[Reader-list] FW: Gujarat Governor returns bill on voting

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Kshamendra

I would restrict this mail to two things: point 1 and point 2

Point 1:

 The Governor can indeed sit on a bill indefinitely without doing anything,
as can the President. In my own state, Madhya Pradesh, on a bill which on
becoming an act would have curtailed the powers of the Governor in choosing
the Chancellors of the Barkatallah and other universities (created by the
state governments of Madhya Pradesh), Bhai Mahavir, during his tenure as the
Governor, kept sitting on the bill without either returning it to the
assembly stating his objections or signing it if he had none. Giani Zail
Singh also did the same regarding the Postal Bill passed by the Parliament.
(The content of postal bill was undemocratic as it tried to curb the freedom
of speech and impose censorship in post).

This is also undemocratic. It would have been fine if Giani Zail Singh had
returned the bill and if being sent to him again, resigned from the post of
President stating that the bill is undemocratic and against his conscience
to sign. That would have enhanced his stature and also been a slap on the
government's face. But he sat on the bill.

But this is only when the bill is sent the first time. When the bill is sent
the second time after having been reconsidered, the Governor or the
President has to sign it, come what may. But in the case of a bill passed by
the state assembly, it has to go to the President and get his/her assent.
That may also be a place of sitting on it, as the GCOCA (Gujarat Control of
Organized Crime Act) has not yet been notified and yet remains a bill only.
(Admittedly as the Home Ministry has not yet notified the draconian law,
like another one MCOCA which is unfortunately ratified).

Point 2:

My point is simple. The right of the person doesn't entail necessarily a
duty towards the state. The problem it will entail is something nobody tries
to realize here. There is only one basic argument, and it's this:

Is voting a right, or a duty?

According to me it's a right. It's not a duty, towards the state. It's not a
duty we are doing to politicians. At best, it could be a duty to ourselves.
But again, who am I to question why someone is voting and somebody else
isn't? My problem is this that if a person doesn't vote, you are imposing
your opinion that he/she should vote on that person. Each person must have
the right or freedom to decide whether he/she wants to vote or not. Of
course, the decision to vote or not vote should depend on reason and
rationality, but that decision must lie ultimately with that person.

Therefore, by stating that voting is a duty, you are taking away my right to
not express my view (by not voting) and that is wrong, and against the very
principles of Indian Constitution which provide the freedom of speech and
expression to me, as well as the right to vote as well.

What I see in this bill is an act to suppress the rights of people by
imposing your views on them. That is wrong and I would oppose it any day. If
you have any objections, you must discuss and debate with them rather than
taking away their right to choose whether they should vote or not vote.

Rakesh