A lame Rule 49(0)

The recent reports from our Tamil Nadu bureau stating the difficulties voters faced on election day at polling booths should have the Election Commission concerned given that it is considered that the five-phase general elections was relatively peaceful. The issue in mention is the widespread intimidation and harassment voters faced at polling booths for opting Rule 49(0). In a case where a voter does not favour any of the candidates contesting from a constituency and would want to exercise his/her franchise Rule 49(0) can be used where the vote would be recorded, but in favour of none.
If in Uthapuram, infamous for the caste divide, more than 500 women shied from voting zero, more than 5,000 victims of the airport expansion drive in Sriperumbudur backed out from voting --- in both cases fearing thugs hovering around the polling booths. Reports also said that voters, overcoming fear, who opted Rule 49(0) were left to the mercy of ill-informed polling officers who made them wait for hours, mocked at them and chided voters for their preference.
For all the pride we take in our democracy and elaborate voting mechanism such instances pose serious questions about the rate of inclusiveness and fairness of the system followed. The thugs at polling booths, in spite of the presence of paramilitary forces, were not local boys flexing their muscles but, in all probability, mercenaries hired by political parties to alter the tide in their favour.
The level of protocol awareness of the polling officers should also be of unease for the Election Commission. It should be agreed that while there are awareness drives to familiarise the EVM, not much is done when it comes to Rule 49(0). It is a matter of concern that the PIL filed in the Supreme Court by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties in 2004 seeking a ‘None Of The Above’ option in EVMs seems to be in limbo.
There seems to be an unfair bias that the franchise is secret only if the choice is against a name in the EVM and not while opting for Rule 49(0). This being the case, it is little surprise that large sections of the society refuse to ink their finger, in many cases mass poll boycott being reported. An option on the lines of Rule 49(0) in the EVM can prevent people abstaining from participating in democracy. With an increase in voter percentage it would also prompt political parties to introspect, field better candidates and discuss people’s issues. This is a win-win situation.

Tharoor is looking Parliament, talking Knesset

Shashi Tharoor, when declared as the UDF candidate for the Lok Sabha elections from Thiruvananthapuram, appeared too polished to be a politician and had a panache that was the much-hooted sign of the middle class professional entering politics. But that was just a resounding loud false alarm. No sooner was his candidature announced than skeletons started to tumble; and tumble they did from everywhere imaginable.
Though Tharoor tried to lure the netizen youth and NRKs (Non Resident Keralites) through his website explaining his candidature, he has been criticised in many Internet forums. Right from his being a member of the advisory committee of the Coca-Cola India Foundation to the legal tangle for allegedly disrupting the National Anthem; to his 1992 comments on Sonia Gandhi’s inability to lead the party, to recently the KPCC youth burning his effigy at the state capital.
These allegation standing, what should be of concern to the diverse electorate of Thiruvananthapuram are Tharoor’s views on Israel and his admiration for its military offensive in Gaza that left the strip in tatters earlier this year. In an article titled India’s Israel envy (Haaretz, January 23, 2009) Tharoor, contrary to India’s stand on the Palestine conflict (which incidentally is also Congress’ view), expresses his sympathies for Israel that is “a small country living in a permanent state of siege… surrounded by forces that are hostile to it”. Tharoor, displaying his pro-Western ideology, might overlook the fact that the “forces” (read Hamas) is a democratically elected government the people of Palestine have chosen, but he cannot or rather should not gloss over the human right violations that the Israel army has done in Gaza for which it is drawing flak from the UN Human Rights Council, a subsidiary of the UN that he aspired to head only a few years ago.
While sticking out his neck for the Israelis, Tharoor does not miss to take a dig at the Congress-led UPA and the sorry state of India’s national borders in, “… unlike Israel, India has seemed unable to do anything about it (terrorist attacks)” and “India is a giant country whose borders are notoriously permeable, an open society known for its lax and easygoing ways”. Tharoor’s “lax and easygoing” comment reminds one of an oriental view of a Westerner who sees Indians as a group of people who ‘need to be governed’. This is a view of a person sitting in Park Avenue or cooling off at Burj Dubai, not that of a peoples representative who has sweated it out in front of the secretariat or the streets of Thiruvananthapuram.It will be interesting to see if Thiruvananthapuram, which last favoured a LDF candidate, oblige Tharoor. Tharoor claims to know the state capital. The question is: Does the state capital know him? For a man who until 2007 was “living in and out of a suitcase” while in the city, Thiruvananthapuram must be more than a handful. When Tharoor says that the time he has spent in the city is enough to represent it, it reflects poor of the electorate he aspires to represent. Come May 16 and we would know if Thiruvananthapuram will have a parliamentarian who is an Israel-sympathising NRK.