The promise of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in its election manifesto to take steps to revive the Legislative Council in Tamil Nadu has brought to the fore the long tussle between the party and its principal rival, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, over the desirability of having a second chamber in the State legislature.
The AIADMK regime headed by M.G. Ramachandran abolished the Upper House in the State in 1986. When in power, the DMK made three attempts to revive the body — in 1989, 1996 and 2010. On each attempt, a subsequent AIADMK regime would pass resolutions rescinding the earlier decision.
Near successThe attempt in 2010 almost fructified, with both Houses of Parliament passing legislation in May 2010 to create the Council. However, the delimitation of constituencies to form the 78-member Council was challenged before the Supreme Court. The election was, therefore, stalled. However, in 2011, in the early days of the present regime of Ms. Jayalalithaa, the Assembly adopted yet another resolution to ensure that the Council was not revived. Why does a State need an Upper House? DMK founder C.N. Annadurai used to explain it with a “cup and saucer” analogy. The Council, he said, was like a saucer that can cool down a hot issue through its enlightened debates.
When the DMK was elected to power in 1967, Annadurai, who had not contested the Assembly election, became Chief Minister by virtue of his election to the Council.
“Anna was not sure whether the party would be elected to power, and he contested in the South Chennai Lok Sabha constituency. After the party’s victory, he was elected to the Legislative Council,” says his biographer R. Kannan.
Rajaji in CouncilC. Rajagopalachari was Chief Minister twice and on both occasions, he depended on the Council route to enter the legislature. “His detractors used to criticise him that he entered the corridors of power through the backdoor,” Mr. Kannan says.
When the late Communist leader Jeevanandam was once pressing the government to implement schemes for his Washermenpet constituency, the then Chief Minister, Rajaji, wondered why Communist members, who normally pontificated on international affairs, were confining themselves to Washermenpet. “At least I have a constituency,” retorted Jeeva, insinuating that Rajaji had none.
“MGR abolished the Council just because DMK leader M. Karunanidhi became its member and, subsequently, the Leader of the Opposition. MGR was also upset because his nominee and actor Vennira Aadai Nirmala could not make it to the Council,” says Dravidian historian K. Thirunavukkarasu. When a proposal to dissolve the Council was in the air, Mr. Karunanidhi had said if his presence in it would end its life, he was ready to resign from it.
A major argument against reviving the Council is that it was not really a forum for intellectuals, academics and professionals. It was gradually converted into a safe harbour for political leaders defeated in the Assembly polls.
“It should be a council of intellectuals and personalities who excel in their chosen profession. Only such a Council can properly guide the Assembly,” Mr. Thirunavukkarasu says.
