tribuneindia...Mailbag

A mid-term poll after 13 months preceded by a five-month-long spell of caretaker government! The common citizen is baffled as to how this double tragedy has taken place when neither the President nor the ruling party nor even the Opposition can be held guilty of a breach of any rule. Is it not a pity that none is accountable for such a big crisis. The reason is that there is a loophole in the system.

The entire process of making, running and removing a government depends upon the game of numbers which the members of the Lok Sabha play partly in the House and partly in Rashtrapati Bhavan with the help of two devices known as the motion of "confidence" and that of "no-confidence".

The first one is moved by the Prime Minister at the instance of the President, and the second one is by the Opposition at any time of its choice. The ruling party continues to remain in the office so long as it is not defeated by the Opposition. In such a situation the scene shifts to Rashtrapati Bhavan where an alternative Prime Minister is selected by the President and then elected by the Lok Sabha. Sometimes it cannot be selected as it happened in April, and sometimes it cannot be elected as it happened in the case of Mr Vajpayee in 1997 when he had to resign after 13 days of taking over. In such cases a deadlock gets created whose solution is generally a mid-term poll.

The common drawback in both these devices is that although these have the potential to make a government fall, none has the provision even to identify the alternative Prime Minister beforehand, what to say of pre-testing his strength in the Lok Sabha.

This drawback can be removed if these two devices are replaced by another one to be named as the "motion of contest". It should be obligatory for the Opposition to identify the alternative Prime Minister. Such a motion can be moved by the Opposition suo motu or at the instance of the President.

At the instance of the President, the Opposition would have moved this motion after naming Mrs Sonia Gandhi as the alternative Prime Minister. She would have secured 233 votes against Mr Vajpayee's 269. The motion would have been defeated and the BJP government would have continued. The President would have been saved from the botheration of searching for an alternative Prime Minister, and Rashtrapati Bhavan would not have been the scene for the game of numbers.

The Opposition would have been saved from the stigma of following a dog in the manger policy and thrusting a mid-term poll on the country. Last but not the least, the common man would have been saved from the agony and expense of a mid-term poll and a caretaker government for five-long months.

Judicial problems

The Tribune must be thanked for the brilliant two-part article "Challenges before judiciary" (May 5-6), reportedly based on a lecture delivered in memory of the late D.M. Singhvi by Mr Justice A.S. Anand, the Chief Justice of India, thus providing a rich fare to the readers.

No doubt, the things on the country's judicial front can register tangible improvement if Mr Justice Anand's pertinent suggestions are properly acted upon by all concerned.

Although Mr Justice Anand has made a laudatory observation vis-a-vis the National Legal Services Authority, I as a member of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), strongly feel that the working of the high-sounding "authorities" constituted at various levels under the relevant Act still leaves much to be desired. Let alone other vital matters, even meetings of the DLSA are held painfully erratically.

Incredibly enough, the DLSA has held just one meeting (that too introductory) ever since it was constituted more than one and a half years ago. The DLSA has reportedly no funds at its disposal to pay even TA/DA to its non-official members. The outcome of the noval experiment, under the circumstances, can well be imagined.

The nation at large would feel beholden to Mr Justice Anand if he helps activate the aforesaid bodies, failing which the desideratum would remain a far cry.

TARA CHAND
Ambota (Una)

In The Tribune dated May 5 (page 8) there was a news item, "Wooden house safer in quake-prone areas". Such a recommendation may save a lot of lives, but is it really viable? There is the escalating cost of wood and, more importantly, the stark contradiction of this proposal with eco-friendliness and safety.

For the past one decade or so we have been desperately trying to educate the people about saving trees and keeping green. Now we are letting them down for quake-resistant houses! Besides, haven't we learnt a bitter lesson just this December when the historic Walker Hospital was burnt to ashes in Shimla. The shortage of water and low-water pressure in the hills compounds the fire hazard in the case of wooden constructions.

I visited Shimla after almost 20 years expecting to encounter the worst. It was indeed appalling to see the concrete mushrooming on the hillsides with total disregard for safety and natural beauty. A morbid thought crossed my mind — if ever there were a quake here, there would be hell to pay.

Why don't the scientists and the state wake up and change over to more developed and safer options such as the prefabricated constructions which have been a success the world over. They are cost-effective and totally safe for the hills. These are essentially light structures and fire-and-quake resistant. They are quick and easy to build and even move if the need be.

Denuded hillsides with wooden structures are definitely not what people would want. Save the environment and go prefabricated. Take a cue from our "thinking" Army, which is already going ahead with the construction of a pre-fabricated military hospital in Shimla.

	M A I L B A G	Wednesday, May 12, 1999
weather n spotlight today's calendar