Analysis: The parable of the washerman and his pets

Did your grandmother ever tell you the parable of the washerman, the dog, and the donkey? If not, here goes:

There once was a washerman who lived on the banks of the Ganga. He made a decent living with the help of his two animals, a dog and a donkey. Of course, the two pets had different duties – the donkey was supposed to carry the load and the dog was around to guard the clothes as they dried.

Unfortunately, the dog began to get a bit lazy as time went on. He would, for instance, sneak off to sleep at night as soon as he saw that his master had nodded off. The donkey, a faithful beast, tried to teach his friend the error of his ways, but to no avail.

One night, a thief entered the washerman's yard to pick up some silk sarees that had been left to dry. The donkey saw that his coworker was sleeping. So, he brayed loudly in an effort to wake his master.

But the infuriated washerman didn't notice the thief in the darkness; all he could perceive was the loud braying of his donkey. And the poor donkey got a sound thrashing. The moral of the story: donkeys should stick to what they do best, and not try to do a dog's job.

I used to think the point of the tale was so obvious that it did not really bear repetition. I was wrong.

Today in Delhi everyone seems determined to somebody else's job. Case in point: the Election Commission seems bent on running relief operations in Gujarat or conducting an enquiry commission. (I am not sure which.) The one thing that it is not doing is its Constitution-mandated job of ensuring that elections are conducted as quickly and as fairly as possible.

What exactly is the problem with holding elections in Gujarat? Opponents of polls in October seem to have two major talking points. First, they say that there are still about 13,000 people in the relief camps. Second, they say that there is a continuing problem with law and order.

To see the double standards involved, step away from Gujarat for a while, and take a look at Jammu and Kashmir (where assembly polls are to be held in a couple of months). There are at least 100,000 Kashmiri Pandits scattered in relief camps across northern India. (Mark that wrote "at least", several experts put the number much higher.) 100,000 is a much larger figure than the numbers in Gujarat – both as an absolute figure, and as a proportion of the total population of the state. (Jammu and Kashmir does not have even a third of the population of Gujarat.)

Yet I am still to hear anyone say that polls in Jammu and Kashmir should be postponed on this count.

Second, as to law and order, terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir continues to be responsible for several hundred deaths every year. (Indian casualties – which includes security personnel of course – over the past 12 years of militancy in this state number close to 70,000.)

So, does that mean there should be no elections in Jammu and Kashmir until there is complete peace and quiet?

Double standard

I am sorry to say this, but there seems to be a clear double standard at work over here. When was the last time that the Chief Election Commissioner visited a relief camp for Kashmiri Pandits?

May I add that it is not necessary to fly down to Ahmedabad to see the squalid conditions in which they live, there are plenty of such refugees in Delhi itself.

I could be wrong of course, and it is possible that the powers-that-be in Nirvachan Sadan are deeply concerned about conditions in Jammu and Kashmir, but I must say that it is not the impression that I have received.

So much for different standards for different states. Is the Election Commission actually doing what it is supposed to be doing? Here, I shall not presume to tell Messrs.

Lyngdoh & Co. what their duties are. Instead, I shall recall some home truths which the Supreme Court told a former chief election commissioner, T.N. Seshan.

The redoubtable chief election commissioner was supposed to be conducting a by-election in Kolkata. He blew a fuse over the fact that a liquor shop would be open in another part of the city, and threatened to postpone everything.

The mess ended up in the Supreme Court, where their Lordships were unusually blunt. (As a rule, the Supreme Court is tact personified when it comes to criticising a functionary of the Constitution.)

The Election Commission's task was to conduct elections, the Supreme Court said, not to place difficulties in the path of polls. Seshan prudently gave way. (This, please remember, was the same Supreme Court which repeatedly shielded him from the Narasimha Rao ministry's attempts to browbeat the Election Commission.)

There is another ruling by the Supreme Court which is relevant. One of the reforms mooted by T.N. Seshan was the identity card.

It was, and is, an excellent idea, but the former chief election commissioner went too far when he said he wouldn't hold polls in Bihar unless the state administration completed the task of distributing these cards.

This was challenged in the Supreme Court by Laloo Prasad Yadav. Their Lordships ruled that identity cards, however desirable in themselves, could not be an excuse to delay elections in Bihar.

To date, I believe the task of distributing election identity cards is still not complete in Bihar. Yet polls have continued to be held over the years long after Seshan left Nirvachan Sadan.

I am afraid a conflict is brewing between the Election Commission and the government. (What happens if Parliament refuses to ratify President's Rule in the state?) Before matters reach the point of no return, may I recommend that the Supreme Court's previous rulings be studied?

T.V.R. Shenoy is a well-known political analyst.