People's Democracy

EDITORIAL

 Bihar : Once Again, Pot Calling 

FINALLY, there was no option left but to dissolve the Bihar assembly and to go for fresh elections in the state.  For three months following the fractured verdict in the state all efforts at forming a government with a majority in a House of 243 failed.  Given the post-electoral numbers with the  RJD and its allies having 79 seats, the BJP-JD(U) having 92 seats, the  LJP with 29 seats and the Congress with 10, it became clear that the Bihar electorate clearly  refused to endorse the formation of a government of the communal combination of the BJP-JD(U). If all the parties that are today together in the government at the centre had come together in Bihar, then, clearly, a secular government headed by the RJD (being the single largest party) could have been formed. This, however, was not to be. Ramvilas Paswan’s LJP favoured president’s rule in the state than trying to form a democratically elected government.

Initially, when president’s rule was imposed on March 7, the assembly was placed under suspended animation with the hope of further exploring the possibilities of establishing a majority government. For over two months, no such possibility materialised.

Over the previous week, however, sections of the Lok Janashakti Party had crossed over to the JD(U) setting the stage for unprincipled and unscrupulous horse-trading which makes a mockery of democracy.  Clearly, the communal combination of the BJP-JD(U) was seeking to form a government through the backdoor when the Bihar electorate decisively rejected to give them a mandate to rule. 

In the event, a large number of Paswan’s 29 MLAs vanished to materialise in the BJP-JD(U) ruled state of Jharkhand.  The Bihar governor had sent alarming reports about the brazen horse-trading and unscrupulous methods being adopted.  The prime minister has confirmed that even apart from the governor’s report, the government had information about such unsavoury anti-democratic activities and that the dissolution of the House and going in for a fresh mandate was the only option left to uphold the democratic spirit.

Under these circumstances, Vajpayee thundering  that this constitutes “murder of democracy” and a “fraud on the Constitution” is, once again, a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!  It was under Vajpayee’s leadership that the NDA amended the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution mandating disqualification of legislators who defect from the party that fielded them. Making a mockery of this legislation, the BJP-JD(U) were trying to poach on over two-third of the LJP’s 29 MLAs in order to bypass  this provision. No greater insult to electoral democracy may have been possible.

Further, it was, again, under Vajpayee’s leadership that the NDA, after the last assembly elections in Bihar, unsuccessfully foisted Nitish Kumar as the chief minister when, clearly, he did not have a majority. He was administered the oath of office with 42 JD(U) MLAs and 35 BJP MLAs. He had to unceremoniously resign before the vote of confidence when it became clear that he could not muster a majority despite all efforts at horse-trading. This, however, according to Vajpayee, does not fall into the category of “murder of democracy”!

During the last five years, on two occasions, the Vajpayee government sought to dismiss the RJD government in the state despite it enjoying a majority on the floor of the assembly.  This was prevented only because the NDA could not muster a majority in the Rajya Sabha to endorse this move.  The NDA even contemplated to convene a joint session of the parliament a la the manner in which it had the POTA enacted.   All these, however, does not constitute, according to them,  a “fraud on the Constitution”!

The BJP-led NDA’s duplicity and double standards on matters of upholding democracy need no further exposure. What suits them is “democratic”, what does not suit them is the “murder of democracy”!

Initially, the BJP and NDA thundered that they would take to the streets  as well as take recourse to legal action challenging this decision. However, given the lukewarm response from the people on this score, they have now changed tune to demand an early election in the state!

These three months, when the Bihar assembly was in a limbo, should serve as an experience from which the secular parties must draw proper lessons.  The CPI(M) had all along maintained that the division of votes among the secular parties should be minimised  to the maximum extent possible so that the communal forces do not gain advantage. Drawing proper lessons means that the efforts for such an arrangement must be made in right earnest to permit the Bihar electorate, which had already rejected the communal combination twice in the past (in the parliamentary elections in 2004 and assembly elections in 2005) to register a more decisive rejection of the communal combination.