People's Democracy

EDITORIAL

PRESIDENT’S RULE IN BIHAR 

Lessons For Secular Forces

PRESIDENT’S rule has been imposed in Bihar. It is, indeed, unfortunate. In a democracy, the objective of holding regular election is for the installation of a popular government. The verdict in Bihar, however, was so fractured that, according to the governor Buta Singh, no single party or a combination is in a position to form a government that can command a majority on the floor of the House. This decision, however, as we have repeatedly pointed out, must be taken on the floor of the assembly. The Supreme Court, in its famous judgement in the S R Bommai case, has categorically ruled that the floor of the assembly is the only place for establishing the majority support of any government. This could not have happened, according to the Bihar governor.  The RJD, as the single largest party (75) and also as the single largest combination (94), staked its claim to form the government. However, the governor informs that 136 elected members of the assembly have, in writing, submitted before him their decision not to support an RJD-led government. Thus the argument that there was no possibility of a popular government being installed.

It is all the more unfortunate that despite the Bihar electorate having clearly given a majority for a combination of secular forces as opposed to the BJP-JD(U) communal combine, a government could not come into place.  The Bihar electorate voted more or less on the similar pattern that it had voted during the 2004 Lok Sabha elections. In fact, the BJP polled less percentage of votes in the assembly elections. Only if those who are presently together in the UPA government at the centre can come together, then there is a clear majority for a secular government in Bihar. 

Clearly, the reason why this has not happened is because of the obduracy being shown by Ram Vilas Paswan’s LJP, which has publicly declared itself in opposition to the RJD. If all efforts for the establishment of a secular government, which must continue, fail, then there would be no option but to take recourse, once again, for a fresh verdict from the people.

It merits repetition to underline that had sincere efforts been made to forge an electoral understanding amongst the secular forces, then the outcome would have been very different and more positive for the country and the people. Post-electoral surveys and analysis of the results have shown that the BJP-led communal combination gained significantly both in Bihar and Jharkhand as a result of the division amongst the votes polled by the secular parties.  Had such an eventuality been avoided, or at least the division of votes been minimised, then the secular forces would have romped home as clear winners.

But, this was not to be. And, in this lies an important message. It must be recollected, once again, that there was a time when Rajiv Gandhi with 195 Congress MPs could not form a government at the centre as a majority could not be gathered.  This time around, Congress party with 145 MPs is leading the UPA coalition government. The simple reason is the fact that other secular parties  are today willing to work with the Congress.  Even the Left is supporting such an arrangement from the outside.

Such a change in the ground realities has occurred precisely due to the need to prevent the communal forces from holding the reins of State power.  The disastrous course pursued by them during the course of the last six years that jeopardised the foundations of the modern Indian Republic has highlighted the need for cooperation amongst the secular parties in order to prevent the  recurrence of such a danger to the country and the people. It is this change in ground realities that the Congress party must understand. 

The BJP, in the meanwhile, continues to cry foul. In a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, the BJP is accusing governors of partisanship. It is a different matter that in our democracy, the role of the governors must be  strictly in accordance with the constitutional provisions and above reproach.  The BJP, during its tenure at the centre, had used the offices of the governors to install unrepresentative  minority governments.  They did so with Nitish Kumar in Bihar after the 2000 assembly elections. They have done so in some states of North-East.  In 1996, they hailed the then president of India, Shankar Dayal Sharma, for having invited them to form the  government at the centre since they were the single largest party.  This was done after the United Front with the requisite majority in the Lok Sabha had elected its leader, Deve Gowda.  This time around, however, they opposed the same yardstick when the RJD, as the single largest party, staked its claim!

The BJP president, L K Advani, apart from his utterly reprehensible comments and personal attacks against some of the governors, has asked for the  removal of both Bihar and Jharkhand governors. Such histrionics  cannot conceal the reality that the BJP and its allies have not managed to get a required majority even in Jharkhand, being far from one in Bihar.

Whatever may finally happen in Bihar, it is necessary that all efforts  must continue to be  made for the installation of a  secular government. In the process, the secular forces must also draw the correct lessons from these developments.