Deficit in democracy, Constitution under challenge, says Oppn’s V-P pick

Opposition’s vice-presidential candidate B Sudershan Reddy on Saturday said there was a “deficit in democracy” in the country and the Constitution was “under challenge” as he pledged to defend and protect it.

In an interview with PTI, Reddy dwelt on a range of issues from how his candidature came about to Home Minister Amit Shah’s accusation that he supported Naxalism.

The former Supreme Court Judge said earlier there was a talk of “deficit economy”, but now there is a “deficit in democracy”. “I do not say that India is no longer a democratic country. I don’t subscribe to that. We still continue to be a constitutional democracy, but it is under strain,” he said.

Calling himself a liberal constitutional democrat, Reddysaid the V-P election was not a contest between him and Radhakrishnan, but a contest representing “two ideologies. “Here is a quintessential RSS man...So far as I am concerned, I do not subscribe to that ideology and I am far, far away from it. I am essentially a liberal constitutional democrat. This is the arena for the contest where the fight goes on,” he said.

Reddy also sought to downplay the debate on the V-P election emerging as a “South versus South” contest, saying both he and NDA nominee CP Radhakrishnan were citizens of one country.

He further said that his unanimous candidature by the Opposition was a matter of honour for him. “First, it represents diversity. Secondly, the unanimous choice. Thirdly, in terms of voting strength, if you make an analysis, they represent more than 63-64 per cent of the population. What else could be an honour,” he said.

On the argument that top constitutional posts should be filled by consensus, he said, “I wish there could have been a consensus. But you know, the polity as it stands is a fractured one. In the circumstances, perhaps it is inevitable, leading to this contest.”

He also talked about bringing back all the black money stashed abroad and asserting that the nation’s wealth must come back and said it was a “work in progress”.

A former Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, Reddy said, “All through my life, I was upholding the Constitution. If you give me an opportunity to serve this country, I will try to defend and protect the Constitution, which undoubtedly is coming under challenge.”

He pointed out that earlier, the treasury and Opposition benches used to coordinate on many national issues. “Unfortunately, we don't find that today,” he said.

Reddy also talked about disruption in Parliament’s business as both Houses witnessed an extraordinary ruckus for a major part of the recently finished monsoon session.

He quoted former BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who said “disruption is a legitimate political activity and a parliamentary practice” to champion disruption as a form of dissent.

“Disruption is nothing but one form of dissent. If you are not allowed to speak or express your views, this is one form of speaking. That’s how I look at the disruption. Not that I wish that disruption should become an essential and an integral part of the democratic process," Reddy added.

On Shah’s attack on him over the Salwa Judum verdict, Reddy said, “I do not wish to join an issue directly with the Home Minister, whose constitutional duty and obligation is to protect the life, liberty and property of every citizen, irrespective of ideological differences. Secondly, I have authored the judgment. The judgment is not mine, the judgment is of the Supreme Court.”

In December 2011, Reddy, as an SC Judge, ruled that using tribal youths as Special Police Officers — whether called ‘Koya Commandos’ or ‘Salwa Judum’ — in the fight against Maoist insurgents was illegal and unconstitutional and ordered that they be immediately disarmed.

He said that he wished Shah read the judgment, which runs up to 40 pages. “If he had read the judgment, perhaps he would not have made that comment. That’s all I say and leave it there... There must be decency in the debate,” he asserted.

He also threw his weight behind the caste survey, saying one has to first find out the percentage of those who need to be succoured and policies framed accordingly to empower them.

Reddy had also headed the expert panel that conducted the survey and revealed that 84.6% of the population in Telangana belonged to the backward classes.

“The Constitution doesn't speak about caste. If you have to classify a group together with some people as the backward classes, you have to find out their caste, their socio-economic conditions, their way of living, their access to power and the way they are recognised by the society. Caste survey has to be done,” he said, adding that the Centre had now included it in the Census.

On the controversy over the inclusion of terms ‘socialist and secular’ in the Preamble, he said, according to him, the expressions had made things explicit, which is otherwise in-built in the provisions of the Constitution.

“It is true that the 42nd Amendment came when the Emergency was invoked. But, one must remember, the Jana Sangh which formed the government later, unanimously approved it. Therefore, one fails to understand with what intention that debate is being triggered,” he said.

On different narratives on Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and BR Ambedkar, Reddy said if you read the three superficially, some misconceptions and misunderstandings come to mind.

“Quintessentially, all three of them were great democrats, republicans and believed in the ethics and morals of the Constitution. I do not think it would be in the interest of the nation to divide them into three segments.