Right of Right


I state with utter pain that I couldn’t vote in this recently concluded elections for the formation of the 15th Lok Sabha.
Herein “couldn’t” doesn’t imply any physical limitation limiting from going to the polling booth. Rather it deals with my thought process, which failed to convince me to exercise this prestigious right. I have been criticized for this decision of mine. Before the 13th of May (that was when Kolkata voted) many people tried to convince me to do otherwise. Still I couldn’t be swayed. Whence the criticism. Which I think will increase manifold after you all read this blog of mine. You are free to form your opinion. But still, before judging me, please go through this whole piece; which is in continuation of my earlier ones: “Independence”, “With whom the accountability rests” and “Option of Choice”. A person having such strong feelings could not be expected to do otherwise by voting in the present scenario.
Since I do not belong to any political party, I don’t suffer from an amalgamation of an ideological divide; so that it (the ideological divide) becomes non-existent, when it comes to preaching vis-à-vis practicing. Nor do I need to feign martyrdom at the altar of Democracy by burying my ideologies for the sake of the so-called “loyalty” and “accountability” to the people of the nation. We all know what it is for: “Power and more Power”.
I contend, thus, that it is not me who hasn’t voted but it is the system and its impact, which has not allowed me to exercise my franchise.

Do you think that was a whimsical decision taken at the spur of the moment or was a foolish decision based on equally inconsequential ideology?
Whatever it was, consciously I couldn’t behave as a hypocrite. I intend to place my case in the subsequent lines.

Frankly speaking it wasn’t an easy decision for me, with one getting a chance once in five years to exercise the franchise for choosing one’s own representative in the Parliament. Not to mention the pangs of guilt lurking in the mind. But to do whatever I did, was catalysed by feelings more powerful.
So even when there was so much hue and cry about the low polling percentage to ultimately float a proposal to make voting mandatory, from a segment, I chose not to relent.

I didn’t ( should be couldn’t, actually) vote because I strongly feel that this “Right of Right (to vote) gives me the Right to use this “Right” in the Right manner”!

And when so many “right’s” support a theory then its probability of being “right” is quite high.

The reasons compelling enough for this decision were as follows:

(i) To whom we give our vote? The party or a specific candidate irrespective of his/her political lineage? I shan’t try to delve into it here in detail, as that deserves individual treatment. For now, we do need to accept the presence of this question.

(ii) I felt that the choices in front of me, in the current situation and perspective, didn’t leave me with any option but to choose bad over the worse; the candidates having erased their ideological divide which I couldn’t.

(iii) This tantamounts to coercion. What else it is? If I have to exercise my right just for the sake of it, even if that means voting for the person or the party whom I do not automatically support, it is sheer compromise. This compromise when extrapolated to this “had to exercise my voting right”, is simply coercion in the name of “should be grateful for being accorded the highly honourable and prestigious right and whence should exercise it”. True it is a great honour and the backbone of democracy, but then that doesn’t mean that one needs to use it even if one is not confident of the person he/she votes for in the individual’s constituency. If persisted with in the same vain, this “right” is decimated to “extortion”.

(iv) Having already decided of not voting, being undecided as to whom to vote for ultimately, I heaved a sigh of relief. This relief was furthered when I came to know, later, that there exists a rule in the constitution, wherein an elector can exercise the franchise by not exercising it officially; by going to the polling booth and registering this “no-vote”.
I am quoting here the rule as was published in The Times of India of 14th May, 2009:
Rule 49-O says: If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been entered in the register of voters in the Form-17A and the signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in the Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such a remark.
(Please don’t go by the usage of the gender here. Women were supposed to be either non-existent or inconsequential! So no mention of “she” here.)
This rule in a nutshell implies the right to, not vote by officially stating so thereby abstaining and putting the same in writing on the paper where it matters. Thus in this way one gets to exercise the “right” by technically exercising it, though it doesn’t add up to anybody’s tally!

(v) This erased any remnant guilt from my mind.

(vi) But still I didn’t dare to experiment with this form of exercising my franchise. Because I had a gut feeling that I will be laughed at. Though the most probable reaction would be animosity and harassment. So I decided to show my protest in silence.
And how was I vindicated! I read the news in the TOI of 14th May, 2009 that some young voters, three to be precise, had gone to their respective polling booths, of different constituencies in Kolkata, to invoke this Rule 49-O and register a “no-vote”. But much to their chagrin, the presiding officers of all the three polling booths didn’t entertain their demand. They stated their ignorance of Rule 49-O, and to hide their ignorance rebuked these guys stating that there is no such provision of rejecting one’s own vote. To quote them, one of them said, “Who asked you to come to the polling booth if you didn’t want to vote? There is no system of cancelling the vote. Please do not waste our time.”
While the other one offered, “What Rule 49-O? There is no such provision. You either vote or don’t. There is no other way.”
Last but not the least was the statement of the third presiding officer, “You are wasting everyone’s time. Please leave the booth at once.”
These guys having no other choice went back without casting their votes. And to me their action seems justified. True, the voting right is an honour, but it is better to honour it by either not using it or doing so in the proper manner, instead of misusing it by using it an improper manner.

Though the verdict of these elections have been the most straight forward and least ambiguous in the recent times, still I feel justified in stating that myself and few other like-minded and equally disillusioned, have been forced to not exercise our right.
Results of the elections apparently (because of quite low polling percentage in some parts, it isn’t the exact depiction) imply that the number of people like us not quite large in number, still I feel that we should not be considered insignificant and efforts should be on to see that each and every eligible citizen is equally eager to “vote”. We need to be won over by sincerity of our leaders, the commitment to our betterment and the “no-compromise” attitude as regards our security; at least the effort needs to be visible. These are the only possible ways of to do so. Demands to make it “mandatory”, will further act as an effectively effective repellant.

This idea of making the use of voting right, “manadatory”, by giving examples of the countries where it is so and a penalty: monetary or other socially restrictive one’s, won’t get any “mandate”. Of that I am very sure.
As to why the voting right can’t be made mandatory, I supply the following arguments:

(a) “Right” as in “right to vote”, as per the dictionary meaning is, “entitlement”, while “mandatory”, as the dictionary dictates is “obligatory” or “compulsory”. Thus the implications of the two words are juxtaposed. So to make the “right”, “mandatory” would mean for the citizens “entitled to oblige”. Or is it, “being obliged for this entitlement”?!

(b) Merely according a “right” doesn’t inherently imply that it has to be used. To use a very simple logic, the legal age, which, was set at eighteen for a woman and twenty-one for a man to get married doesn’t forbid them from not getting married.

(c) History has been witness to number of instances wherein various Governments fell, failing to win a vote of confidence, on the floor of the Parliament, wherein MP’s as individuals and a political party as a whole “abstained”: neither effectively supporting or opposing the “motion”, but effectively helping to bring down the Government by staying mum. The political parties, who decide to “abstain”, issue “whip” to its MP’s defying which leads to their political suicide. In this case, officially, the MP’s are being asked not to “vote”, making “no-vote”, “mandatory”.
I know “voting as an exercise of one’s franchise” shall immediately be differentiated from “abstaining to vote” on the floor of the Parliament (or Legislative Assembly when applied the same for a State Government), by the pundits. But if we sincerely ask ourselves, is it too different, to adopt different attitude towards them, we find ourselves stating no. When “they”, the MP’s are made so by us, “We, the People”, how can the parameters be different for “them” from what is being mulled for “us”?
Before even thinking of “enforcing, the right to vote” on us, it should be made “mandatory” for the “leaders” to vote in the said circumstances and not allowing anybody to “abstain”.

Still if our leaders want this voting right of the citizens to become mandatory then the preconditions should be:

(1) An amendment in the Constitution. More precisely it should state, “Hereby it is being made mandatory for each and every eligible and physically able citizen to vote. It is no longer our right. Rather is obligatory.”


(2) The political parties should be forced to field the best possible candidate for a given constituency. A person who can associate well with problems faced by the people of that area, to which, he/she would address responsibly. Then let the citizens have their pick. It should be made mandatory to create an environment with correct political intentions, whereby we shall have the liberty to use our “Right to Vote in the Right manner”.

(3) Last but not the least, rather the most important, is, “to incorporate the option, NONE, in the EVM (electronic voting machine) wherein a person can invoke the Rule 49-0, if he/she chooses to, automatically, by opting for it”.

My question to all the people, who throng the corridors of powers that be, in India, is do they have the guts to incorporate this simple but very pertinent option (3)?
Incorporation of the “NONE” option would make the list of options comprehensive. This would see higher number of people exercising their franchise, which will be manifested in the increased polling percentage and the results would represent a more accurate opinion of “We, the People”. Don’t be fooled by the outcome of this election. It doesn’t truly show the real picture with the polling percentage being very low in many parts of the country.
The availability of the “NONE” option would allow the people of this country to opt for the “Option of Choice”, instead of being forced to “Opt for a Choice by Default”, with or without the imposition of the paradoxical mandatory voting. If such a condition is provided to us, only then we shall be truly empowered with the “Right to Vote”.


Sushmita Mukherjee
18th May 2009