CPM and Somnath.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat’s statement that Somnath Chaterjee’s expulsion is the internal matter of the party is correct and they need not to give further justification on this. The reason given by them is though Somnath is the speaker of Lok Sabha but he was elected on the basis of party’s ticket which is why he was supposed to quit as speaker and should have voted against the government on party’s line. But this action has a flaw. Though the party has the right and freedom to follow their ideology but they must remember the fact that the party works under India’s constitutional procedure. So for the sake of maintaining party’s discipline they can’t give orders which sideline the constitutional responsibility.
They expelled Mr Chaterjee without even allowing him to represent himself. According to CPM’s guideline the process of taking action against any member, involved in violating the party‘s code of ethics, should pass through a six step process as defined in their constitution. This includes giving a show cause notice and organising a proper discussion. However, in this case they have adopted a procedure similar to 'Summary Explanation' developed by Russian leftist group, which lacks such steps and the defending side do not even have the right to justify their act. But can India’s democratic structure digest such procedure guided by strong Marxist views?
Although the CPI(M) tried to present the expulsion of Mr Chaterjee to look like any high degree action backed by incontestable principles, but two simple things here reveals their plan of action. One is that Mr Prakash Karat earlier in his statement have openly said that Somanath Chaterjee is free to take his decision on his own term, and the party didn’t gave any order for his expulsion. But his colleague in the Politburo has a different story to tell, they have confirmed that clear instructions were given to Mr Chaterjee by the Politburo. Why the CPI(M) had given such dual statements to the media? Secondly a responsible party like CPI(M) must know such constitutional position which requires freedom from party’s dictums. Like the post of the president, a president can remain associated with his party as a member but cannot follow party’s directives while being in the office of president.
Is this what Somnath deserves from the party whom he had been associated for the past four decades? Somnath has so far won ten parliamentary elections and the parliament also had acknowledged his dedication by honouring him with the award of best parliamentarian. His expulsion brings no laurel to CPI(M) but only criticism. The way Somnath handled the parliament during the motion of confidence as being a responsible and unbiased speaker has increased his importance and number of good friends in politics after the party’s unjustifiable action.
They expelled Mr Chaterjee without even allowing him to represent himself. According to CPM’s guideline the process of taking action against any member, involved in violating the party‘s code of ethics, should pass through a six step process as defined in their constitution. This includes giving a show cause notice and organising a proper discussion. However, in this case they have adopted a procedure similar to 'Summary Explanation' developed by Russian leftist group, which lacks such steps and the defending side do not even have the right to justify their act. But can India’s democratic structure digest such procedure guided by strong Marxist views?
Although the CPI(M) tried to present the expulsion of Mr Chaterjee to look like any high degree action backed by incontestable principles, but two simple things here reveals their plan of action. One is that Mr Prakash Karat earlier in his statement have openly said that Somanath Chaterjee is free to take his decision on his own term, and the party didn’t gave any order for his expulsion. But his colleague in the Politburo has a different story to tell, they have confirmed that clear instructions were given to Mr Chaterjee by the Politburo. Why the CPI(M) had given such dual statements to the media? Secondly a responsible party like CPI(M) must know such constitutional position which requires freedom from party’s dictums. Like the post of the president, a president can remain associated with his party as a member but cannot follow party’s directives while being in the office of president.
Is this what Somnath deserves from the party whom he had been associated for the past four decades? Somnath has so far won ten parliamentary elections and the parliament also had acknowledged his dedication by honouring him with the award of best parliamentarian. His expulsion brings no laurel to CPI(M) but only criticism. The way Somnath handled the parliament during the motion of confidence as being a responsible and unbiased speaker has increased his importance and number of good friends in politics after the party’s unjustifiable action.
Comments