25 January 2014, 12:16 PM IST
Indian democracy has failed to provide the uniformed community the right to vote in a meaningful manner unlike in the case of a common man. The 1.4 million Defence Services personnel, 0.9 million Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel and approximately one million family members of those uniformed community who choose to live with their offspring and husbands in peace stations are the exceptions. The postal ballot and proxy voting invented by the Election Commission is an insincere exercise meant only to prevent a soldier from participating in the democratic process in a purposeful manner and experiencing the fruits of democracy, a right which every other citizen enjoys. The system fails to recognize that the spirit of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1950 (RP Act) requires definite connect between the represented and the representative failing which the Government in a parliamentary democracy will cease to be of the people, by the people or for the people.
The Constitutional position
Article 326 of the Constitution and the RP Act does not discriminate between the soldier and the ordinary citizen. The procedures for incorporating them in the voters' list are the same – either through house to house enumeration or the Form 6 route. Despite various amendments to the Constitution and the RP Act since their original enactment, the soldiers have not been debarred in any way from enlisting themselves as 'Ordinary Residents' at their place of posting.
Based on this provision, in 1969, 12 Assam Rifles, a unit posted in Nagaland (Wokha) approached the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) and after much discussion got their soldiers registered as voters at their place of posting. One of the candidates who lost the election went to the court under the plea that the ERO had no jurisdiction to register the personnel of 12 Assam Rifles as voters at their place of posting, as, with 'Service Qualification' they were entitled to vote only at their native place. In a path breaking verdict, the Court ruled that the statutory fiction is intended to confer the right to be registered as electors at their home town or village. But the fiction cannot take away the right of persons possessing service qualification to get themselves registered at a constituency in which they are ordinarily residing though such place happens to be their place of service. The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed the appeal with costs. As respondents, the Election Commission (EC) on its part stoutly defended registering the soldiers as voters at their place of posting.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the system has not crafted any unswerving provisions for registering Service personnel as voters at their place of posting. This is the respect accorded to the Constitution, the laws and the highest court of the land by the institutions of democracy and the Government in India!!
Despite the 1971 verdict, the Army issued a Special Army Order in 1972, probably based on instructions form the Ministry of Defence (MOD) that Army personnel are entitled to vote only through the postal ballot, yet another charade to block soldiers from voting at their place of posting.
Another significant SC ruling is relevant in this context. AIR 1984 SC 921had ruled that the EC cannot over rule RP Act and Rules. The EC having been tied down by the rule book issued a letter in Mar 1995 accepting the right of the soldier to vote at their place of posting as confirmed by the SC. It pronounced that the soldiers can get registered at their place of posting during enumeration if they do not wish to avail of the option to vote at their native place. Yet again this assertion was subverted as the subsequent events would unfold.
The iniquitous design
Based on this, an Army Order was issued in 1995. It lays down two conditions for enrolling oneself as a voter namely, the need for staying at the place of posting for 'sufficient span of time' and 'with their families.'
What it meant by 'sufficient span of time' is anybody's guess!! When a soldier moves on posting either with the unit or individually, considering that the tenure at a place of posting in never more than three to three and a half years, is there any way he will be eligible to vote at the next station? Isn't the system denying him the right to vote at his place of posting by design?
The bureaucracy ought to have known that the authorisation of family accommodation to an infantry battalion is 35 % and generally in a peace station not more than 180 and 210 houses are allotted to the Battalion. So, the system wants the rest of the 600 soldiers to forsake their vote for the fault of not staying with their families!!
Do such restrictions exist in the case of a civilian voter? Why this special treatment for a soldier? Is it because he made the mistake of joining the Defence Services? Is it because he is disciplined and sacrifices even the basic minimum comforts by agreeing to live in difficult terrain under adverse conditions with inherent risks attached? Or is it because he agrees to sacrifice his life for the nation when called upon to do so knowing fully well that his death will put an end to every hope and aspiration of his young wife, children and dependent parents?
Take a breath - there is more to come. Though the EC has acknowledged the right of the soldier to vote at their place of posting, (Chapter X para 2), in the Hand Book for EROs issued in 2008, in Para 4 it has directed its EROs thus "A person having service qualifications should not to be enumerated as general electors during intensive revision for inclusion in the preliminary (draft) roll alongside their other eligible family members" and have thus gone back on their basic contention on the right of the soldier to vote at their place of posting. The revised Hand Book for EROs issued in 2012 merely repeats the wordings in the 2008 edition. Para 1read in conjunction with para 4 of the Chapter X of the Hand Book will prove the point. The conditions of 'are ordinarily residing with their family with a sufficient span of time' have again been brought up in the 2012 edition of the Hand Book. Clear cases of double speak.
A soldier's perspective
A soldier leaves his native place between the age of 18 and 21 and returns after 15 to 40 years depending upon the age at which he enrolled himself and the rank which he attains in his service. Knowing that the entire area will undergo drastic changes by the time he returns, routine development of the area has no meaning to him. During the service career, a soldier has no knowledge of the political parties or the contestants contesting the elections at his native place nor does he have the time to acquire any knowledge about them. Being so far away, he is oblivious to their agenda, election manifesto, past performances, criminal records etc. When a soldier approaches his elected representative at his native place with his problems at his place of posting or those related to his career and service conditions, he is brusquely told to approach his elected representative at his place posting. The political party or the candidates do not even appeal to a soldier on postal ballot to vote for him or to the party or canvass in any manner to get the vote of this section of the society. The vote of a soldier obviously has no worth!! Lack of any connects between the soldier and his elected representative at his native place is explicit. How can such a contestant represent him in the State Assembly or the Parliament?
At his place of posting, a soldier has a number of local problems and services related issues to contend with. His local issues include power supply, water supply and timings, law and order situation in the civil areas where some of the soldiers' families reside, street lighting, road conditions, land acquisition for training infrastructure such as ranges, environment clearances etc. are just a few examples. On the career side, his problems relating to promotion prospects, service conditions such as pay and allowances, prejudiced government edicts on issues such as pay commission reports and order of precedence; civil military relations etc. need resolution.
In the olden days the Service Chiefs used to attend to a soldier's service issues but today the Service Chiefs are mere heads with practically no say in the decision making process. His voice is drowned by the bureaucracy. Remember the uproar when the Air Chief wrote to his units informing them of the delay in finalizing the 6th Pay Commission Report which he is duty bound to do as their commander? With the Service Chiefs being rendered defunct the only option available to the soldier is to take his problems to the people's court – the Parliament through his elected representative. It is at his place of posting that a soldier can maintain contact with his elected representative through his Commanding Officer and Formation Commanders. Incidentally, every soldier will tell you that during his service career one rarely received his postal ballot papers in time to be of any meaning in the election process.
The reality is, when you are not a vote bank, no one cares for you. The administration and even local police ignores you and most of the time humiliates you. The time for a soldier to be treated as a foot mat is over and it is time he is empowered to demand his rights and dues.
Positive developments
In the recently concluded Dec 2014 assembly elections in Delhi, about 40000 state Government employees including police personnel, Government staff and drivers were given the ballot papers well before the elections and were made to cast their vote in sealed boxes kept at Facilitation Centers. Their votes were counted along with those of the Delhi's citizens.
It has been reported in the media that Defence voters belonging to other places but residing in Delhi due to official postings have been registered as voters in the Delhi Cantonment to woo the participation of the defence personnel during elections.
If these could be done in Delhi Cantonment, there is no reason why it can't be done at other places for soldiers under similar circumstances.
The way forward
Amend the Hand Book for EROs in a manner that its contents are unambiguous. EC should issue clear instructions to all EROs and the Service Headquarters to enroll soldiers as voters at their place of posting. If a time stipulation for being eligible to be enrolled as a voter in the electoral roll is to be imposed, it should in no way be different from those applicable to ordinary citizens.
The rules and the procedure adopted for enumerating the soldiers at their place of posting, establishing polling booths, their security and counting should not differ in any way from that of the civilians in the area. If the EC wishes to seek the assistance of the Defence authorities in the matter, they may do so at their discretion and assistance may be provided by the services if it is feasible, within the rules and is not likely to be viewed as influencing the elections in any manner.
Soldiers' families should be permitted to vote at their place of residence irrespective of where they are as in the case of ordinary citizens.
Troops in the border posts and on duty within the units should be permitted to vote in the manner in which Delhi Government employees did during 2014 assembly elections. The reminder personnel of the unit must follow the procedure adopted for the ordinary residents of the area.
Till such time Article 370 of the Constitution is in force, personnel posted in J & K may be permitted to vote at the constituency of their Regimental Centers through postal ballots as the institution is considered the second home of the soldier and contact with the elected representative can be maintained through the Regimental Center Commandants guided by their respective Colonel Commandants / Colonels of the Regiment. Arrangements will have to be made to have their votes counted wherever it could be done conveniently and the numbers included in the final tally before the election results are announced.
Conclusion
The right granted by the Constitution of India and the RP Act to a soldier adequately elucidated by the Supreme Court of India cannot be snatched away by anyone. The institutions, namely, EC, the Service Headquarters and the Government are only the implementing agencies of the provisions of these sacred documents and not the documents themselves.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Soldiers voting through postal ballots meaningless
Dengan url
http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2014/01/soldiers-voting-through-postal-ballots.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Soldiers voting through postal ballots meaningless
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Soldiers voting through postal ballots meaningless
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar