EDITORIAL

Fractured Verdict

AS we go to press, the union minister for coal, Shibu Soren, is slated to be sworn in as the chief minister of Jharkhand.  This will be the first ministry in  Jharkhand on the basis of an assembly elected to the state of Jharkhand.  The earlier ministry was based on an assembly that was carved out of the  erstwhile Bihar state.  MLAs were then elected to the Bihar assembly and not for Jharkhand.  The CPI(M) had, at the time of the  creation of the state, demanded that fresh elections be held. (Naya Pradesh, Naya Adesh) This, however, was not accepted by the ruling class parties.

The situation in Bihar continues to remain fluid. The ruling RJD, though continuing to be the single largest party in the state, has its strength reduced significantly.  With only 75 MLAs, it is well short of a required majority of 122 MLAs in the House. The BJP-JD(U) combination has a total of 92 seats. While the RJD-Congress-Left also have 92 seats. Given this fractured verdict, the governors of both the states have to exercise their judgement as to which combination can provide a stable popular government. In Bihar, the key is held by Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janashakti Party, which has 29 MLAs. 

The CPI(M) seeks to reiterate that the Governor’s House cannot be the theatre for assessing or establishing the majority.  The floor of the House (assembly) is the only place where the majority and, hence, the legitimacy of the government  can be established.

The fractured verdict in both these states is the direct consequence of the inability on the part of the secular parties to forge an electoral alliance.  In the absence of such an alliance, even an understanding to minimise the division in the secular votes would have ensured that the communal forces could not have gained.

A closer look at the results shows that the people in these two states have voted more or less on the same pattern as they had during the Lok Sabha elections in 2004.  But on that occasion, the secular forces had reached a broad understanding, as a result of which the BJP-led communal combination was virtually routed. If the same understanding had continued, then the situation would have been entirely different in these elections. The Left had unequivocally announced their support from the outside for the formation of secular governments.

But then why did the arrangement that was arrived at in the 2004 general elections break down this time around?  First, the Congress and the JMM unilaterally announced their agreement for seat sharing in Jharkhand.  Such an announcement, which left the RJD, the NCP, members of the UPA coalition at the centre, out of the arrangement triggered the process of fragmentation in Bihar as well. 

Secondly, with the RJD and the LJP falling out after the Lok Sabha elections and engaging in a publicly acrimonious debate, it became clear that the 2004 Lok Sabha arrangement will not work in Bihar. Further, given the unrealistic assessment of relative strength by the Congress and other parties, any agreement on the seat sharing also became difficult.  As expected, this has only helped the communal combination to reap benefit from such a division.  In the process, the Left parties who had some measure of seat adjustment with the RJD, also suffered. The CPI(M) contested 13 seats in Bihar, of which there was an understanding with the RJD in only six.  The CPI(M) has been able to retain one of its two sitting seats.

Further, it must be realised that the Indian people had voted for a combination of secular forces to remove the communal combination from power. Those who argue that with the installation of the UPA government the ground realities have changed in favour of the Congress must treat these results with respect. The people have, once again, endorsed that they seek a combination of secular forces, with its inherent checks and balances, to form coalition governments.  All illusions that any one single party can call the shots must be shed.  It should be recollected that the Congress party, with 195 MPs, had refused to form the government as it could not muster a majority. Today, with 145 MPs, the Congress is heading a coalition government. If there is any change in the ground reality, it is this: the people want a combination of secular forces to keep the communal forces at bay.

Given the fact that the results, far from endorsing the platform of the communal forces have, in effect, thrown up a combination of secular forces in a majority, it is necessary, in both the states, to work out a post-election arrangement for the establishment of  secular governments. The CPI(M) expects the secular forces in both the states to  work together to ensure such a possibility materialises.                                                                                                                     (March 02, 2005)