MAYAWATI-STATUE

MIRZAPUR: The verdict is clear in the sandstone countryside: Mayawati‘s statues made the mango trees stop bearing fruit and the children cough.

Sheared hills of pink sandstone drape the 200-km stretch of the Vindhya Ranges in this eastern UP mining hub, where hoards of contractors and thousands of labourers descended in 2007 to seize a government bonanza. That was when the Mayawati government began sourcing stone to be used in parks, monuments – and the CM’s own statues.

It was an opportunity for many in the poor region. But after the government orders stopped in November 2008 and action shifted to Rajasthan, the rush to carve out the Mirzapur stone left agriculture devastated,livelihoods affected,people sick and the environment polluted, residents say.

“Wherever the crushers’ dust settles , trees go barren. Children can’t breathe. People get lung ailments,” says Lal Bahadur Singh, president, Stone Traders’ Association. “Government illegally allowed crushers in inhabited areas. This destroyed agriculture .Workers are upset their livelihood was snatched and work shifted to Rajasthan.” The rage is set to impact the polls, where BSP stands to lose its dominating influence.The party won three of the five seats in Mirzapur district in 2007. “I’ve voted for BSP for 10 years. But this time, villagers say they’ll vote for anyone but BSP,”says Raja Ram,a 40-year old stone crusher.

While it lasted, everyone seemed to be making money. Local wages went up. The town from which stones travelled in the 19th and 20th centuries up to Nepal and Tibet was reliving forgotten glory. “Thousands of labourers cut stone and made money , but most were from other states. What did we get?” Ram says. About 20,000 labourers got work every day and made money. Workers from other states dislodged them, fuelling anger. It was a warlike operation to break gigantic blocks up to 700-tonnes of stone in 15-foot high slabs. These were used in elephant statues. Each stone slab was loaded onto trucks and sent to Bayana in Rajasthan to be chiselled and brought back to Lucknow-a practice indicted by CAG.

Suddenly, mine millionaires sprang up, roaming the area in SUVs with BSP flags. The mining and crushing plants violated a Supreme Court order that mandated that mining in Mirzapur could be done only by locals-and that it could be done in remote areas, not in residential clusters. Water was being pumped day and night for the crushing plants, scooping out 1,000 litres every 15 minutes. The region has at least 70 such plants. “Until five years ago, we used to get water at five feet. Now, it’s 25 feet,” says Ram Sharan Patel, 56, of Dhuriya village.
One day, it all ended. The state decided to order stones from Rajasthan. The sudden prosperity vanished, leaving behind a wounded land.

As election season set in and local mining millionaires sensed the direction of the political wind, BSP’s flags came down from the SUVs. Now, residents say the ruling party will have a political price to pay.

Neelesh Misra is a journalist, author & Bollywood lyricist

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Maya-statues-harm-state-BSP-votes/articleshow/11866755.cms

Related articles

• Heavy turnout shows people want change: Rahul (ibnlive.in.com)
• We cannot be a mute spectator, says EC official (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• UP: Mayawati blames Centre for lack of funds (ibnlive.in.com)
• EC accuses BSP of non-cooperation in poll symbol row (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)
• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)
• Ramesh rejects Mayawati charge, says Congress states too under scanner (thehindu.com)

Despite acceptance of the code by political parties, the commission receives complaints of violation during every election.

Model code of conduct enforced by the Election Commission (EC) invariably draws praise and pan every time. It is no exception this time when five states are going to poll. The EC took two major decisions.

It stopped the implementation of Union government’s decision to carve out 4.5 per cent sub-quota for minorities from the existing 27 per cent reservation for the OBCs, and got the statues of Mayawati and that of elephant, her party’s symbol, covered as these were installed by the state government using state fund.

Though the Union government was circumspect not to react bitterly, Mayawati went hammer and tongs against the EC  accusing it of being anti-Dalit and taking the decision under the influence of the Central government. The EC also reacted strongly warning her not to denigrate a constitutional institution. One may question the wisdom of the EC in getting the statues covered as statues hardly pay dividend in the form of vote, but one cannot question the intention of the EC. It has not happened for the first time.

In the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, photographs of then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on billboards across the country on the Golden Quadrilateral national highway were covered at the poll panel’s directive.

The elephant symbol was granted to the BSP in the face of severe controversies as the Asom Gan Parishad and Sikim Sangram Parishad have got the same symbol. The EC resolved the crisis by ordering that the AGP would not use the symbol of elephant if it fields its candidate outside Assam, and so will do the SSP if it contests election outside Sikkim.

Similarly, the BSP cannot use this symbol in Assam and Sikkim if it fields its candidates in these two states. Mayawati is adducing bizarre logic that if statues of ‘elephant’ are covered, then bicycle (symbol of SP) and hand pump (symbol of RLD) should also be covered. She forgets that no statues have been made of these with public fund, and the movement of bicycles cannot be stopped as there is no ban on the movement of pachyderms on roads.

DMK’s symbol is the rising sun, but can it be covered?  Lotus cannot be taken out of ponds but if an artificial lotus is installed, or the portrait of sun is installed by the state, it may have to be covered.

The model code of conduct is a set of norms for the guidance of political parties and candidates and has evolved with the consent of political parties. It has its inception in the Assembly of Kerala in 1960 when the state police imposed some restrictions on candidates to ensure level playing field to all.The idea appealed to the people all over the country and it was replicated in different states subsequently.

First code

The commission circulated its first code before the fifth Lok Sabha elections in 1971. Under the code, ministers and other authorities cannot announce any policy decisions or financial grant, lay down foundation stones of projects of schemes if any kind, make any promises or appointments which may have the effect of influencing the votes in favour of the ruling party.

However, despite acceptance of the code by political parties, the commission receives a large number of complaints about its violation during every election. Many a time, it leads to confrontation between the EC and the government or the ruling party. In 2000, there was a tug of war between the Union government and the commission over the issue. The EC convened an all-party meeting to find an amicable solution. Ultimately, all parties agreed to support the commission’s stand that the code becomes effective from the date of announcement of elections.

In 1992, the EC mooted the idea of giving statutory status to the model code of conduct, but later it reversed its stand saying that on the basis of experience, it had learnt that there was no need to convert the code into statute. On August 8, 2005, in a reply to a question by Pramod Mahajan, then law minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj said in Rajya Sabha, “The government had sought the views of the Election Commission on the recommendation of the Goswami committee for giving statutory backing to the model code of conduct, violation of which to be made an electoral offence. The Election Commission is, however, not in its favour.”

The reason for the volte face in its stand is that once the code gets statutory status, the EC will be left with little power as the violation of the code will be decided by the court which will take years and decades. At present, the commission takes instant decision. In some cases, prosecution is launched when it is not only the violation of the code but also the commission of a criminal offence. In 2009, Varun Gandhi made an inflammatory speech against the Muslim community. The EC, in its unanimous order, asked the BJP not to make him a candidate. But the BJP did not pay heed to it. A case was filed against Varun at the directive of the EC which is still pending.

The commission enjoys vast powers for enforcing the code without statutory backing. The Supreme Court held in M S Gill’s case that where the law is silent, the EC has full power to take steps to ensure free and fair conduct of poll. The commission gets unbridled public support and adulation for its activism, but the political leadership also must come forward to clean the Augean’s Stable. A law needs to be made that if a party in power installs the statues of its symbol or living leaders, the symbol will be forfeited.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/222547/for-model-conduct.html

Related articles

• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)
• We cannot be a mute spectator, says EC official (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• Plea to EC wants statues of Maya, elephants covered (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• EC orders Mayawati statues covered (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)
• Yechury hails EC decision (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)
• EC accuses BSP of non-cooperation in poll symbol row (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)
• EC’s decision biased, anti-Dalit: BSP (ibnlive.in.com)
• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (thehindu.com)
• Elephant Statues Part of Indian Culture: BSP to EC (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. 110001

 PRESS NOTE

 No.ECI/PN/9/2012                                Dated: 18th January, 2012

Sub: Covering of Statues in Uttar Pradesh- Comments reported in Media regarding

The Commission issued an Order on 8th January 2012 for suitably covering the statues of elephants and statues of Ms. Mayawati constructed in public places at government expenses for the duration of the Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh.

 Commission has come across some incorrect and misleading comments on this decision. Some of the comments suggest a lack of understanding of the facts.

 The Order of the Commission is in accordance with the law and in keeping with its Constitutional mandate for ensuring level playing field during the elections with the objective of ensuring free and fair polls. This Order is also in conformity with the Commission’s consistent practice to remove photographs, pictures, etc. of active political leaders at all public places, put up at the cost of public exchequer so that there is no undue advantage or disadvantage to political parties and candidates.

 There are standing instructions of the Commission, again reiterated in 2009, that images and photographs of Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, Ministers and other political functionaries who are active in public life should not be displayed in government buildings and premises as that would have the effect of disturbing the level playing field. The statues depicting any party symbol and put up in public places at the cost of public money would also come in this category.

The basic philosophy of Model Code of Conduct is that the political parties, particularly the parties in power at the Centre and in the States, do not use their official power and official machinery in a manner which may give cause of complaint to others that the same have been misused by them to influence the voters. This basic philosophy of the Model Code of Conduct has met with the approval of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases.

Commission’s enforcement only relates to statues of living leaders of political parties who are still active in politics and not leaders of the past. That is why statues of several icons including that of late Shri Kanshi Ram as well as of other parties have not been ordered to be covered. Any charge of discrimination on this ground can only be ill founded. In fact, the UP administration has been asked to bring to the Commission’s attention, statues of other political parties standing on similar footing and which have been erected at government cost so that appropriate action can be initiated.

The contention that the statues of elephants as erected are different from the election symbol of BSP is not acceptable. In that case, other Political Parties would be in a position to seek allotment of the Elephant symbol in different postures.

 While enforcing the level playing field, the Commission does not take into account statues raised with private funds, whether of political leaders or election symbols or otherwise. Questions have been raised about various living and non-living objects that might resemble party symbols, some of them also created out of government funds. It is to be appreciated that many such common objects are created/ provided/ supplied by any government, irrespective of party affiliation in the course of its normal functioning and by no stretch of logic these can be compared with the statues as in the present case.

 The issue of statues was the subject matter of some complaints before the Commission in 2009, wherein it was pleaded to freeze the elephant symbol. The Commission in its Order of 11th October, 2010, while not accepting the request, had made it clear that at the time of elections, the Commission would take appropriate measures to see that the statues do not disturb the level playing field.

It also needs to be clarified that in implementation of the MCC, Commission does not engage in prior consultations every time, but looks to take early remedial action in order to keep the electoral process on the track. In any case, here the Commission was covering a government property, hence the need to consult any political party does not arise.

Looking from whatever rules, facts and reasoning, the step to cover the statues was the most appropriate and available option before the Commission.

While Commission takes all views about its working in its stride, but it is truly disturbed that the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and the national President of BSP, Ms. Mayawati, has cast serious aspersions on the Commission, in public, by attributing anti-Dalit and casteist motives to the Commission’s Order and also alleging that the Order is inspired by pressure from some political parties. Commission regrets that such an allegation was made and rejects the allegation. It expects a higher sense of responsibility and Constitutional decorum from major political parties and their leaders. It notes with concern such statements coming from those holding senior Constitutional positions. Commission needs to reiterate that it takes its decisions and enforces them within the provisions of the Constitution and that does not include considerations of religion, race, caste and community in the manner alleged. Rather it is one of the assigned responsibilities of the Commission to ensure that these aspects are not allowed to vitiate the election process.

 The Commission hopes that the aforesaid explanation makes its stand on the covering of the statues amply clear. It does not intend to further engage in elaborating the matter in the thick of its election management work.

 (Yashvir Singh)
Director

Related articles

• We cannot be a mute spectator, says EC official (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• EC orders Mayawati statues covered (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)
• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (mayawatistatues.wordpress.com)
• Plea to EC wants statues of Maya, elephants covered (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• Mayawati attacks EC for covering statues (thehindu.com)
• “Why should Mayawati object, when BJP, Congress accepted our earlier decisions?” (thehindu.com)
• Will Maya Come Back To Unveil Her Statues? (ktrmurali.wordpress.com)

THE HINDU

Similar order to cover photos of Vajpayee was issued during 2004 Lok Sabha polls

Amid criticism from some quarters of the Election Commission ordering draping of statues of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati and her party symbol, elephant, informed sources on Saturday said this was not the first time such a direction was issued during elections.

“Even prior to the May 2004 Lok Sabha elections, a similar order to drape photographs/portraits of the then Prime Minister and BJP leader A.B. Vajpayee, installed on highways and at golden quadrilateral road projects, was issued and it was adhered to,” recalled a senior EC official.

There used to be huge boards along the developed/underdeveloped highways, with photographs of a beaming Mr. Vajpayee waving to motorists. As many as 600 such boards were put up at a cost of Rs.48 crore and later Rs.1.8 crore was spent for their removal.

The EC asked the National Highway Authority of India to cover the boards as the model code did not allow display of hoardings paid for from the exchequer. The Opposition parties, led by the Congress, had complained that the boards gave the NDA unfair advantage at the public expense.

After the elections, the NHAI ordered removal of the signboards hours before Manmohan Singh took oath as Prime Minister.

“Little difference”

Meanwhile, a former Chief Election Commissioner told The Hindu that the EC’s order was not going to make any difference as the people knew very well whose statues they were even if they were draped. The EC might have taken the decision as the matter, relating to a complaint seeking action against Ms. Mayawati (disqualification) for installing her statues and elephant statues at public places at the cost of the exchequer, was pending in the Supreme Court, he said.

The EC, which also heard a complaint seeking freezing of the BSP‘s symbol as elephant statues had been installed in parks and public places by spending the public money, rejected the plea after a detailed hearing.

In its order in October 2010, the EC held that the complaint against Ms. Mayawati was not maintainable.

On a petition from advocate Ravi Kant, the Supreme Court had asked the EC to pass appropriate orders on the petition.

Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi and Election Commissioners V.S. Sampath and H.S. Brahma, in their order on October 11, said: “The grounds pleaded do not fall within the ambit of any of the disqualifications laid down in the law. The Commission cannot add or lay down any new grounds for disqualification.” Therefore the prayer for her disqualification is rejected.”

On the plea to freeze the elephant symbol, the EC said this question could be considered only if the model code was violated. It was well settled that the code would come into play only when the poll schedule was announced. “If a party, whether ruling or in the Opposition, by misusing public funds for its own partisan ends, erects or installs statues of its party symbol, even during non-election period, the party cannot absolve itself of the accusation that it has acted in breach of salutary principles underlying the objects of the code — maybe not in letter, but undoubtedly in spirit.”

BSP contention

The BSP then contended that the elephant statues showed the trunk raised in a welcome posture, whereas in the party symbol, the trunk was lowered.

While holding that the complaint was not maintainable, the EC said: “At the time of elections, the Commission would no doubt take appropriate steps and measures to see that the statues of Ms. Mayawati and the BSP’s symbol ‘elephant’ do not disturb the level-playing field.”

Related articles

• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (thehindu.com)
• Plea to EC wants statues of Maya, elephants covered (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• UP Polls: EC orders to cover Mayawati’s statues (ibnlive.in.com)
• EC’s decision biased, anti-Dalit: BSP (ibnlive.in.com)
• Operation cover up anti-Dalit, says Maya (ibnlive.in.com)
• Mayawati’s statue to be draped during polls: CEC (thehindu.com)
• UP polls: EC may ask Mayawati to cover her statues (ibnlive.in.com)
• Yechury hails EC decision (thehindu.com)

Speaking to journalists here during the launch of a book on Lalbagh Botanical Gardens and the contribution of erstwhile rulers of Mysore Tipu Sultan and Hyder Ali to the development of the gardens, Mr. Yechury said, “Election Commission is a constitutional body having responsibility to conduct fair elections. Whatever steps they [the Commission] have taken is good for democracy.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article2783789.ece

Related articles

• Yechury hails EC decision (thehindu.com)
• Operation cover up anti-Dalit, says Maya (ibnlive.in.com)
• EC’s decision biased, anti-Dalit: BSP (ibnlive.in.com)
• ECI Orders Veiling of Mayawati’s Statues in UP During Polls (ibtimes.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Election Commission‘s decision comes on slew of complaints from Opposition

The statues of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati and of elephant, the symbol of her Bahujan Samaj Party, which dot the numerous parks and memorials built by the government in Lucknow and Noida, will be covered before the seven-phase Assembly elections begin in the State on February 4.

The expenditure incurred on account of the exercise will be borne by the State government, the Election Commission ruled on Saturday, the second and last day of its visit to the State.

The Opposition parties had demanded that these statues be draped before the elections, arguing that they would give the ruling party an undue advantage.

Announcing the decision at a press conference here, Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi said the decision would ensure a level playing field for all candidates. The statues were public property, he said, but political mileage could be drawn from it.

Mr. Quraishi said the statues of the former Prime Ministers, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, would be also be covered. Even the photographs of the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister printed on calendars were to be covered. However, the statues of Mahatma Gandhi would be spared. “Mahatma Gandhi is not contesting the elections, and he does not belong to any party.”

At its meetings with eight parties on Friday, the Election Commission received many complaints about the misuse of authority by officers considered close to the ruling party.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2783208.ece

Related articles

• ECI Orders Veiling of Mayawati’s Statues in UP During Polls (ibtimes.com)
• Operation cover up anti-Dalit, says Maya (ibnlive.in.com)
• Plea to EC wants statues of Maya, elephants covered (advocateravikant.wordpress.com)
• ‘Nothing new about EC ordering draping of Mayawati statues’ (thehindu.com)
• EC’s decision biased, anti-Dalit: BSP (ibnlive.in.com)
• Yechury hails EC decision (thehindu.com)
• Mayawati’s statue to be draped during polls: CEC (thehindu.com)

MAYAWATI-STATUE

With the Mayawati government refusing to provide information on the number of statues of elephants and Chief Minister Mayawati installed in parks/public places in the State, the Election Commission has moved the Supreme Court for a direction to the Uttar Pradesh government to furnish these details to decide the issue before it.

Directive

On a petition from advocate Ravi Kant alleging misuse of public funds for installation of these statues for self-glorification and to promote the party symbol of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the Supreme Court had asked the Election Commission to pass appropriate orders on the petition.

However, when the Commission sought details, the State government replied that the Commission had no jurisdiction to seek such information when no election process was notified.

Government stand

The State government said that there was no provision under the Representation of the People Act and the Rules to call for such information as the Commission had no legal jurisdiction.

Assailing this stand, the Commission has approached the Supreme Court stating that in the absence of details as to where and in how many places/parks etc the statues of elephant and Ms. Mayawati had been installed, it could not verify the stand that the statues of elephant were not the replica of the party symbol.

BSP’s contention

The BSP had contended that the elephant statues showed the trunk of elephant raised in welcome posture, whereas in the party symbol the trunk of the elephant was in lowered posture.

The Commission said the government had declined to provide basic factual information for discharge of its functions to decide the petitions and complaints filed under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.

The information sought was integral to the discharge of its functions for arriving at a just and fair determination of the complaints filed by the petitioners and others.

Disputing the State’s stand that the Commission had no jurisdiction, the petition submitted that the information sought was vital for deciding such disputes, during non-election period.

It sought a direction to the State government to supply the information called for by the Commission and to extend the time for passing appropriate orders in the petition.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article444929.ece

NEW DELHI: Days after Rahul Gandhi scotched speculation about a new-found bonhomie between Congress and BSP, the Uttar Pradesh governor is set to withhold his assent to a Bill for creation of a special force to protect numerous statues of dalit leaders installed by the Mayawati government.  With legal opinion faulting both the Bill and the ordinance on the constitutional touchstone, governor B L Joshi has two options — either to return the Bill specifying modifications or reserve it for consideration of the President and her assent. The Special Zone Protection Force (SZPF) Bill was passed by both Houses of the legislature on February 18 and was sent for the governor’s assent. While awaiting his assent to the Bill, the BSP government passed an ordinance to similar effect and sent it to Raj Bhawan for clearance on March 26. Joshi had sought urgent opinion from the Centre about the constitutional validity of the special force for protection of dalit monuments, and the manner in which the Mayawati government had even started recruiting personnel for it. The legal opinion sought from Attorney General G E Vahanvati by the Centre has categorically asserted that the provisions of the Bill and the ordinance were in breach of Article 22 of the Constitution and violative of Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code, law ministry sources said.

What was ex-facie in conflict with Article 22 of the Constitution was the provision in the Bill conferring power on SZPF personnel to arrest, even without an order from a magistrate, any person who interferes or attempts to interfere with their duty to protect the monuments in memory of dalit leaders and their statues. The arrested person was to be handed over to the nearest police station without delay, the Bill provided.

The AG pointed out that this provision was unconstitutional as Article 22 clearly stated that every person should be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest and no one could be detained further without an order from the magistrate. Moreover, under Code of Criminal Procedure, no one could be arrested by a private person unless he has committed a cognizable offence, the top law officer pointed out and suggested that in the given circumstance the governor, in exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, could decide whether the Bill be reserved for consideration of the President and her assent. He also said that it would be improper for the Mayawati government to go ahead with the recruitment of the personnel for SZPF without the governor deciding the fate of the Bill or clearing the ordinance.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-favours-Guv-may-not-give-nod-to-Mayas-force/articleshow/5960414.cms