‘There is a clear fascist onslaught’, says Sasikanth Senthil who quit IAS
This interview was first published in Hindustantimes.com
A day after he resigned, S Sasikanth Senthil, a 2009 batch IAS officer who was working as the Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada district, told HT that matters reached a crescendo with the abrogation of Article 370 and he had to quit the service to speak up about it. Excerpts from the interview:
Q. Why exactly did you resign?
A. I had mentioned that in my note that what is happening in the national scenario pushed me to get out of the services. It is not related to the state, just the overall framework of politics which is being pushed on the nation that is very troublesome for me. I feel this reached a crescendo when it came to the abrogation of Article 370.
Q. Were such feelings building up in you?
A. Yes it has been building up for a long time because I for one had some experience at the grassroots level coming into the services. I have always been tracking political agendas and moves and in my opinion this is a very clear fascist onslaught. People have become hyper nationalist. People can’t encourage intellectual debate. I cannot sit in the bureaucracy and observe these things. If I have to do something about it, I have to come out from service, which is why I resigned.
Q. Then why did you say your decision was personal?
A. The government is doing what it has to do, what it feels is appropriate. My problem is that this does not match my understanding and ideas of the spirit in which we have built this country. My personal values, the way I have understood the Constitution, is not in sync with what is happening right now. It may be lawful to do these things, but there is a preamble to the Constitution which highlights the intentions and the building blocks of the Constitution. When I see it from that perspective and the ideas I have don’t match with what is happening then it becomes a personal reason. Now whether my ideas are right is something that needs to be debated. When my ideas don’t match I have only two options before me, I have to either change my ideas or change my work. So, I left the job.
Q. Is this in anticipation of a plunge into electoral politics?
A. The point is, I feel strongly that I had to come out and my conscience is not in sync with what is happening. It is for the country to decide whether it is right or wrong, but I am very clear what is happening.
Q. What next then?
A. Obviously I will try to engage with various groups and people. I’m sure in this fascist framework one of the major agendas will be to quash any intellectual debate and institutions. History has proven this many times, it’s not new either.
Q. Shah Faesal also resigned from the IAS and went on to form a political party. Are you thinking along these lines?
A. I’m not bent on leadership as of now. I’m only trying to push my understanding and show what is happening to the people. I’m sure a lot of people are not able to spot it. They think it is a nationalistic viewpoint... If you are asking about electoral politics then, no.
Q. Since your resignation letter didn’t spell out your stand there was speculation that this was because of issues within the bureaucracy, like pay increase, slow pace of development, or was it just Article 370...?
A. It is not only Article 370, I don’t want to trivialise the issue. But it has reached a crescendo. It is horrible to see. We have anticipatory powers in the district [administration]. If we use Section 144 [of the CrPC] to prohibit certain things, we feel very anxious about how long we can curtail the fundamental rights of people even if it is used for 12 hours. Now, 30 days of no communication and nothing... imagine if we are put in that situation... In this framework institutions will be weakened and people who talk will be threatened. I am not saying this is just about Kashmir.
Secondly, about the service-related issues, I have already said that I was treated like a king. I have worked under three governments and in three districts. Never did I feel that my government was pushing me to do something that I didn’t want to do. And I didn’t leave service on things like remuneration, I think it has gone beyond such things. In fact, I feel whatever we are being paid is much more than what we actually deserve.
This interview was first published by Hindustantimes.com
Courtesy: www.hindustantimes.com
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.
Resolution for his removal: Speaker Birla to be present in House but not chair proceedings
New Delhi (PTI): The Lok Sabha will witness a rare moment most likely on Monday next when Om Birla will not chair proceedings but will be seated amongst the members as the House takes up a notice seeking his removal from office.
As Parliament meets for the second phase of the Budget session on March 9, the Lok Sabha is likely to take up the resolution moved by the opposition against Birla's for allegedly acting in a "blatantly partisan" manner.
According to the rules and laid down procedure, Birla will get a right to defend himself when the resolution is discussed by the lower house. He will also have the right to vote against the resolution, Constitution expert P D T Achary explained.
The expert said while Birla will not chair the proceedings when the resolution comes up before the House, he will be seated in the prominent rows in the Treasury benches.
At least 118 opposition members had submitted a notice for moving the resolution to remove Birla from office for not allowing Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders to speak in the House on the Motion of Thanks to the President's address, as well as for suspending eight MPs.
Congress member and chief whip K Suresh submitted the notice to the Lok Sabha secretariat on behalf of several opposition parties, including his party, Samajwadi Party and DMK.
TMC MPs, however, did not sign the notice.
ALSO READ: Curbs on movement, assembly remain in force in Kashmir after protests against Khamenei's killing
Achary, a former Lok Sabha secretary general, told PTI, that the "allocation of the seat, which the Speaker occupies under such circumstances is not mentioned in the Rules".
He said Birla will also not be able to vote on the resolution using the automated vote system, but will have to fill a slip to register his vote.
He presumes that a seat belonging to a Union minister, who is from the Rajya Sabha, could be given to him as only Lok Sabha members will be able to cast their votes for or against the resolution.
Deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha and deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha have their earmarked seats in their respective Houses when they are not presiding over.
Front seats in the opposition benches are allocated to them.
Article 96 of the Constitution bars a speaker or a deputy speaker from presiding over the House sitting while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration.
The speaker has a constitutional right to defend himself in the House if the resolution is discussed in the Lok Sabha.
At least two Lok Sabha members have to sign the notice to move a resolution for the speaker's removal. Any number of members can sign the notice but a minimum of two is mandatory.
The speaker can be removed from office by a resolution passed by the House through a simple majority.
Article 94C of the Constitution has provisions for such a move.
"All the members of the House are counted to compute the majority, not the members present and voting, which is the normal practice. It means the effective membership of the House, except for the vacancies, is used to calculate the majority," Achary said.
The notice has to be submitted to the Lok Sabha secretary general, and not the deputy speaker or anyone else, he said.
The document is then examined at the preliminary stage to see whether it contains "very specific charges", he said.
"At the threshold itself, there is a process of admissibility. At that stage, it is seen whether it contains specific charges. Specific charges are required as only then the speaker will be able to respond," Achary explained.
The resolution must not contain defamatory language or content.
Article 96 gives the speaker the opportunity to defend himself or herself in the House.
The language of the proposed resolution is usually examined by the deputy speaker, but since the present Lok Sabha does not have a deputy speaker, it may be examined perhaps by the senior-most member of the panel of chairpersons.
The panel helps the speaker run the House in his or her absence.
"The speaker examining a resolution that seeks his removal looks absurd," Achary said, adding that the rule is silent on the subject.
Once the processing part is over, the resolution reaches the House. But it can go to the House after 14 days, Achary said.
The chair then places it in the House for consideration. It is actually the House which admits it, or as the rule says, "grants permission".
Achary further said, "The chair then asks members in favour of the resolution to stand up. If 50 members stand up in support of it and if the criteria is fulfilled, the Chair announces that the House has granted permission. Once the House grants permission, it has to be taken up for discussion and disposed of within 10 days."
Lok Sabha sources said it will be taken up for discussion on Monday itself.
ALSO READ: SSLC exam begins in Kerala; Education Minister wishes students success
There are precedents of resolutions being moved. However, none has been adopted so far.
"The reason -- governments have a majority," Achary said.
The resolution alleges that Speaker Birla had acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner in conducting the business of the House and "abused" the constitutional office he occupies.
The Opposition also accused the speaker of making certain false allegations against members of the Congress.
Three Lok Sabha speakers -- G V Mavlankar (1954), Hukam Singh (1966) and Balram Jakhar (1987)-- had faced no-confidence motions in the past, which were negatived.
