11-21-2007, 10:35 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BJP Gujarat boot on Left foot
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, Nov. 20: The BJP, now insistent on Parliament discussing Nandigram, had in 2002 been reluctant to put the Gujarat violence to vote in the national legislature but had to yield ground.
The CPM, which has agreed to the House discussing Nandigram after days of resistance but not to a vote, had five years ago been gung-ho about a vote on the Gujarat violence.
Neither party sees any parallel between the two events. The BJP argues that the Gujarat riots, when it says 300 people died in police firing, cannot be compared to Nandigram where political rivals are being killed with the police lately turning spectators.
The CPM says the Gujarat violence endangered Indiaâs secularism and therefore was a national concern whereas Nandigram is a law-and-order problem and therefore Bengalâs internal matter.
In 2002, the CPM would not even accept that Gujarat was Indiaâs internal matter when some foreign countries expressed unfavourable views.
Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, then an ordinary CPM member of Parliament, had said: âThe government says they (foreign nations) have no right to discuss our internal matter. But since when (have the) killing of innocent human beings, rape of women, burning of people alive, slitting open the stomach of (an) expectant mother and the killing of an unborn child (been) treated as internal matters of a country?â
When the Godhra fire happened on February 27, 2002, and communal killings started the next day, Parliament was in its budget session. The political parties had reacted cautiously till a parliamentary delegation visited Gujarat and came back with a strong suspicion of the state governmentâs complicity.
The Lok Sabha debated the matter on March 11 under Rule 193, which does not entail voting. Then, on April 30, a censure motion under Rule 184, which requires voting, was allowed in the Lok Sabha despite the ruling combineâs reluctance.
As the marathon discussions went past midnight, the BJP kept trying behind the scenes to avoid a vote. The Prime Minister of the day, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, made an emotional intervention, saying he didnât want a divided House because Gujarat was not a majority-minority (of Parliament members) question.
The Opposition advised Vajpayee to move a resolution that could be unanimously adopted but the Centre could not accept the language proposed by the Congress and the Left.
The government knew the motion would be defeated in the Lok Sabha, as it was, but wanted a compromise since the National Democratic Alliance was in a minority in the Rajya Sabha.
The Upper House adopted a motion, under Rule 170 which requires voting, urging the Centre to intervene effectively in Gujarat under Article 355 of the Constitution. The government had to send a directive to the state government.
Gujarat was debated in both the Houses on other occasions, too. The most significant was the adjournment motion on November 18, 2002, because that also required voting.
The BJPâs problem with voting was that its allies, such as the Janata Dal (United), Telugu Desam Party, National Conference and the Trinamul Congress, felt uneasy voting with the BJP on such an issue. Although they never voted for the Oppositionâs motion, their members criticised the BJP and even staged walkouts.
Telegraph
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, Nov. 20: The BJP, now insistent on Parliament discussing Nandigram, had in 2002 been reluctant to put the Gujarat violence to vote in the national legislature but had to yield ground.
The CPM, which has agreed to the House discussing Nandigram after days of resistance but not to a vote, had five years ago been gung-ho about a vote on the Gujarat violence.
Neither party sees any parallel between the two events. The BJP argues that the Gujarat riots, when it says 300 people died in police firing, cannot be compared to Nandigram where political rivals are being killed with the police lately turning spectators.
The CPM says the Gujarat violence endangered Indiaâs secularism and therefore was a national concern whereas Nandigram is a law-and-order problem and therefore Bengalâs internal matter.
In 2002, the CPM would not even accept that Gujarat was Indiaâs internal matter when some foreign countries expressed unfavourable views.
Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, then an ordinary CPM member of Parliament, had said: âThe government says they (foreign nations) have no right to discuss our internal matter. But since when (have the) killing of innocent human beings, rape of women, burning of people alive, slitting open the stomach of (an) expectant mother and the killing of an unborn child (been) treated as internal matters of a country?â
When the Godhra fire happened on February 27, 2002, and communal killings started the next day, Parliament was in its budget session. The political parties had reacted cautiously till a parliamentary delegation visited Gujarat and came back with a strong suspicion of the state governmentâs complicity.
The Lok Sabha debated the matter on March 11 under Rule 193, which does not entail voting. Then, on April 30, a censure motion under Rule 184, which requires voting, was allowed in the Lok Sabha despite the ruling combineâs reluctance.
As the marathon discussions went past midnight, the BJP kept trying behind the scenes to avoid a vote. The Prime Minister of the day, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, made an emotional intervention, saying he didnât want a divided House because Gujarat was not a majority-minority (of Parliament members) question.
The Opposition advised Vajpayee to move a resolution that could be unanimously adopted but the Centre could not accept the language proposed by the Congress and the Left.
The government knew the motion would be defeated in the Lok Sabha, as it was, but wanted a compromise since the National Democratic Alliance was in a minority in the Rajya Sabha.
The Upper House adopted a motion, under Rule 170 which requires voting, urging the Centre to intervene effectively in Gujarat under Article 355 of the Constitution. The government had to send a directive to the state government.
Gujarat was debated in both the Houses on other occasions, too. The most significant was the adjournment motion on November 18, 2002, because that also required voting.
The BJPâs problem with voting was that its allies, such as the Janata Dal (United), Telugu Desam Party, National Conference and the Trinamul Congress, felt uneasy voting with the BJP on such an issue. Although they never voted for the Oppositionâs motion, their members criticised the BJP and even staged walkouts.
Telegraph
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->