The Hindu : The Gujarat imbroglio

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 19, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The Gujarat imbroglio

By Rajeev Dhavan

We have to turn to the President himself. Under Article 78, he has the right to call for reports and examine issues to advise, encourage and warn his own advisor, the Prime Minister.

THE EVENTS since the Sabarmati Express was attacked on February 27 surpass some of the worst nightmares India has faced since independence. We are now in the grip of an unprecedented crisis. Godhra was unforgivable. What followed is a continuing act of a shame. Now, politics feeds on communal horror. The preliminary findings shock the constitutional conscience in unequal measure — with politicians of various persuasions exposing themselves. The Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, has not quelled or controlled the situation . The Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, has visited Gujarat; and, is apprised of the horror. But, he does not have the political courage to sack Mr. Modi. Why? Perhaps, the BJP feels that prospects of victory in the next election in Gujarat will be enhanced by supporting the communalism associated with Mr. Modi's actions and inactions. The BJP does not want to risk losing the only major State in its political possession. Some of its allies fear the collapse of the Union Government if Gujarat backfires on the BJP-led coalition at the Centre. The Samata Party's spokesperson resigned in protest over his outfit's stance. The rest of the NDA's allies are dithering — unsure whether to hold on to office or honour the Constitution. There is a standoff.

Mr. Vajpayee refuses to sack Mr. Modi. The situation in Gujarat remains abnormal. The minorities — especially, the Muslims — have received their worst shock since Partition, akin to the senseless brutalities inflicted on the Sikhs in 1984. In Gujarat, further political mileage is expected to be made out of communal mayhem. The facts of Godhra were ghastly enough. What followed defies democratic and secular credulity. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued notice on March 1. Despite this, Mr. Modi's Government established a Commission of Inquiry. Legally, there was nothing wrong in doing so. The inquiry should have come from the Central Government. There can be a State and Union inquiry after the Supreme Court's judgment in 1980. But, Mr. Modi's Government's inquiry was a ploy.

After J.S. Verma of the NHRC visited Gujarat (March 19-22), he found no justification for the Government not containing the continuing unprecedented violence and the Modi regime's omissions and commissions. Unfazed by this preliminary indictment, an NGO filed a case in the Gujarat High Court to stop the NHRC from further investigation! The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the Gujarat High Court. This meant the NHRC could continue its investigations. It has made recommendations which are being ignored. Not only was the communal situation being fanned for political reasons, but investigation into the true facts was being thwarted and stalled. It was the NHRC's finest hour. Meanwhile, the facts spoke for themselves. Mosques were destroyed. Muslims were brutally assaulted and murdered. Pamphlets were circulated on how the Muslims were to be attacked and maltreated. The State has not proceeded against their circulation. The State machinery broke down; and, by some accounts, connived in the communal horror. Mr. Vajpayee wept but, refused to act.

No one is accountable in Gujarat — politically or constitutionally. The constitutional machinery has broken down, calling for President's Rule under Article 356. But, what happens when the Union Government itself fails to act? Under Article 355 it is the duty of the Union "to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance". This was the Article sought to be invoked against Laloo Prasad Yadav's Bihar and Jyoti Basu's West Bengal and also Tamil Nadu when the Union wanted to send a team to investigate a constitutional breakdown. But, when a real breakdown took place in Gujarat, the Union was silent and supine. What happens when the Union does not live up to its constitutional obligations. Mr. Modi does not and cannot command the confidence of the minorities. The least that could have been done was the removal of Mr. Modi as a confidence enhancing measure. Today, the Government in Gujarat led by Mr. Modi cannot provide secular democracy for that State. We also have a politically crafty Union Government that will not act. That is why the impasse in Parliament is justified leading to a constitutional impasse.

Under normal circumstances, it is difficult to support the imposition of President's Rule. In most of the 100-odd impositions, there has been little or no justification. President's Rule was imposed on Kerala in 1959 on grounds of a breakdown of law and order when it was not justified. An anti-price rise agitation led to President's Rule in Gujarat in 1974. President's Rule followed the Akali agitation in 1983; and the Constitution was amended so that President's Rule could be imposed in Punjab from 1987 to 1990. In Tamil Nadu in 1976 and Manipur in 1979, President's Rule was imposed because the Governments were corrupt. After the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992, President's Rule was imposed in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh — wrongly so in the latter case. The Bommai case (1993) examined these impositions; and, significantly laid down that a breakdown of secularism was a valid ground to impose President's Rule.

Apply all this to Gujarat; there is a breakdown of law and order on a frightening scale. There is political corruption — in the Government's activity and inactivity. Secularism has been tarnished. Communalism rules through terror. Gujarat is one of those cases where President's Rule should be imposed. Instead, President's Rule has been imposed on India's largest state of Uttar Pradesh even though there is a largest single party that can form a government. But, just as President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh is convenient for the BJP, not imposing it in Gujarat is expected to bring in present and future electoral dividends.

Who will impose President's Rule? The Prime Minister. But, he is not even prepared to sack Mr. Modi. He relies on his allies in Parliament to save him from an adverse vote. We have to turn to the President himself. Under Article 78, he has the right to call for reports and examine issues to advise, encourage and warn his own advisor, the Prime Minister. K. R. Narayanan warned against President's Rule in Bihar a few years ago. It is now his duty to advise imposition of President's Rule in Gujarat. Neither the Sarkaria Commission (1988) nor the Constitution Commission (2002) recommends an abolition of President's Rule. Personally, I do not like these provisions. But, in this situation, President's Rule may be justified. It is better than partial national emergency under Article 352. The only snag is that the State will still be run by the BJP through the Union Government. This is where the allies come in to ensure that President's Rule is closely monitored by them and through Parliament.

The BJP got a jolt when it was wiped out of power in several States in February 2002. The Ayodhya gambit had not paid off. What we are seeing in Gujarat and some other States is a new kind of BJP electoral politics through instrumenting a communal jehad in the name of Hindu chauvinism. This is a new electoral ploy — as despicable as the revulsion and horror is generates. One's worst fears about the BJP and its sangh parivar or social and political family seem justified. The sheer savagery of events causes dismay. Communal violence has replaced Ayodhya as the new electoral mantra.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Travesty of the budget

Countering a coup

The Gujarat imbroglio

Tackling judicial arrears

Finding stability in coalitions