by Kartikeya Tanna
After hearing about media reports on the UPA government’s agenda to accord statutory status to the model code of conduct as determined by the Election Commission, as many as three senior ministers of the UPA government categorically denied such reports with an official statement calling them “totally misconceived”. The very fact that three senior ministers, including the head of the Group of Ministers reportedly chairing this matter, Pranab Mukherjee, had to douse this unexpected fire showed there was more to this than what met the eye.
As it turns out, the Indian Express has published an extract of the note which clearly stated that this particular issue was up for discussion on Wednesday.
alman Khurshid said yesterday that if a political party were to raise this issue, the UPA will discuss it. AFP
Denying any knowledge of this, Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid said yesterday that if a political party were to raise this issue, the UPA will discuss it. The note, however, reveals that it was the Law Minister’s request which led Chairman of the GoM to “flag this issue” for discussion. This decision was made on 30 September, 2011 and Khurshid has been the Union Law Minister since July 2011.
Moreover, in accordance with usual practice, this note is believed to have been circulated to all members of the group. For the three ministers to deny knowledge is either outright dishonesty or indifference to governance in midst of a major election battle.
It’s worth scrutinising the note carefully to see what spurred such heated denials by the UPA ministers.
Firstly, according to the Indian Express, this note is marked ‘Secret’ and the reasons for that are not difficult to discern, even though the UPA would do well to clarify.
The note, under the heading ‘Term of Reference (ii)(a): State Funding of Elections’ says that the Chairman of the GoM (Pranab Mukherjee) was of the view that the ‘Code of Conduct’ was “one of the biggest excuses to stall development projects”. The heading itself indicates that this particular observation relates to state elections. Any application of this observation to the ongoing Uttar Pradesh elections will not be entirely out of context.
More interesting are Mukherjee and Khurshid’s observations on the Code of Conduct being an “excuse” to stall development projects. In his recent sadbhavna mission, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi announced development projects worth thousands of crores in all districts across Gujarat. The state of Bihar has seen announcements of a huge number of development projects in the past five years.
Why didn’t the Code of Conduct come in the way? The obvious answer is that such projects were announced by the chief ministers of the two fastest growing states during their term as opposed to the middle of an election campaign.
Why is the Code then an obstacle to the UPA? The irresistible answer is that the Congress party much rather prefers announcement of key “development” projects during election time when it can have maximum impact on votes. Both NREGA and the Food Security Bill were announced at a strategic time keeping in mind their gestation periods. Is it any coincidence that their effective implementation coincides with the Lok Sabha elections?
Similarly, the “development” schemes of carving out a 9 percent sub-quota for minorities were only announced once the election bugle for the UP State Assembly was sounded.
It is fairly clear that the act of ostensibly strengthening of the Code of Conduct by giving it statutory status is a legal subterfuge to weaken it. As argued earlier, the Congress surely has in mind the heavily polarised battle of 2014 given that, from among Congress’s opponents, Modi will likely be a serious contender for the top post. Garnering the crucial Muslim vote in various States is, therefore, vital. Clipping the EC’s wings from exercising its powers under the Code of Conduct could give the Congress the freedom to make several announcements at the last minute. Therefore those still awaiting central governmental schemes and grants would do well to exercise patience for another eighteen months. In politics, this note makes clear, timing is everything.
