SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Can the PM keep his word?

Unchanging India. The dramatis personae switch roles, but the caste remains the same.

Consider the dilemma faced by Sardar Surjeet Singh Barnala. A most pious man, he was governor of Tamil Nadu in late 1990. Sri Chandra Shekhar, heritage Balia, had just achieved his long-felt ambition to be elected to the nation's highest office. Even if it be for a bare few weeks. He collected some co-defectors from the Janata Dal; Rajiv Gandhi's mischievous support from outside saw him installed as prime minister.

It was hardly a free gift though. One of the conditions Chandra Shekhar, the dummy prime minister, had to fulfill was the removal of the DMK from the state government in Tamil Nadu! The deus ex machina of Article 356 of the Constitution must be applied and M G Karunanidhi packed off. Ms Jayalalitha and her AIADMK were Rajiv's sworn friends; what is politics for if sworn friends cannot be granted their wishes.

Chandra Shekhar obligingly sent a message to Barnala -- the governor asking him to prepare a case facilitating Karunanidhi's dismissal. Barnala would not, however, go along; he would not submit the kind of damaging report customarily dispatched by the governor in case a state government's tenure was to be abruptly brought to an end through Central fiat.

Not that such a report is absolutely essential, but when the governor testified to the effect that the incumbent regime in the state was indeed worthy of the chopping board, the actual execution looked nicer. But Barnala proved to be an impossible nut to crack.

Given the clear stand of his party, the Shiromani Akali Dal, in the matter of Article 356, he was dead set against the Chandra Shekhar-Rajiv Gandhi ukase. The objective reality in Tamil Nadu, he firmly informed New Delhi, in no manner resembled the kind of landscape the Rajiv-Jayalalitha school of impressionists wanted to paint.

Barnala was forced to resign the gubernatorial slot. He did it with great dignity; by his refusal to be a part of the grisly conspiracy to apply Article 356 so as to satisfy the whims of an authoritarian central regime, he set an example of probity.

Now consider Barnala's current plight. He is a Cabinet minister in the BJP-led government in New Delhi. Ms Jayalalitha is also supportive of this government. And a verbatim repetition of the old story, cannot be quite ruled out. Her support is contingent upon Atal Bihari Vajpayee's agreeing to avail of the provisions of Article 356 to get rid of her arch enemy, the DMK of Mr Karunanidhi, from the seat of power in Tamil Nadu.

Ms Jayalalitha has her clout and knows how to wield it. The question therefore remains very much open whether Vajpayee would be able to stick to his declared resolve not to disturb any state government through peremptory resort to Article 356.

It is difficult for any prime minister, in case he wants to survive in power, to ignore the realities of practical politics and live with an idee fixe: were he to venture to do so, his party comrades might have a different point of view. The dozen votes controlled by Ms Jayalalitha in the Lok Sabha could turn out to be crucial in the event of a fresh confidence or no-confidence motion in the not too distant future. Rather than let his government collapse, the prime minister might then be persuaded to forget his commitment and offer the lady the gift she had been demanding.

Apropos of Article 356, the Congress party, of course, has no problems; the Article has an authoritarian flavour, and past Congress prime ministers had revelled in its use. In contrast, the Left parties could be in a bit of a jam. Ever since Nehru quoted Article 356 and got rid in 1959 of the Namboodiripad government in Kerala -- the first elected Communist regime anywhere in the world -- the Left have consistently railed against what they have regarded as one of the most obnoxious of the Constitution's provisions.

Once Indira Gandhi started removing chief ministers morning, evening and afternoon through recourse to the lovely device of Article 356, the Left were even more convinced of the need to oppose the Article tooth and nail. In their pleadings with the Sarkaria Commission appointed to review Centre-state relations, each of the Left parties asked in unambiguous terms for its abrogation.

The logic of movable politics nonetheless sooner or later comes to assert itself. December 2, 1992 marks a great watershed in the articulation of Left thought. A rampaging BJP-led government in a state, Leftist were filled with apprehension in the wake of the happenings on that date, was capable of doing havoc to the country's unity and integrity.

Were a situation to arise again where a sectarian party occupying a state administration threatened to perpetrate grievous damage to the country's secular persona, the Centre, some amongst the Left convinced themselves, had to counter-attack and do so swiftly: a proclamation by the Centre under Article 356 cashiering the wayward state regime would still save the day.

The Left parties were indeed caught in a dilemma. The history of the earlier phase of post-Independent India nudged them to continue a vigorous campaign against the deployment of Article 356 whatever the circumstance; the later phase of the same history, commending with the emergence of the BJP as a major factor in the national scene, forced them into a reconsideration of their position.

The ambivalence within the Left showed up. The United Left Front government of Kerala, in its memorandum submitted in 1996 to the inter-state council on what is to be done with Article 356, stuck to the original Left stance of asking for its abrogation. The Left Front regime in West Bengal was far more circumspect; it would, it said in its formal communication to the inter-state council, favour the retention of the Article with certain safeguards.

The difficulty does not disappear. It is easy to set down a set of pre-conditions which should be satisfied before Article 356 could be promulgated by the Union government and a state ministry removed from office. The interpretation of these pre-conditions is bound to be heavily influenced by subjective judgment; though the charge of arbitrariness posted against Indira Gandhi would then be posted against the new performers on the stage.

That the fear of intrusion of subjectivity is not without basis can be established without much trouble. In these days when Kalashnikov rifles and RDX explosives are so profusely available, it is child's play to create a law and order situation in a state. A demand for the state government's removal for its alleged failure to maintain law and order could then ensue.

Almost identical manoeuvres may be engineered against a state regime which, despite facing a difficult law and order situation, is reluctant to have recourse to the Disturbed Areas Act, and other similar pieces of legislation which permit the induction of military and para-military forces for suppressing local insurgency.

In tackling such issues, practicing politicians will soon discover that they are standing on shifting sands. To argue that dismissing a BJP-led administration in Uttar Pradesh is right and proper in case such a step were taken by a non-BJP or anti-BJP government in New Delhi, while it was atrocious for a BJP regime at the Centre to remove a Rashtriya Janata Dal ministry in Bihar, would be to fly in the face of all notions of logic.

Something considered as good, very good day before yesterday cannot become bad, very bad as per today's decision-making process. Nor can something that was ranked bad yesterday be rendered delightfully wholesome merely because the roles are reversed for the dramatis persone. Mr Vajpayee's promise notwithstanding, what guarantee, for instance, is there that the Left Front government in West Bengal might itself not be a victim of Article 356 because certain elements insist on such a denouement?

Where the historicity of reasoning is peremptorily ignored, one is left rudderless amid an ocean of self-contradiction. It is a good thing that the prime minister has gone on record that he would not invoke Article 356 against any state government under any circumstances. Sweet words. One much hopes he does not have to deviate from the position he has assumed. One would similarly hope that each of the recognised political parties in the country could agree to sign a concordant to the same effect. Ms Jayalalitha would say 'boo' to such a proposal. So there you see.

Ashok Mitra