INDIA: Political Crisis Strengthens Democracy

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Oct 28 1997 (IPS) - India, which has long had a problem in balancing powers between the central (federal) government and the country’s 25 states, made some progress this week towards greater federalism through a wrenching political crisis in Uttar P radesh, India’s largest — and the world’s sixth most populous — state.

The resolution of the crisis involved an unprecedented intervention by India’s non-executive President, a largely ceremonial office. This meant modifying some ground-rules of the functioning of the democratic system and reducing the power of the governor s of states, who are appointed by the Centre.

Ironically, the main short-term beneficiary of the development was the Hindu right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, which has posed the most serious challenge yet to India’s democracy, and which stands for a unitarist, highly centralised model of government.

The crisis was sparked by a break-up of the ruling coalition, a freak, opportunist alliance between the BJP, which has a strong bias for the upper castes in the Hindu social hierarchy, and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which represents the very opposite , the Dalits, or Untouchable low castes.

This marriage of convenience was consecrated seven months ago on the understanding that a BSP nominee would head the government for six months, followed by a BJP chief minister for the next six months.

BSP chief minister Mayawati’s term ended on Sep. 20. She was followed by the BJP’s Kalyan Singh, who quickly proceeded to reverse some of her pro-Dalit measures. The turning point was a police firing on Oct. 7 on Dalits protesting against the rape and mu rder of a Dalit by upper-caste landlords, in which two died.

Mayawati, under grass-roots pressure, pulled out of the coalition on Oct. 19, reducing it to a minority. (The BJP has 175 members in the 425-member Legislative Assembly, and the BSP had 67. That inaugurated the drama that ended in Singh continuing after inducing defections from other parties.

In situations such as this, the governor’s role becomes critical. It is he or she who is called upon to verify (usually conflicting) claims of majority support.

If a viable government cannot be formed, the governor can recommend to New Delhi that direct central rule (called President’s rule) be imposed on the state. Usually, the Centre acts on the governor’s advice and dismisses the government and dissolves the Assembly, to which elections must be held within six months.

Even otherwise, the Centre has wide-ranging powers under Article 356 of the Constitution to promulgate President’s rule if it is “satisfied” upon a governor’s report “or otherwise” that the state’s governance “cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions” of the Constitution.

This power has been invoked more than a hundred times, often wrongly. It was first used in 1957 to dismiss a Communist ministry in Kerala — the world’s first elected Communist government — although it had a full popular mandate. The Congress party, whi ch has ruled in New Delhi for 46 years out of 50 years of Independence, has used Article 356 to dismiss governments led by opposition parties.

There are some instances of Article 356 being used properly –to dismiss governments which have no mandate, prevent outright horse- trading, or avoid a constitutional breakdown, as in December 1992 when Kalyan Singh, who was then chief minister of Uttar P radesh, allowed the Babri mosque in Ayodhya to be demolished by a BJP-led mob. But abuse is more prevalent.

To prevent abuse, the Supreme Court in 1994 laid down certain guidelines, for instance, the governor must not arbitrarily determine claims of support, but demand a vote of confidence on the floor of the Assembly. An Assembly’s dissolution must be approve d by the Parliament of India, not just the Cabinet.

In the latest crisis, Governor Romesh Bhandari asked Singh to prove his majority on Oct. 21 in the Assembly. Before the session, 22 of the Congress party’s 37 legislators split. They were joined by 12 of the BSP’s 67 members.

The Assembly session was noisy and violent, and the presiding officer, a BJP nominee, was partisan. Some legislators opposing the BJP were physicaly removed from the House and others walked out. However, Singh did win the votes of 222 legislators.

Bhandari, known to be close to the BJP’s rival Samajwadi Party, decided that the vote was not free and fair. He cited technical reasons and said opposition lawmakers had been coaxed with money to switch sides and recommended to the United Front Cabinet a t the Centre that President’s rule be imposed and the Assembly be dissolved.

The Cabinet was divided, with the home minister, Communist Party veteran Indrajit Gupta, opposing the recommendation, and many other members backing it. After two long sessions, it decided to ask the President that he issue a proclamation under Article 3 56.

President K.R. Narayanan, a highly regarded statesman and former diplomat, returned the Cabinet’s recommendation for reconsideration.(He is entitled to do so just once; after reconsideration, the Cabinet decision is binding.)

This was an unprecedented move. Narayanan invoked the highest consideration of political propriety and democratic correctness, and the Supreme Court’s 1994 guidelines. Equally unprecedentally, the Cabinet reversed its decision within a day.

Kalyan Singh now presides over a government backed by at least 12 defectors from the BSP. Under the law, if less than a third of legislators of a party form a seperate group, they can be disqualified.

The gain from the BJP’s “victory” may be limited and temporary. The party has lost much more by way of credibility. It has always claimed to practise “value-based” politics, and sought to occupy the moral high ground. Last year, when its minority gov ernment lost the confidence vote at the Centre, it pompously declared that it would never break, or encourage defections from, other parties, and not touch power based on defections “with a bargepole”.

Seven months ago, the BJP half-demolished its credibility by entering into a spectacularly opportunist alliance. Last week, it completed the job.

Politicaly too, the party’s strategy of driving a wedge between the Dalits and the backward or middle castes has come apart with the collapse of its alliance with the BSP.

The real winners in Uttar Pradesh are Constitutional democracy and federalism. From now on, Central governments will probably be far more cautious in dealing with the states.