The Haryana government has informed the Supreme Court that it was scrapping the ongoing panchayat elections and it was not ready to do away with the education norms for candidates as directed by the apex court in an interim order on September 17. The Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015, passed by the Haryana Vidhan Sabha on September 7, 2015, made nonsense of equal opportunity provided under Article 14 of the Constitution i.e. the right to contest elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions. It disqualified and excluded a large section of the population from the election process, leading to violation of their constitutional rights. A critique of this Act has relevance for all the states of India, who may have similar agenda on the anvil —Rajasthan already has such a law.
The Act introduces certain criteria for the disqualification of persons from contesting elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions. A person is disqualified from being a sarpanch or a panch of a gram panchayat, or a member of a panchayat samiti or zila parishad, or continue to remain a member in case he or she is unable to meet certain conditions set out in the Act. The Act makes educational qualifications for candidates, class 10 pass for men, Class eight pass for women and class five pass for Dalits — to be eligible to contest Panchayat elections. It also debars defaulters of electricity bills, cooperative and agricultural loans and, additionally, makes it is mandatory for the candidates to have a functional toilet at home.
What was sought to be achieved by this legislation? The Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, in a conversation with the media stated that this was done to effectuate “better governance”. Can this be achieved by casting doubts on the capabilities of people with less education?
With this one Act, historically one is transported into the colonial world — a world when franchise introduced in 1919 onwards was extremely limited.
After India gained Independence, Winston Churchill infamously said, “Indians are not fit to rule, they are fit to be ruled”. He and other western critics were openly cynical about introduction of democracy in India with universal adult franchise, and highly sceptical about the Indian electorate being able to exercise its right to vote in a politically mature and responsible manner. Many pontificated that democratic elections were not suited to a caste-ridden, multi-religious, illiterate and backward society like India. It was predicted that India would go the dictatorship way. The first General Election, held in 1951-52, gave a resounding blow to this cynicism. With over 173 million voters, most of them poor, illiterate, and rural, having had no experience of elections, responded in a most responsible way.
Why is then Haryana bent upon turning the clock back? After 68 years of enjoying Independence, why is it suddenly developing lack of faith in its own people to elect their representatives by constricting their choices regarding candidates? Let any candidate stand for elections — educated or uneducated —indebted or solvent, with a toilet or without one, the electorate is “intelligent” enough to elect who they find fit to be elected. Why does Haryana want its candidates to come from a restricted pool? Is it because it wants its representatives to be drawn from the privileged classes only?
The available statistics reveal this effectively. For example, in the age group above 20 in Haryana (excluding Schedule Castes) who are required to be matriculation pass to contest elections, is calculated to be 56.80 per cent of the population. The total number of such persons is 69,86,197 out of 1,23,00,286. The male population falling in this category is 3030657 out of 6391459 (47.42 per cent of the male population), while the female population falling in this category is 39,55,540 out of 59,08,827 (66.94 per cent of the female population). In the Scheduled Castes category, those above 20 in Haryana, women with middle pass who can contest elections, comprise 79.76 per cent of the population. The total number of such women is 10,83,052 out of 13,57,855. Many of the persons above 50 years of age are also ineligible as they can hardly boast of any formal education.
The effect of the Act is two-fold; one, to cut by more than half the number of persons eligible to contest these elections, and two, to harshly penalise the poorest and weakest sections of the rural masses while placing at an advantage the more privileged members, or what has been described as the “rural feudal oligarchy”.
The Act emerges distinctly biased against impoverished farmers and the agrarian community. It is pertinent to note that the Indian agricultural sector is under severe distress at present, and most government schemes to alleviate the situation have either failed or not been implemented.
The Swaminathan Commission's recommendations, which were submitted in 2006, are hardly enforced. Yet, the state seeks to penalise members of the agrarian community who are victims of the state failure. Consequently, in this social milieu of debt-ridden peasantry committing suicides, the classes which emerge “safe” and “trusted” to “rule” by the government are the educated and economically solvent ones, with no debts.
Revealingly, people being excluded are also those who cannot afford a toilet, which is the basic need and demand of all — regardless of caste, class and community. The only reason behind the absence of a functional toilet at a person's residence is abject poverty. The minimum cost of construction of a toilet is estimated to be anything between Rs 4,000 and Rs 5,000 in Haryana villages. The NSS data published in December 2013 shows that 25.4 per cent of rural households in Haryana are without toilet facilities. This is especially disquieting in a region where the concept of “honour” still rides high and where female molestation and rape are well known to routinely occur when women go for open defecation in solitary places in the dark.
Regarding the imposed disqualifications, it is clear that the government of the day is seeking to impose a harsh and severe penalty on its citizens for its own inadequacies and failures. Under Articles 21A and 45 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State to provide free and compulsory education to its citizens. It is also the duty of the State to provide basic amenities like toilets. How can vast sections of citizens be held not only responsible but also penalised for such inadequacies, the onus of which lies on the State? It is high time that the Haryana government stops this unequal treatment of its own people and offers them equal opportunities. Let us not prove Winston Churchill correct. Like the colonist, are we going to tell our own people that vast sections of “you” are not capable of “ruling” yourselves and can only be “ruled”.
The Act introduces certain criteria for the disqualification of persons from contesting elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions. A person is disqualified from being a sarpanch or a panch of a gram panchayat, or a member of a panchayat samiti or zila parishad, or continue to remain a member in case he or she is unable to meet certain conditions set out in the Act. The Act makes educational qualifications for candidates, class 10 pass for men, Class eight pass for women and class five pass for Dalits — to be eligible to contest Panchayat elections. It also debars defaulters of electricity bills, cooperative and agricultural loans and, additionally, makes it is mandatory for the candidates to have a functional toilet at home.
What was sought to be achieved by this legislation? The Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, in a conversation with the media stated that this was done to effectuate “better governance”. Can this be achieved by casting doubts on the capabilities of people with less education?
With this one Act, historically one is transported into the colonial world — a world when franchise introduced in 1919 onwards was extremely limited.
After India gained Independence, Winston Churchill infamously said, “Indians are not fit to rule, they are fit to be ruled”. He and other western critics were openly cynical about introduction of democracy in India with universal adult franchise, and highly sceptical about the Indian electorate being able to exercise its right to vote in a politically mature and responsible manner. Many pontificated that democratic elections were not suited to a caste-ridden, multi-religious, illiterate and backward society like India. It was predicted that India would go the dictatorship way. The first General Election, held in 1951-52, gave a resounding blow to this cynicism. With over 173 million voters, most of them poor, illiterate, and rural, having had no experience of elections, responded in a most responsible way.
Why is then Haryana bent upon turning the clock back? After 68 years of enjoying Independence, why is it suddenly developing lack of faith in its own people to elect their representatives by constricting their choices regarding candidates? Let any candidate stand for elections — educated or uneducated —indebted or solvent, with a toilet or without one, the electorate is “intelligent” enough to elect who they find fit to be elected. Why does Haryana want its candidates to come from a restricted pool? Is it because it wants its representatives to be drawn from the privileged classes only?
The available statistics reveal this effectively. For example, in the age group above 20 in Haryana (excluding Schedule Castes) who are required to be matriculation pass to contest elections, is calculated to be 56.80 per cent of the population. The total number of such persons is 69,86,197 out of 1,23,00,286. The male population falling in this category is 3030657 out of 6391459 (47.42 per cent of the male population), while the female population falling in this category is 39,55,540 out of 59,08,827 (66.94 per cent of the female population). In the Scheduled Castes category, those above 20 in Haryana, women with middle pass who can contest elections, comprise 79.76 per cent of the population. The total number of such women is 10,83,052 out of 13,57,855. Many of the persons above 50 years of age are also ineligible as they can hardly boast of any formal education.
The effect of the Act is two-fold; one, to cut by more than half the number of persons eligible to contest these elections, and two, to harshly penalise the poorest and weakest sections of the rural masses while placing at an advantage the more privileged members, or what has been described as the “rural feudal oligarchy”.
The Act emerges distinctly biased against impoverished farmers and the agrarian community. It is pertinent to note that the Indian agricultural sector is under severe distress at present, and most government schemes to alleviate the situation have either failed or not been implemented.
The Swaminathan Commission's recommendations, which were submitted in 2006, are hardly enforced. Yet, the state seeks to penalise members of the agrarian community who are victims of the state failure. Consequently, in this social milieu of debt-ridden peasantry committing suicides, the classes which emerge “safe” and “trusted” to “rule” by the government are the educated and economically solvent ones, with no debts.
Revealingly, people being excluded are also those who cannot afford a toilet, which is the basic need and demand of all — regardless of caste, class and community. The only reason behind the absence of a functional toilet at a person's residence is abject poverty. The minimum cost of construction of a toilet is estimated to be anything between Rs 4,000 and Rs 5,000 in Haryana villages. The NSS data published in December 2013 shows that 25.4 per cent of rural households in Haryana are without toilet facilities. This is especially disquieting in a region where the concept of “honour” still rides high and where female molestation and rape are well known to routinely occur when women go for open defecation in solitary places in the dark.
Regarding the imposed disqualifications, it is clear that the government of the day is seeking to impose a harsh and severe penalty on its citizens for its own inadequacies and failures. Under Articles 21A and 45 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State to provide free and compulsory education to its citizens. It is also the duty of the State to provide basic amenities like toilets. How can vast sections of citizens be held not only responsible but also penalised for such inadequacies, the onus of which lies on the State? It is high time that the Haryana government stops this unequal treatment of its own people and offers them equal opportunities. Let us not prove Winston Churchill correct. Like the colonist, are we going to tell our own people that vast sections of “you” are not capable of “ruling” yourselves and can only be “ruled”.
