It would seem politically incorrect to differ with President K.R.Narayanan’s decision on Bihar, especially in the current scenario of encomiums being heaped on him by the Opposition. The euphoria is best depicted by a potential victim of the Article 356 even sending a bouquet to the Rashtrapathi to express his appreciation of the latter’s sense of propriety, though the gesture only betrayed a sense of profound relief that his party’s skin might have been saved.
We are not sure if the President’s decision has saved democracy, for Bihar has long back slipped to the Stone Age, but certainly the people of Tamilnadu have been spared the turmoil of a State sponsored bandh and a bouquet is indeed warranted if only for that reason. Imagine remaining holed up in our houses and getting our routines officially screwed up just for the sake of a Laloo and his clan to remain in office so that they can rear cattles in their official residences and impose a jungle raj in these very modern times. Thank you, Mr. President for ensuring such a status quo, with no pain to the people of this far off TN. Doesn’t matter if Laloo stays put. It makes no difference to us, and to Bihar too.
This indeed is the tragic outcome of the President’s constitutional correctness. K.R.Narayanan’s concern for norms and rules, though laudable, has let loose a different kind of chain reaction that may augur even more bad tidings for the very democracy that is being sought to be protected. The BJP too has only itself to blame for firing a premature salvo, though justified, at the wrong time for there was no immediate provocation for its act.
The entire imbroglio is now being widely interpreted by the hungry Opposition as a historic step in upholding democratic values in a State where such things are used as firewood in Rabri’s kitchen. Even more offensive is the sight of Mr.’Rabri’ Prasad Yadav claiming victory in a mock moralistic tone, for it is not often that Laloo gets to speak of morals. Now this paragon of dirty, casteist politics has overnight been converted into a preacher on democracy, constitution, social justice and sundry other lofty ideas that are normally associated with a civilised society and certainly not the lawless land of Laloo.
There is indeed nothing wrong in using or even misusing just one law, here Art 356, to fell a politician who has only been abusing every law himself, but obviously the President does not think so. Laloo, along with his consort, is even slated to meet the President, to convey his gratitude for the latter’s very generous gesture and more particularly to bask in the glory of the Rashtrapathi’s constitutional propriety. Wittingly or unwittingly, but unfortunately, Laloo, today is the standing example of the ‘misuse’ of Article 356 and posterity would record his name whenever a President seeks to differ with the Cabinet on whose advice he is law bound to act. What a precedent!
We wonder who gave the impression that democratically elected governments that enjoy a majority can never be dismissed. If that had been the intention of the framers of the Constitution, the provision would not have found a place in the statutes in the first place. Sure, this law has been hanging like a Damocles sword over State governments, with successive regimes at the Centre using it more to settle political scores. But the opposition argument that it threatens the federal structure sounds hollow for two reasons.
One, every party which is now championing the federal cause, has at one time or other also supported or used this provision. Where was Surjeet fiddling when a Romesh Bhandari did what an S.S.Bhandari has done today? Or how many bandhs did the very rational Karunanidhi call when MGR’s government was dismissed in 1980 on the former’s insistence? Had their morals taken a sabbatical during those threats to federalism?
Secondly, Article 356 is the only penal provision in the Constitution that enables the Centre to pull up or punish erring State governments, whenever they cross the limits of national interest or constitutional existence. Can federalism be a greater priority than national integrity? Had the DMK government of 1991 been spared the axe, Tamilnadu today could well have been a province of Greater Eelam, given the freedom and roomspace enjoyed by militants from across the Palk Straits on our shores?
The scenario is not much different today in TN, except for the change that trigger-happy extremists have been replaced by bomb-happy mercenaries. Although the BJP government is yet to make up its mind on the law and order situation in Tamilnadu, despite its own Home Minister being a witness and the target of unprecedented serial bomb blasts that killed more than fifty, the mandarins of Arivalayam have already started celebrating.
Their glee is understandable as is our chagrin. Which Central government would dare to touch this Article, knowing full well that the President is more likely to throw the rule book back at them, unmindful of the ground realities prevailing in a State? Surely, the current episode has eroded the Central government’s credibility and vitiated its authority for posterity, though we are not sure if democracy and federalism have gained. If anything, it is only a few local chieftains, who care a hoot for the rule of law or national security, but masquerading as epitomes of righteousness, who have been given a reprieve by the good, guileless President. But what a precedent?
Would the President have rebuffed the Cabinet decision had there been a single party majority government at the Centre? The question is pertinent because, in such a situation, the Centre itself would not have hesitated to stand by its decision and lobbed the ball back into the Rashtrapathi’s court, in which case he would have had little choice. It is not the Opposition or their hypocritical theories about Article 356, but the allies within and the precarious nature of this coalition, that has really been the cause for both the Centre’s cold feet and the President’s courage.
Narayanan could certainly be trusted with such constitutional interpretations and liberties for he is a good President. But then, in the context of such a tribe facing extinction and instead with the prospect of the likes of Laloo and Karunanidhi proliferating what with lawlessness and acquiescence to criminals on the rise, we might have after all witnessed only a bad precedent, which time alone can help us realise.
e-mail the writer at
[email protected]