All Indians get to vote from their place of current residence, except soldiers, who can't exercise their franchise even from peace postings. This is an affront to our jawans who serve the nation. It also hurts our democratic character
It may come as a surprise to many that, unlike every other citizen of this country, the constitutional right to cast his or her vote is not fully applicable to our men and women in the Armed Forces and in some paramilitary and police forces. This is a travesty since we seem quite content when the soldier takes a bullet on our behalf, as Colonel MN Rai recently did during an encounter in the Kashmir valley.As a citizen, one can register as a voter at the place where one is ordinarily an resident and actively participate in the democratic process for all elections. Interestingly, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, while amplifying on the term 'ordinary resident' does not specify any minimum period that one is required to be a resident of a constituency from where one intends to vote.
This implies that one can vote from wherever one is staying.However, members of the Armed Forces are not permitted to do so. They can only vote from their 'native place', as registered when they joined the service. They cannot vote from their place of posting, which, incidentally, was permitted till 1972. In 2008, the Election Commission ruled that for a serviceman to be considered an 'ordinary resident' of a constituency, he had be posted there for three years and be accompanied by his family. These restrictions were challenged in the Supreme Court. On March 24, 2014, the apex court ruled that Armed Forces personnel should be allowed to vote at their place of posting, except for when located in border areas. The court also expressed its disappointment with the Election Commission. It said that that the EC had taken "rigid" and "technical" stand when it should sought to ensure that every citizen can exercise his right to vote.However, there has been an unsubstantiated media report, quoting an anonymous Government spokesperson, that the Government intends to approach the Supreme Court to reconsider its earlier ruling, permitting serving Armed Forces personnel, posted in peace stations, to cast their vote. The reason is purportedly "strategic factors and other complexities". The spokesman, as per one report, elaborated that allowing servicemen to cast their vote at the place of their current posting is a security threat - by exercising their voting right at the place of their posting, they could be giving out details of their deployment. Also, there may be places, especially in border areas, where soldiers outnumber locals which can lead to skewed results. Both reasons are puerile. Army cantonments, military stations, naval bases and Air Force stations, where Armed Forces personnel are deployed, are not secret. They usually play an important part in the local economy, have been there for decades (if not from before Partition), and their size is hardly secret.
Moreover, military personnel located in cantonments are registered with the Cantonment Board and participate in the Board election, details of which are open to public scrutiny. It is, therefore, disingenuous to suggest that registering as a voter will give away their deployment details. Also, if this were to be true, it would also hold good for registering the children of serving personnel in schools, applying for a gas connection, a mobile connection, a telephone line and even a driving license. Is it being seriously suggested that all of this should also not be permitted?The Government's idea of secrecy appears to be pretty archaic and lopsided, keeping in mind that satellites and electronic intelligence have made it extremely difficult to keep military locations, dispositions and even movements a secret. The Government does have a point that soldiers can influence the result of elections.
The question is: What is wrong with that? Soldiers are patriotic, disciplined, trustworthy citizens who are impacted by all that happens in their place of posting, where they may remain for three years or more, and to which they contribute economically, culturally and socially. Why should their interests not be looked after by elected representatives? In fact, it can be argued that because of their diverse cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds, soldiers will force politicians to look at local issues in a larger national context, which will certainly be good for the country.However, this issue also needs to be seen in a broader context. If all other citizens have the right to choose from where they can vote, why should servicemen be treated any differently? It is unfair to make an individual eligible to vote only from one place, that may have been registered as his permanent address at the time of joining the service, but to which he may never return. The reason for the Government to think about initiating this step, which will undoubtedly be supported by politicians of all hues, is the fact that the last general election has shown the emergence of the approximately 30 lakh military veteran community as an important and influential voting block. This has not only forced political parties to commit themselves to meeting their aspirations but also to induct ex-servicemen into their fold. Politicians realise the likely impact of another 15 lakh serving soldiers. But they incorrectly believe that this will turn out to be a block vote. This retrograde step of preventing of appealing to the apex court to reverse its decision, if initiated by the Government, will not be good either for our democracy or for the country.
(The author, a former military officer is a consultant with the Observer Research Foundation)
( Courtesy@daily Pioneer.com) |
