Overkill on Uttar Pradesh

The communal violence at Gorakhpur, the alleged involvement of cabinet ministers in murder cases such as the current Kavita Rani case, are all but the latest manifestations of the systemic rot that had permeated the state. It was against this background that the Supreme Court pronounced judgment in the BSP MLAs’ disqualification case on February 14. The court categorically disqualified 13 MLAs of the BSP who had defected to the Samajwadi Party in 2003. The import of the judgment was also very clear — that since the court did not recognise that a split had occurred in the BSP, the remaining 24 erstwhile BSP MLAs too would be considered defectors. This in itself was a terrible blow to the UP government’s credibility. Yet, apart from some political parties, hardly anyone at all chose to comment on this ugly truth. Most commentators moved seamlessly into a discussion of whether Article 356 could be invoked or not. This is perhaps a measure of the way public opinion is sought to be shaped in order to influence future events. There can be no other reason why there was no discussion on the facts of the Supreme Court judgment, but instead all debate immediately centred on whether Article 356 was justified in the circumstances.

It is nobody’s case that 37 erstwhile BSP legislators could cast a valid vote in future assembly proceedings. The Congress party called upon Mulayam Singh Yadav to resign in the wake of this judgment on moral, political, legal and ethical grounds. The unambiguous stand of the Congress has been that the most basic requirement of democratic practice would require that he step down. This was also the statement made after the meeting of the Congress Working Committee.

There can be no doubt about the fact that the Samajwadi Party’s call for a floor test is meaningless, and nothing more than a euphemism for horse-trading, which can never be tolerated in a democracy. The numbers are clearly against Mulayam Singh. In a 403-member House, the Samajwadi Party has 152 MLAs. Along with 14 Independents, and 2 Loktantrik Congress MLAs, support for the government still does not exceed 168 MLAs. There is no way that Mulayam Singh can win a floor test unless he lures, or intimidates, MLAs from other parties to vote for him. In the use of these unsavoury tactics, he is already a known offender, and the Supreme Court has made a virtual declaration to this effect by disqualifying the erstwhile BSP MLAs. Therefore an opportunity given to him to conduct a floor test would be nothing but a licence to indulge in blatant horse-trading.

This was the basis on which the Congress called upon Mulayam Singh to resign. The fact that it had always stated that the imposition of President’s rule under Article 356 was a constitutional matter, between the UP governor and the president, is too well-documented to require repetition. Despite this, several news items went to town creating a hue and cry over President’s rule, which was yet to be imposed. And thereafter continued to comment upon the timing of the Election Commission’s announcement regarding the dates of the UP elections. Some said this was a “face saver” for the Congress. Some said that it was a spoke in the wheel. Others went into a tailspin examining the constitutional possibility of invoking Article 356 after the election dates had been announced. Some others speculated on the possible attitude of the president. To all of them I would simply quote what Chief Election Commissioner Gopalaswamy said during a press conference. He retorted in Tamil to a question, saying “Athaiki meesai molacha, chithappa” (when your aunt sprouts a moustache she will become your uncle) — meaning that the question was hypothetical.

Ordinary citizens and unprejudiced observers have no doubt that if, and when, the government chooses to act, it will act according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The government will act not only according to the Constitution, but also in the best interests of democracy and UP’s people. The very important issue that slips the mind of angry commentators is that in all the synthetic outrage over imposition of President’s rule, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s government is escaping unremarked and unchallenged. All the many sins this government is guilty of have been ignored because the media has been overtaken by a well-orchestrated discussion about the merits of imposing President’s rule. An attempt is being made to portray Mulayam Singh and his government in the rather unlikely role of victims. This distorted perspective is dangerous for our democracy.

If ever there could be a moral case for the imposition of President’s rule, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s government would be the textbook case. As the Congress has repeatedly said, this is a decision that has to be taken between the UP governor and the president. Whether that decision will be actually taken or not is still in the realm of the future. For the present, it would serve us well to base our discussions upon facts rather than speculation, so that the discourse of a democratic polity, which is indeed the life blood of a free society, is not obscured by sensationalism, knee-jerk reactions and manufactured outrage.

The writer is a Congress spokesperson