to the Rajya Sabha from the Karnataka in the biennial polls held recently. A matter of consolation this time is that all the four are from Karnataka. Political parties have for long used the Rajya Sabha for the back-door entry of candidates who cannot win direct elections to the hallowed portals of Parliament. Political parties also strangely hold the view that Rajya Sabha members from a state need not be from that state, which helped many candidates from other states to get elected to the Rajya Sabha from Karnataka. And more often than not, the contribution of such candidates to Karnataka has been zero. In fact, many Rajya Sabha MPs elected from the state have spoken in favor of other states such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. As this trend had drawn the ire of Kannada organizations in the past, political parties have now started giving a serious thought to the selection of candidates.
Of the four candidates elected this time, two are senior leaders from the JDS and the Congress and the other two representing the BJP are new faces. The BJP is taking credit for electing grass-root workers of the party to the Rajya Sabha. The JDS, however, claims that selecting local-level workers does not fulfill any objective if they are not able to effectively represent the state’s interest in the Rajya Sabha. The party’s argument is that those elected to the Rajya Sabha should be seasoned politicians who can raise their voices on the issues before the state. While there is a grain of truth in both the arguments, they are equally shallow.
In the Parliamentary system, the Lok Sabha is called as the Lower House and the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, indicating the significance of both the houses. Though the Lower House plays a more decisive role in governance, the Upper House cannot be neglected. The Upper House exists to guide the Lower House and its functioning whose representatives are usually inexperienced and lack administrative acumen. It is therefore important that candidates to the Rajya Sabha have experience in different fields. If the Lok Sabha has to proceed in the right direction, experts in various fields, thinkers, and a collection of bright minds should be seated in the Rajya Sabha. Only then the objective of having a Rajya Sabha – the House of Elders – will be fulfilled. However, political parties have been using the Rajya Sabha membership as a reward to workers and leaders who cannot contest and win direct elections to the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly.
There cannot be any doubt that Parliament needs seasoned politicians such as Mallikarjun Kharge of the Congress and Janata Dal’s Deve Gowda. The choice of the Congress and the JD(S) therefore makes good sense. At the same time, the BJP has done well by showing the powerful lobbies of senior leaders their place and by favouring two hitherto unknown district-level functionaries. But the decision of all the three parties raise many questions.
If the BJP were to give an opportunity for ordinary party workers to contest Lok Sabha or Assembly elections, the decision could have been lauded. But how fair is the party’s stand of giving ‘tickets to the winning candidates’ during Lok Sabha and Assembly elections and ‘recognizing party workers’ when it comes to selecting candidates for Rajya Sabha elections? Doesn’t the selection of inexperienced persons to the Rajya Sabha defeat the purpose of the Upper House which is meant to be the preserve of the seasoned and the experienced? How far will such inexperienced party workers succeed in guiding the young MPs in Lok Sabha?
At the same time, how valid is the stand of the JDS that it had made the right choice in Deve Gowda? No doubt, Deve Gowda has on many occasions effectively fought for the interests of the state in Parliament, including the Cauvery river issue. However, now he is on the threshold of 87 years. Will his age not work against him? Does it mean that the party is openly admitting that it has a paucity of seasoned politicians other than the former prime minister? With the Corona virus spreading all over the country, health experts are warning that it is dangerous for senior citizens to be active in public. If the Congress and JDS had encouraged and groomed youngsters, would they have been facing the situation of having to choose aged politicians with health issues?
BJP has in its fold several seasoned and experienced thinkers and politicians. The party could have given its grass-roots workers ticket to contest the Lok Sabha or Assembly seats and sent seasoned politicians to the Rajya Sabha. The JDS, on the other hand, could have selected a candidate such as former MLA Y.S.V. Dutta to the Rajya Sabha instead of imposing on Deve Gowda the pressures of being a Rajya Sabha member. Of all the candidates selected to the Rajya Sabha, the selection of Kharge seems fair but at 77, the age is a factor to be considered in his case too. The Congress should also identify and recognize other seasoned leaders who can take Kharge’s place.
When it is becoming increasingly important for the Rajya Sabha to include experienced and seasoned political faces to correct the Lok Sabha which is going astray because of its financial might, it is difficult to accept the selection of these four candidates.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
RSS man's defamation case against Rahul: Key witness unavailable, hearing adjourned to Dec 20
Thane (PTI): A court in Bhiwandi in Thane district on Saturday adjourned the hearing in the criminal defamation case filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker to December 20 due to non-availability of a crucial prosecution witness.
Advocate Narayan Iyer, counsel for Rahul Gandhi, confirmed the adjournment, stating that the witness, Ashok Saykar, currently Deputy Superintendent of Police in Barshi in Solapur, could not remain present due to personal reasons.
Saykar's evidence is now likely to be recorded on December 29.
His testimony is considered key because he, as police sub inspector in 2014, conducted the preliminary inquiry into the private defamation matter under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
It was on the basis of Saykar's submitted report that the court subsequently issued process (summons) against Rahul Gandhi under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The criminal defamation case was filed by local RSS worker Rajesh Kunte following a speech given by Rahul Gandhi at an election rally near Bhiwandi on March 6, 2014.
The case stems from the Congress leader's alleged statement that "the RSS people killed (Mahatma) Gandhi."
The matter is being heard by Bhiwandi Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, P M Kolse.
The hearing had previously been adjourned on November 15 after the complainant's counsel, Advocate Prabodh Jaywant, moved an application seeking permission to examine Saykar, who had submitted the probe report to the court.
The matter was originally scheduled for November 29 but was deferred to December 6 after Rahul Gandhi's legal team sought an adjournment citing their non-availability. The proceedings will now resume on December 20.
