top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

When Uddhav’s own party tied Maharashtra’s electoral hands

A forgotten 1996 amendment has come back to haunt Uddhav Thackeray, crippling the State Election Commission’s powers over local polls. It has come to light that when the (undivided) Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition was in power, a legal provision was introduced allowing the use of Assembly electoral rolls for local body elections. Nearly three decades later, that decision has returned to haunt the Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray. During the tenure of late Chief Minister...

When Uddhav’s own party tied Maharashtra’s electoral hands

A forgotten 1996 amendment has come back to haunt Uddhav Thackeray, crippling the State Election Commission’s powers over local polls. It has come to light that when the (undivided) Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition was in power, a legal provision was introduced allowing the use of Assembly electoral rolls for local body elections. Nearly three decades later, that decision has returned to haunt the Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray. During the tenure of late Chief Minister Manohar Joshi, the state legislature had amended the relevant municipal laws in 1996, deciding that the same electoral rolls prepared for the Assembly would be used for local self-government bodies. What seemed then a simple administrative measure has now emerged as a major political and constitutional headache. As Maharashtra prepares for long-delayed local body polls, the issue of defective electoral rolls has reignited political tempers. Leaders of the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) recently met the Chief Electoral Officer, S. Chokkalingam, and the State Election Commissioner, Dinesh Waghmare, to demand corrections before any election schedule is announced. They claimed that thousands of names are missing or misplaced. Waghmare’s response was that altering electoral rolls did not fall under the purview of the State Election Commission (SEC). He pointed out that it was governed by provisions that date back to 1996. The MVA, particularly the Uddhav-led Shiv Sena (UBT), has accused the Election Commission of failing to ensure a fair process while demanding that polls to Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and municipal bodies be deferred until the lists are revised. But the problem lies not with the present SEC, but with a decision taken when the Shiv Sena and BJP were in power together. It was one that had effectively clipped the SEC’s wings. Controversial decision The controversy stems from Sena-BJP government’s decision in 1996 to amend The Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Section 7A was inserted in the former, and Section 19B in the latter. Both stipulated that electoral rolls used for the Legislative Assembly would also serve as the rolls for municipal elections, subdivided into wards. This change, made during Manohar Joshi’s tenure, was intended to simplify the process by saving time and costs by avoiding the preparation of a separate list for local bodies. Yet, by choosing administrative convenience over constitutional clarity, the government unwittingly stripped the SEC of the very autonomy the Constitution sought to guarantee. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, enacted in 1992, gave local self-government institutions a distinct constitutional identity. Articles 243K and 243ZA specifically empowered State Election Commissions to supervise, direct and control local body elections including the preparation of electoral rolls. The spirit of these amendments was to insulate local democracy from state-level interference. But by tying local rolls to those of the Assembly, the then government diluted that independence. The SEC could conduct elections but not decide who could vote in them. The state did pass The State Election Commissioner (Qualification and Appointment) Act in 1994, laying down procedures for appointment, tenure and service conditions of the Commissioner. But the Act said nothing about the preparation or revision of electoral rolls. Had Maharashtra enacted a separate law empowering the SEC to prepare and update electoral rolls, as Article 243K(4) permits, the present impasse would not exist. Instead, the 1996 amendments made the SEC dependent on the Assembly rolls prepared under the supervision of the Election Commission of India. The result is that the Commission is now responsible for conducting local elections without control over the very lists that determine their fairness. Successive governments - the Congress-NCP coalition and the BJP-Sena as well as the erstwhile MVA - have all lived with this contradiction. None saw political advantage in changing the law. The SEC’s lack of authority suited ruling parties of every stripe, since it left local election machinery aligned with the state administration. Uddhav’s irony It is this legislative legacy that has now cornered Uddhav Thackeray. At a press conference this week, he accused the government of “killing” the State Election Commission. Yet, as critics pointed out, the real act of constitutional euthanasia was performed in 1996 - by the Shiv Sena-BJP government led by his own party. By choosing to amend old municipal laws instead of enacting a new one, the Sena-led government effectively ‘killed’ the independent powers that the Constitution granted to the State Legislature and the SEC. Article 243K(4) explicitly authorises state legislatures to frame their own laws governing local polls. Maharashtra, despite being one of India’s most politically developed states, failed to do so. Article 243K (4) clearly states that the State Legislature can make laws independently in relation to elections to local bodies. So, why was such a law not made in 1996, why was it decided to amend the existing laws and use the electoral rolls of the Legislative Assembly itself, is this a violation of the constitutional rights granted to the State Legislature? The row over electoral rolls underscores how political expediency and administrative shortcuts can undermine constitutional design. The framers of the 73rd and 74th Amendments imagined empowered, locally accountable institutions. Instead, Maharashtra’s local democracy remains tethered to Assembly-level bureaucracy.

Khanwa 1527: The Clash That Could Have Stopped the Mughals

The Battle of Khanwa was a defining moment in Indian history. Had the Rajputs under Rana Sanga triumphed, the Mughal empire might never have been born.


ree

The Ides of March have come, but not yet gone. The Mughals are yet again in the raging centre of political controversies. While Maharashtra boils over Aurangzeb, up north, Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Ramji Lal Suman triggered a firestorm by bizarrely calling Rajput ruler Rana Sanga a “traitor.”

Speaking in Parliament, Suman asserted that Indian Muslims did not revere Babur, but that it was Rana Sanga who had invited the Mughal ruler to defeat Ibrahim Lodi. “If Muslims are called Babur’s descendants, then Hindus must be the descendants of the traitor Rana Sanga,” he declared. His remarks swiftly drew backlash from Rajput groups.


Suman’s grossly misleading remarks came just days after the 498th anniversary of the Battle of Khanwa, fought March 16, 1527, between Sanga and Babur. Often overshadowed by the First Battle of Panipat in 1526 (where Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi), it was Khanwa that truly established Mughal rule in India while shattering the last great Rajput challenge to foreign domination.


ree

Khanwa, on the dry plains near Agra, was a true turning point in Indian history where the Rajputs under Maharana Sanga of Mewar made their last great bid to reclaim India from foreign rule. To paraphrase A.J.P. Taylor on the Revolutions of 1848: 1527 was the year when India’s history reached a turning point – and failed to turn.


Maharana Sangram Singh, son of Chittor’s Rana Raimal and grandson of the great Rana Kumbha, has been justly called the ‘Hindupat’ (Chief of the Hindus) by Indian academic and judge Har Bilas Sarda. The one-eyed, one-armed Sanga had already defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last ruler of the Delhi Sultanate at decisive battles of Khatoli and Gagron. He had triumphed against the sultans of Gujarat and Malwa, asserting Rajput dominance across Rajasthan and northern India.


The fall of Prithviraj Chauhan and the sack of Ajmer by the Ghurids in the late 12th century saw the Rajput rulers of North India lose their paramountcy to Afghan and Turkish conquerors. But by the early 16th century, the balance of power had shifted. Mewar reached its apogee under Rana Sanga and the rapid expansion of the Rathors in western Rajputana signalled a Rajput resurgence as never before. Sanga was the last great Rajput monarch who could rally the disparate clans to the restoration of Hindu rule. He seemed destined to reclaim North India.


A warrior of unmatched valour and high-minded chivalry, Sanga commanded unparalleled respect among his peers including Babur. As Sarda observes in his 1918 monograph:

“Sanga was a greater hero and a more chivalrous leader of men; Babur was a greater politician and a more wary and skilful general…[and] had artfulness, desperation and religious fervour to support him.”

ree

Sanga and Babur are the two outstanding personalities of that period. Both were about the same age. Sanga was born in 1482 A.D. and Babur in 1483. Both were men of valour and had received their training in the school of adversity. Descended from Timur and Genghis Khan, Babur’s early life was a litany of disappointments and defeats, especially his futile quest to take Samarkand and ceaseless conflict with the Uzbek, Shaibani Khan. But despite life’s vicissitudes, Babur never lost courage, displaying unflagging energy, great personal bravery and confidence.


In his Memoirs, Babur recognizes Sanga as a foe in a very different league from Ibrahim Lodi. “He [Sanga] was a very powerful king and the high eminence he then held, he had attained by his valour and his sword.”


Babur therefore made overtures for peace through Raja Shiladitya Tomar of Raisen, a feudatory of the Maharana. But the Maharana rejected the overtures, and advanced and took Bayana with the intent of expelling Babur from India.


Ironically, Sanga found allies in his erstwhile foes – the Afghan chieftains, who found themselves displaced in wake of Babur’s triumph at Panipat. Among them was Ibrahim’s brother, Mahmud Lodi, and Hasan Khan Mewati, leading the Western Afghan Confederacy. Sanga welcomed them, seeing an opportunity to forge an anti-Mughal alliance.


In the run-up to Khanwa, the Rajputs emphatically had the upper hand as they decimated Babur’s advance guard. Says Col. James Tod in Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (1829), “Babur’s advance guard was entirely destroyed, the fugitives carrying to the main body the accounts of the disaster, which paralysed their energies, and made them entrench for security…”


These initial reverses severely demoralized the Mughals. Even a famed astrologer from Kabul declared that Babur was destined to lose, citing planetary alignments.


William Erskine, in his classic A History of India Under the Two First Sovereigns of the House of Taimur, Báber and Humáyun (1854), writes thus: “The dejection and alarm of Babur’s troops, had at this time reached their extreme point. The contagion had infected even his highest officers.”


Then came Babur’s famously dramatic gesture; he renounced alcohol and shattered his wine goblets, vowing never to drink again. This was followed by an appeal to religious unity, convincing his demoralized troops to swear an oath on the Quran to fight to the death.


However, the Chaghtai Turk, sceptical of such theatrics, bought precious time – one whole month - time by re-opening negotiations with Rana Sanga.


This ill-advised inactivity on part of the Rajputs after their initial success was to prove fatal. Had Sanga pressed the advantage, had he stormed Babur’s camp while morale was low, the Mughal empire might never have been born.


Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his History of India, says: “If the Raja had pressed on during the first panic, he would have obtained an easy victory.”


The battle of Khanwa itself, fought near Fatehpur Sikri, was fierce and chaotic. It began about half-past nine in the morning, with violent charges made by the Rajputs on Babur’s right and centre which began to waver. Babur’s well-entrenched artillery, led by Mustafa Rumi, unleashed relentless fire upon the Rajput cavalry. Still, Sanga’s forces fought on with unwavering determination.


Then, fate intervened. As per some accounts, Shiladitya Tomar defected to Babur’s side, betraying Sanga and the Rajput cause. However, R.C. Majumdar claims that the story of his treachery was a later concoction.


Either way, a decisive moment came when an arrow struck Sanga in the forehead, rendering him unconscious, and causing his chiefs to remove the Rana from the battlefield. Seeing their leader fall, the Rajput army lost cohesion and retreated, leaving the field to be claimed by the Mughals.


Even in defeat, the Rajputs remained a formidable force. Also, while the Western Afghan confederacy was crushed, the Eastern Afghan confederacy gathered strength. Babur, recognizing the Rajput resilience, decided to finish off the powerful chiefs who had fought alongside Sanga. The first blow fell on Medini Rai, Sanga’s able lieutenant in Malwa, who was killed during Babur’s bloody conquest of Chanderi in 1528.


Babur left the Eastern Afghan confederacy to itself, little suspecting that it would throw up someone like Sher Shah who, after Babur’s death, would overwhelm Humayun - his son and successor - and drive him out of India. Ironically, this Afghan confederacy would be finally crushed by Babur’s grandson, Akbar with the help of the Rajputs.


Meanwhile, Sanga, who retreated to Ranthambore in the aftermath of Khanwa, was making plans to take on Babur again. Unfortunately, Sanga’s nobles, fearing the warlike Maharana, poisoned him. Thus ended the last great hope of Hindu sovereignty in northern India.


Today, it is worth revisiting Khanwa as the Rajputs, riding high on victories, had a chance to crush Babur before the Mughals took root in Hindustan. For Khanwa was not just another battle - it was the moment when one future for India ended, and another began.

Comments


bottom of page