Narendra Modi's reply to the Election Commission on his 'khooni panja' remark

BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi today replied to the Election Commission on his "khooni panja" (bloody claw) remarks made against Congress during a rally in poll-bound Chhattisgarh.

Here is his reply:

In his reply to the Election Commission on the alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct, BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate Shri Narendra Modi said he is of the clear opinion that he has not violated any provision of the Model Code of Conduct.

The Election Commission had sought clarification from Shri Modi on his speech during an election rally in Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) held on November 7, 2013 based on the complaint dated November 9, 2013 from the All India Congress Committee.

The said provision which Narendra Modi was alleged to have violated during his speech is - "Criticism of other political parties, when made, shall be confined to their policies and programmes, past record and work. Parties and Candidates shall refrain from criticism of all aspects of private life, not connected with the public activities of the leaders or workers of other parties. Criticism of other parties or their workers based on unverified allegations or distortion shall be avoided. " This can be broken down into the following three clear provisions :
            i.)           Criticism of political parties should be confined to their policies and      programmes, past record and work.
            ii.)            No comments on private life of other leaders
            iii.)           Unverified allegations to be avoided

Advertisement

Explaining his position Shri Narendra Modi replied to the Election Commission on November 19, 2013. He stated that he has not said anything about the private life of any individual and thus has not violated the second provision. He further said he has made no allegations whatsoever against the leaders or workers of other political parties, much less against the private life of such leaders.

Shri Narendra Modi also brought to the attention of the Commission incessant use of abusive language and spreading of malicious propaganda against him by senior leaders of opponent parties by  calling him names like 'Mout Kaa Soudaagar',  'frog  of  a well', to 'Fascist.' Whereas, he has consistently maintained the dignity of political discourse, refraining from attacking the personal lives of opponents or passing any remarks which are not appropriate.

Advertisement

With regards to the third provision, since the complaint does not present any counter facts, there can be no ground for claiming that he has levied unverified allegations. He further stated that if the Congress party were still to claim that he has levied certain unverified allegations, he is certainly in a position to bring more facts into the public domain. He added that the EC would however agree that given its national importance, the same should rather be done as a part of the larger public discourse, and not in a dialogue limited to the Commission.

He said his comments were clearly in the domain of criticizing the 'policies and programmes, past record and work' of another political party, thereby adhering to the remaining first provision as well. In this instance, his comments were explicitly aimed at the past record and work; wherein he had referred to the first three years of the tenure of a particular party in Chhattisgarh since the inception of the State.

Advertisement

In the said speech the extracts of which have been found to be prima facie objectionable, the following points were made:
                i)      After the Chhattisgarh State was created by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the State went into the hands of Congress.
                ii)      Do the people of the State want the 'Khooni Panja' back?  They have destroyed the standards of public life.  Those were the three years of destruction.
                iii)      People displayed their far-sightedness by electing Dr. Raman Singh and saving the State from the 'zalim' hands of the forces of terror and oppression.
                iv)      People must not commit the same mistake of voting Congress again.

He stated that the right to contest an election is a statutory right. It is regulated by law.  However, a citizen's right to campaign in an election is more than a statutory right. It is a fundamental right - a part of his free speech. He had exercised his right of free speech which is a constitutional guarantee. He added that only those restrictions can be imposed on his free speech as are constitutionally permissible under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Advertisement

The criticism of an opponent is inevitable in an election. The model code of conduct can only prohibit such criticism which amounts to a defamation in which a defence of truth is not available.

Thus, if a corrupt person or entity is referred to as corrupt, the maker of the allegation would not be guilty of either defamation or violation of model code of conduct as long as he can justify the charge made. A complete prohibition of any form of criticism would be in violation of the right of free speech.

Advertisement

The Congress symbol is popularly referred to as the 'Hand'. He said he had no where used the word 'hand' in reference to Congress symbol in his speech. The words 'Khooni panja' or 'Zalim Haath' are popular/colloquial expressions in Hindi language. They refer to an oppressive regime.  In Chhattisgarh, he had referred to the Congress as oppressive in relation to its performance between 2001 and 2003 when it was in government. The manner in which cases were fabricated against political opponents by that regime was unprecedented.  There are serious allegations of Congress workers being involved in the killing of a NCP leader. Some Congressmen have been convicted in that case. Those on bail are still canvassing for the Congress party.

It must also be understood that the Congress symbol is also central to our daily lives as human beings. We not only use our 'physical hands' literally at all times, the term is very common in our daily conversations. Thus surely, the Congress cannot claim copyright over any and all usage of the term - expressing outrage and displeasure even on innocuous usage.

The Commission is requested to evolve the right equilibrium - between imposing the provisions of the Model Code of Conduct, especially in cases based on unnatural and extended interpretations - and taking appropriate steps for allowing and encouraging a vibrant political debate bringing relevant issues to the notice of the electorate at large.

Shri Narendra Modi added "To the best of my knowledge, the Model Code of Conduct does not prescribe the use of certain words or disallow the usage of certain other words and phrases. In fact, it would be an exercise in futility if it were to be attempted." The complaint from the Congress Party in this case tries to do just that. The first part of para 1(2) clearly leaves enough space to talk about other parties' past record and work etc. His comments certainly fall in that category.

Hence, Shri Modi requested that the notice be withdrawn, especially since the complaint is based on an imaginative and unnatural interpretation of his remarks by the Congress Party.  Further, he felt that the sole intent of the Congress Party in making this complaint against him to the Commission is to pre-empt him from attacking their policies and programmes as also their past record and works.

Meanwhile, in the spirit of fostering a healthy democracy, Shri Narendra Modi remains forever willing to engage with the Election Commission in evolving more refined and specific guidelines on maintaining a certain sense of decorum in public discourse. He also assured the EC that as a responsible political leader, he stood committed to all regulations/ directions and model code of conduct framed by the Election Commission.