'Article 356 is only an emergency measure'

Prakash Karat, member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), spoke to Sukumar Muralidharan on certain issues arising from the BJP-led Government's aborted move to dismiss the Bihar Government. Excerpts from the interview:

In the specific context of the Bihar developments, what further lessons have been learnt about the use and abuse of Article 356?

The first point is that the BJP, which promised in its election manifesto that it would stop the misuse of Article 356 - in fact, it even went so far as to promise that it would end the use of Raj Bhavans as extension counters for the Centre - has violated its own commitments. It has done precisely what it said should not be done. What has happened in the case of Bihar is that there is not an iota of doubt that the RJD as the ruling party there had the confidence of the Assembly. By using Article 356 in flagrant violation of the Bommai judgment of the Supreme Court, the BJP has shown that it is prepared to use any Constitutional provision in a partisan and wilful manner. The real problem for the BJP is that it does not have a commanding position within the coalition and within Parliament. If it had had a majority, then it would have ridden roughshod. So this shows the authoritarian streak in the functioning of the BJP Government.

K. GAJENDRAN

The lesson to be drawn from this is that Article 356 has to be amended suitably. Now definitely there are safeguards - after the Bommai judgment. The President has gone by the parameters set out in this judgment, which also takes into account the Sarkaria Commission recommendations. In fact, the Constitution Bench has gone in some depth into the recommendations made by the Sarkaria Commission. But the mischief is still being played. So an amendment to the Article is perhaps needed. Here the question arises of the BJP's demand for a national debate. There has already been a debate on Article 356 for a pretty long time - this has been going on since the 1960s and has been connected to the overall issue of redefining the content of Centre-State relations. In fact, the BJP knows very well about the recent debate by a sub-committee of the Inter-State Council, where (Rajasthan Chief Minister Bhairon Singh) Shekhawat took the stand that Article 356 should be abolished.

The proposal was prepared under the United Front Government, which talked about the modification of this Article in such a way that it can be used only in specific situations, like a direct threat to national unity. There is no need for further debate, we only need to act.

What about the reading that if it cannot be invoked in Bihar then it might as well be deleted from the Constitution?

Article 356 is not meant to ensure good governance. That is the job of the political parties and the political system. If the people elect a party which governs badly, the final court is the people again. Article 356 is only an emergency measure to safeguard national unity and the democratic political system when they come under threat.

In Tamil Nadu, the BJP has been very reluctant about invoking Article 356, whereas it has shown no such scruples in Bihar. What could be the underlying reasons?

The exercise of Article 356 is primarily a political act by the Central Government. In Tamil Nadu, the stakes are much lower for the BJP than in Bihar.

The Bommai judgment makes a strong statement on secularism. How does this fit in with your perception on the application of Article 356?

That is related to national unity. The judgment says that a government which goes against a basic feature of the Constitution on the basis of which our national unity and democracy are constituted, invites the application of Article 356. It explains that the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992 was an extraordinary situation. But nobody can claim that the Rabri Devi Government is a threat to national unity, or, for that matter, that the DMK Government in Tamil Nadu is one. Only if a State government openly abets or participates in some activity which threatens national unity, is the application of Article 356 warranted.

What does the Bihar experience tell us about the office of the Governor?

The only way we can keep the Governor's post free of this controversy is to have a federal system where the State governments have a say in the appointment of Governors. We cannot have this old colonial practice of the Viceroy appointing his plenipotentiary in the provinces. The Sarkaria Commission recommendations should, in our view, be strengthened in this respect. The Governor cannot be sent to the State as an agent of the ruling party at the Centre. He has to be appointed with the concurrence of the State government.

In terms of national politics, do these events have a bearing on the alignment of forces?

The Bihar events have shown that when the BJP-led Government directly threatens secular values and democratic principles, then we will have the widest possible unity to resist that. The utility and effectiveness of that unity was seen this time, when the entire Opposition united to block this move. But from that to jump to thinking about a new front or alliance is not warranted. As far as the alignment of forces is concerned, our party is committed to rebuilding the third alternative, which would be an alliance of all non-BJP and non-Congress secular and democratic forces, along with the Left.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar