'Once you defect, you must resign': Venkaiah Naidu

Interview/ M. Venkaiah Naidu, former vice president of India

M. VENKAIAH NAIDU sits relaxed on an off-white wing chair in the drawing room of his Jubilee Hills residence in Hyderabad. He is dressed in a white dhoti and a shirt, over which he is wearing a loose-fitting, dark-coloured sweater. It is nippy in the Telangana capital because of incessant rains. There is a line-up of sketches of Naidu from various stages of his life adorning the walls; he proudly says his granddaughter got them made based on old photographs. The drawings encapsulate the 75-year-old’s political career―from a student leader to the vice president of India.

Naidu told THE WEEK that he always stayed true to his party and that he is aggrieved at the ease and frequency with which legislators now switch sides. He is of the firm view that the anti-defection law needs amendment. A major flaw, he says, is that the law allows large-scale defections.

The veteran leader says the power to decide under the Tenth Schedule must remain with the speaker, but a time frame of three to four months should be fixed.

Excerpts:

Q/ Why do you feel the anti-defection law must be amended?

A/ Politics, once upon a time, used to be based on ideology. There used to be commitment, conviction. But of late, politics has undergone a change. Politicians frequently change parties, with the result that people are losing confidence in the system.

The other day, I said at a public function, jokingly, that like the railway or flight timetable, you have to put a signboard in every town stating which man is in which party on that day.

So the anti-defection law needs to be amended. This is my firm view, having been in politics and in an ideology-based party throughout my life.

Q/ The law was brought in 1985. What are your recollections of that time?

A/ When Rajiv Gandhi brought the legislation, people welcomed it. Up to 1967, politics was stable and had an ideological basis. In 1967, the Congress, the ruling party, lost in majority of the states. And in some states, the governments became unsteady. I remember, in Haryana, there was Gaya Lal who changed parties thrice in one day. The Congress (did it) for its own reasons. Whatever be the motive, we all welcomed it.

Q/ Some say the law was rushed, without enough consultation.

A/ There was some amount of consultation. Some people may feel it was not enough. But law should always be amenable to change depending on the situation.

Q/ What changes do you suggest in the law?

A/ If you are elected on the ticket of a particular party, if you want to change your party, you must resign from your position as MLA or MP. That is the spirit of the anti-defection law.

Now, instead of retail defection, we have wholesale defection. Originally, the law said if one-third members decide to form another party or another group, it was okay. Subsequently, we went to two-thirds. Even that has to be revisited. Two-thirds in the original party or two-thirds in the legislature party? Though, I feel since you got elected on the basis of the symbol and ideology of the party, it should be party.

Q/ In Maharashtra, the Eknath Shinde faction broke away and was recognised as the real Shiv Sena on the basis of the number of MLAs.

A/ The majority of the legislators broke away and claimed they are the original Shiv Sena. They (Shinde faction) got into an alliance with the BJP. Their argument is that elections were fought together by the BJP and the Shiv Sena. They got the majority and the BJP got the majority of the seats within the alliance. But the Shiv Sena wanted to have its chief minister, so they went to the Congress. I think the BJP, to take revenge or teach them a lesson, broke the party and has an alliance (with the Shinde faction).

These are not healthy alliances. Political compulsions are making parties reach such an understanding.

Q/ How do you view the role of the speaker under the Tenth Schedule?

A/ The law gives power to the speaker or the chairman (to decide on complaints made under the Tenth Schedule), and rightly so. After all, it is a matter pertaining to a legislative body. But there should be a time frame. Otherwise, the speaker sits on a particular case for the remainder of the term. Then what is the purpose? Some people say this should be taken away from the speaker and given to the judiciary. In the judiciary also there are cases pending for years. The speaker or the chairman must be mandated to decide within three or four months. And at the end of the day, everything is subject to judicial review.

Q/ Many feel the speaker comes from a political party and cannot be impartial.

A/ I agree that can be an argument. But it is something that happened in the legislature. And he is the presiding officer. But finally a judicial review can always happen. For the judicial review also there must be a time frame.

Q/ The law is allowing large-scale defections because of the two-third norm.

A/ One-third or two-third, individual or group, once you defect you must resign and contest elections. That is the spirit of democracy. But that will have far reaching consequences and there has to be a consensus. Political parties, for their own interest, will not support such a law.

Q/ In recent years, many state governments have fallen because of large-scale defections.

A/ Many more governments have fallen earlier also. I am not confining to this regime or that regime.

Q/ We have seen defections happening in Telangana also, to the Bharat Rashtra Samithi and now from the BRS.

A/ The BRS did it. The Congress is now doing the same thing. Earlier in Andhra, the YSRCP did it. Before that, the Telugu Desam Party. In certain states, the BJP has done the same thing.

Q/ Why do we see so many defections happening?

A/ It is because of affection for power. People want power and they want it easily. You must have patience, ability and stability. But people want quick results. When they don’t get elected, they don’t get power in this party, they switch to another party and enjoy fruits of power.

Q/ What does it tell us about morality in politics?

A/ I joined student politics when I was 16 years old. My uncle took me to a senior Congress leader and told him, ‘My boy wants to join politics’. The leader asked me, ‘Which party?’ I said, ‘I like Vajpayee ji. I like his speeches. So I am inclined towards Jan Sangh.’ He said, ‘Jan Sangh?’ Then he told me, ‘Babu, that’s an Uttara Bharatiya party, an urban party, a Brahmin Baniya party, and a vegetarian party.’ I made my choice and I never changed my party. I used to make announcements sitting in a bullock cart about the arrival of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. I used to write on walls. I got arrested during the Emergency. I was given ticket for Lok Sabha polls in 1977. I could not succeed, though. In 1978 and in 1983, I became an MLA. Later, I became a four-time MP. Also, state president and then national president. I became rural development minister, urban development minister. Initially, it was an ordeal because there was no scope for winning elections. But at the end of the day, I succeeded in becoming a parliamentarian and then a minister and then, vice president of India, the second highest constitutional post.

I tell people, commitment to an ideology is always a good thing.

Q/ The opposition accuses the BJP of engineering defections.

A/ I don’t want to defend the BJP. I am no longer a spokesperson for the BJP. My point is, every political party should go for some soul searching before accusing others. What you have done in the past, let every political party introspect. The Congress is accusing the BJP. The BJP accuses the Congress, saying you are the grandfather of defections. That is not going to solve the problem. The leaders of what was originally the Jan Sangh and the communists used to stick to their ideology. More recently, in Telangana, a CPI(M) leader in the assembly joined the BRS, became a minister. So, it is happening in those parties, too.

Q/ Many say the whip needs to be revisited because it stifles freedom of expression.

A/ When the law was brought in, stalwarts like Madhu Limaye said you cannot restrict the freedom of expression of the individual. Freedom of expression is an important aspect. But once you join a party, it means you are committing to its ideology and you are bound by its rules.

But I am of the view, and even the Supreme Court has opined so, that the whip should be to the extent possible confined to bills that have a bearing on the stability of the government.

Q/ Would you want the present dispensation to take the initiative to amend the anti-defection law?

A/ The ruling party can take the initiative or the opposition can and let the Parliament, in its collective wisdom, decide. The government of the day can bring in a legislation. I always say that in Parliament, let the government propose, let the opposition oppose, let the house dispose. The opposition also can bring in legislation and put it for voting. If the government loses, there is a moral defeat.

Also, parties should promise (in the manifesto) they will bring a legislation to stop defections. They can also promise in their manifestos their legislators will behave in a democratic way in the Parliament. And if they don’t fulfil that promise, people should teach them a lesson. There cannot be a remedial law for everything. It is the people’s collective wisdom that will offer a solution.