People's Democracy

Jharkhand & Bihar: Some Lessons

Prakash Karat

THE developments after the assembly elections in Bihar, Jharkhand and Haryana have thrown up issues which go beyond the immediate impact of the election results and the formation of state governments there. It will be instructive to consider some of these issues.

The Haryana results were widely expected. The people wanted deliverance from the obnoxious rule of the Chautala government and the Congress party benefited from this verdict rejecting the ruling party. It is the Bihar and Jharkhand elections and their aftermath which have a larger significance both politically and constitutionally.

At the political level, what stands out is the Congress leadership’s miscalculation about its own standing and strength in these states. Instead of forging a full-fledged electoral understanding with its UPA partners, the JMM and the RJD in Jharkhand and with the RJD in Bihar, the Congress thought it would fare better, on the assessment that its popularity and mass base have increased since the Lok Sabha elections and the formation of the UPA government.

CONGRESS CULPABILITY

How such an assessment could be made is itself a mystery. The Congress party had suffered a serious erosion in its base in the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan assembly elections. The subsequent Lok Sabha polls had also shown that it had not done well in the North in general.  It was not able to recover ground in these states nor in UP or Bihar. The tactics adopted therefore of ignoring the RJD in Jharkhand has led to the return of the BJP-led government, a government which faced certain defeat, if there had been unity between the major secular parties. The failure to come to a full-fledged understanding with the RJD in Bihar and preferring to go with the Lok Janshakti has also proved costly.

In the case of Jharkhand, the Congress-JMM alliance voting percentage has come down substantially with the Congress percentage going down from 20.1 per cent in the 2000 assembly polls to 12 per cent now. In Bihar too the Congress percentage of votes has gone down from the previous elections by 3.6 per cent. It is true that the RJD has also lost ground due to popular discontent with its long period of rule, with its voting percentage going down by 8.1 per cent. However, as the leader of the UPA, the Congress has to share the major responsibility for the failure of keeping together its alliance in both Bihar and Jharkhand. The electoral setbacks in Jharkhand and Bihar should serve as a warning to the Congress leadership and the UPA.

The draft resolution for the 18th Congress of the CPI(M) has made a pertinent comment in this regard. It has stated: “It is upto the UPA to ensure that its government has a stable tenure by implementing the pro-people measures in the CMP and by maintaining its political cohesion.”

Maintaining the political cohesion of the UPA is primarily the responsibility of the leader of the alliance, the Congress. The sooner it absorbs the lessons of the past, including the costly mistakes made in the current round of elections, the better the chances for the UPA being able to consolidate itself politically.

GOVERNOR’S PARTISAN ROLE

The second political consequence can prove more costly for the Congress. The governor of Jharkhand, Syed Sibtey Razi, behaved as if he was a partisan for the ruling party at the centre. The habit of treating the governor as an instrument of the ruling party’s interests is a pernicious habit fostered by the Congress in the past. Unfortunately, it has been repeated. The governor’s conduct in calling Shibu Soren to form the government when there was no evidence of his having a majority has sullied the image of the Congress leadership and given a handle to the BJP and its allies to attack the UPA government. The prime minister intervened after the farce enacted on March 11 in the assembly, to undo the damage. The centre instructing the governor to remove Shibu Soren was the only appreciable step in this whole murky episode.

It is for the Congress leadership to also introspect on the type of persons being made governors. Most of those appointed as governors since the UPA took office are Congress leaders, or former chief ministers, whether in Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh or Goa. A notable exception was the appointment of the West Bengal governor.

The CPI(M) has been strongly against the use of governors as partisan instruments of the ruling party at the centre and to destabilise elected state governments. The record of the Congress party in the past has not been one which showed undue concern or respect for the federal principle. It is this outlook which led to the use of Article 356 time and again to dismiss elected state governments and to impose president’s rule. Such gross misuse led to the discussions to modify Article 356 to prevent its use for partisan purposes. A positive outcome is that the Inter-States Council has arrived at a consensus on how to modify Article 356 to prevent its arbitrary and partisan use.

However, the role of the governor in inviting a leader to form the government after an election is not covered in this reform. There is a grey area in the constitution which involves the discretion given to the governor to decide who should form the government. The Jharkhand experience once again underlines the urgency for codifying the way the governor proceeds to invite a person to form the government. The principle that the legislature will be the sole forum where such matters will be decided has to be incorporated through a constitutional amendment.

BJP’S DUBIOUS RECORD

The governor’s conduct in Jharkhand has provided the BJP the opportunity to pose as champions of democracy and constitutional propriety. The BJP’s record in this sphere is reprehensible. Twice in Bihar in 1998 and 1999, the Vajpayee government sought to dismiss the elected government by invoking Article 356. In 1999 the massacre of dalits in Jehanabad was made the basis for such a brazen and illegal intervention. On such a reckoning, the Modi government in Gujarat should have been dismissed thrice over for the communal pogroms in 2002. After the 2000 assembly elections, the minority government of Nitish Kumar was sought to be foisted upon Bihar with the help of the then governor, Vinod Pande. The authoritarian bent of the BJP was evident in the way it sought to dispatch central teams to West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu under the direction of L K Advani, the home minister. The West Bengal government exposed this illegal and unconstitutional move by refusing to cooperate with the central team.

The BJP record in appointing governors is as bad, if not worse. During its six year rule, hardcore RSS men were given governorships. Sunder Singh Bhandari, one of the top RSS men, was sent to Bihar, with the sole aim of destabilisng the Rabri Devi government.

The BJP in Jharkhand is setting a dirty record by buying up independent MLAs and encouraging defectors from parties like the NCP, which is illegal. The new speaker belonging to the BJP alliance will no doubt sit upon the disqualification petitions which come under the purview of the anti-defection law. The BJP is gloating over its comeback in Jharkhand, which will prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. This unprincipled opportunism in forming a government of defectors and opportunists will unravel sooner or later. That the BJP has won only a temporary advantage due to the Congress folly is clear from the election results. There is not much which can comfort the BJP in its electoral performance. In Jharkhand, the BJP-JD(U) alliance has lost 3.8 per cent of its vote compared to the 2000 assembly elections. In Bihar, the BJP-JD(U) alliance’s vote percentage has declined by 4.4 per cent compared to the 2000 elections.

LARGER ISSUES

The Supreme Court directive on Arjun Munda’s petition has raised larger constitutional issues which will not end with the Jharkhand episode. The court directing the legislature to conduct its proceedings in a particular manner and the implied threat of further action if its directive is not fully complied with has raised the question whether the judiciary can upset the constitutional arrangement and the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. We have seen in the recent years judicial pronouncements which encroach upon the powers of the executive and the current judgement oversteps the limits by its judicial dictates to the legislature.

It is important that this question be discussed and the constitutional scheme be clarified and protected. It is this issue which the speaker of the Lok Sabha has raised. The BJP’s attack on his stand betrays its contempt for the legislature’s legitimate rights. It is amusing to hear the perorations by L K Advani on the sanctity of the constitution. It is the same Advani who advocates the introduction of the presidential form of government. If Advani could have his way, there would be no problem regarding the powers of the judiciary and the legislature because he would have assigned most of these powers to an all-powerful president. But for those who are concerned about parliamentary democracy and the constitutional arrangement underpinning such a system, the question of protecting the legitimate sphere of the legislature and maintaining the separation of the powers of the three arms of the state cannot be dismissed so lightly.