Opinion

A Bad Matric

Haryana’s move for ‘qualified’ panchayat members smacks of elitism

Advertisement

A Bad Matric
info_icon

Haryana chief minister M.L. Khattar has come out with a most undemocratic and unconstitutional legislation. The changes in the Haryana Panchayat Act seek to mandate that male candidates contesting the coming panchayat and zila parishad elections produce their Class X certificates while women and Scheduled Caste candidates will need a Class VIII certificate to be eligible.

In an unashamed defence of this most undemocratic step, the government has put forth the inane explanation that this would “improve quality of leadership and governance” at the grassroots level, and that “this amendment would make elected representatives of pan­ch­ayat raj institutions more acc­oun­table”. The CM is so sold on this wisdom that he wants to do it through the ordinance route, thus avoiding the normal legislative step of full discussion in the assembly. Is it any wonder then that the opp­osition calls the action “Tughl­aki”—a reference to the late king Tug­h­laq and his ill-advised actions.

Advertisement

This so-called concern for educational qualification at the panchayat level ill befits Khattar, especially considering his respect for the wisdom of his leader PM Narendra Modi’s decisions. The latter felt no embarrassment in appointing a Union minister for HRD and education whose academic qualification is a higher secondary school certificate. Similarly, now take the BJP’s appointment of a teacher who does not even have a doctorate and has not even been a principal (until now mandatory minimum requirements) as V-C to the reputed Rajasthan University. So why then is Khattar fixed on educational qualifications for being a sarpanch, especially since the candidate would have as merit the people’s confidence?

Advertisement

This is obviously a ploy to create a glass ceiling at the panchayat level and disenfranchise the poor and the dep­rived, an overwhelming part of the population of Haryana. The new legislation also flies in the face of the fact that our election law—up to parliamentary elections—has no literacy qualification clause (a casual search will show that many legislators would have to absent themselves if Khattar’s qualification were to be imposed). In India, the question of literacy as a qualification for membership of the state legislatures and Parliament was hotly debated in the Constituent Assembly. Stalwarts like India’s first president, Dr Rajendra Prasad, was in favour of some minimum qualification but Prime Minister Nehru rejected it, caustically describing such an idea as totally undemocratic. No one has since dared to put forward this undemocratic step in election law.  Now to take up this step in Haryana, which in terms of economy and agricultural production is the envy of the nation, is insulting the dignity of the people of the state.

In ’03, the SC had castigated the elite propaganda of preference for educated legislators thus: “The experience and events in public life and the legislatures have demonstrated that the dividing line between the well-educated and the less educated, from the point of view of his/her calibre and culture, is rather thin. Much depends on the character of the individual, the sense of devotion to duty and the sense of concern for the welfare of the people. These characteristics are not the monopoly of well-educated persons.”     

Is it not inequitable and discriminatory that the state, having failed to carry out its mandate of Article 21A of the Constitution to provide education, instead of being ashamed, should penalise 50 per cent of the voters vis-a-vis casting their vote and fighting election? Especially, when this is a guaranteed right under Article 19. Those who did not have an opportunity of formal education are already the victims of state callousness; they cannot be further denied participation in democratic institutions. Also, it is a fallacy to assume that the financial and administrative tasks of local government require formal education. The ordinance deprives a large section of society from participating in the democratic institution of panchayati raj, and runs counter to the objectives of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment.

Advertisement

This law also runs counter to the purpose and intent of Article 243, Part IX of the Constitution, a radical step which makes panchayats at the village level the real foundation for our democratic government as it will deny 50 per cent of the population of the villages their right to self-governance. These undemocratic steps taken by Haryana point to the inherent philosophy of the RSS, the fountainhead of the BJP leadership, that governance should be in the hands of the elitist castes, rather than with the masses. We ignore this devious thinking in our political life at our own peril.

Advertisement

(A former HC judge, Rajindar Sachar was chairperson of the high-level committee on the ‘Status of Muslims’.)

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement