M M Thomas, others were not seekers of loaves and fishes
New Delhi
The Congress party these days would never miss a chance to play holier than thou.
The leaders would go to any length to dismiss the Modi regime as a dictatorial
one but they forget their heydays in power. How 'arrogance' was used to bulldoze democracy and the right spirit and principles of democracy?
Vamuzo and Blogger in 'Naga Banner' newspaper office
The 25th of June was a reminder of its own folly vis-a-vis national emergency.
In Nagaland, there was yet another round of experience as late as 1992 when
all constitutional norms were set aside and the egos of leaders like S C Jamir,
K L Chishi and Chingwang Konyak were 'honoured' to deprive regionalists of their legitimate rights granted by the constitution.
Blogger: Younger Days
Here are a few samples of write-ups and commentaries in national media on the
imposition of President's Rule in 1992 depriving Vamuzo the 'caretaker position'.
The 'Indian Express' edit of March 30, 1992 -
"Congressmen should ponder the damage the politics of defection they have encouraged has done to the northeast and whether such politics and the attendant corruption constitute an engaging advertisement of the merits of parliamentary democracy in a region where the insurgency has yet to lose its appeal".
# "One regrets to have to add that the President (then R Venkataraman, a former cabinet colleague of the then PM Narasimha Rao) has also been remiss. No President is bound to sign Proclamation based on manifestly false grounds".
- A G Noorani in 'The Statesman', April 11, 1992
# "The real ground for the Centre's resentment (against Vamuzo and then Governor M M Thomas) is the fact that, for the first time in recent years, a Governor has dissolved the state assembly, in exercise of the powers under Art 174 (2-B) without reference to the centre".
- A G Noorani, 'The Statesman' April 2, 1992
# "Used to pliable Governors scrupulously following dictates from Delhi, the ruling party at the centre (Congress) was clearly taken aback by M M Thomas's strange preference for constitutional obligation under which he had no option but to accept Vamuzo's request for dissolving the legislature".
- Edit in 'Times of India' April 6, 1992
# "Technically the Governor's action cannot be faulted.... It was in fitness of things that Mr Thomas accepted the Chief Minister's advice as he is bound to do by the constitution. In a state where defection and counter defection is a tradition, dissolving the state assembly foreclosed the chances of any horsetrading" - Edit in 'The Telegraph', April 3, 1992
# "It is a pity that Congress MPs have refused to see the constitutional tension that has been created....and the damage it has done to the dignity of the office of Governor. Opposition parties and groups are led to believe (in north east) that they can seldom get justice from the Congress at the centre". - 'Free Press Journal', Mumbai - edit, April 6, 1992
# "In his last gubernatorial testament, he (Dr Thomas) claimed that his actions were devoted to 'safeguarding' the interest of the state in the true spirit of the federal structure of our constitution. He has maintained the impeccable position that Governors are independent constitutional authorities and not mere agents of the central government" -
Justice (retd) V R Krishna Iyar, 'The Hindu', April 24, 1992
# "Mr Thomas was more than a martyr, he was an exemplar. Dhavan, Pandey, Nirmal Mukherjee, Barnala, Jagmohan and others of their ilk were not seekers of loaves and fishes but knew their business and possessed the courage to resign. When a Governor quails, the Constitution fails".
- Justice Krishna Iyar, Feb 25, 1992 'The Hindu'
# "The centre has done it again. The purpose of Article 356 is remedial, to restore constitutional machinery. It is not punitive and certainly not to settle partisan scores". - Soli Sorabjee, senior constitutional lawyer in 'Times of India', April 4, 1992
** Vamuzo had registered his protest strongly. He even wrote a letter to then President R Venkataraman saying he had done 'personal injustice' twice - imposing President's Rule in 1992 and prior to that denying Vamuzo to form government after Hokishe Sema ministry was reduced to minority in 1989.
Vamuzo always used to say, the Congress will regret its decision of 1992 as it was gross violation of Constitution and went against the spirit of Sarkaria Commission and natural justice.
"A day will come, Congress will have no leader, no voter. And the party may exists on paper and no legislator," Vamuzo said once.
Beware our neta class and also voters, some prophecies can come true.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment