'It is the worst-administered State'

Defence Minister George Fernandes, who is the leader of the Samata Party, a constituent of the BJP-led coalition, was one of the Ministers who opposed the move to return the Union Cabinet's recommendation to President K.R. Narayanan to invoke Article 356 in Bihar after the President sent it back to the Cabinet for reconsideration. He explains his views in an interview to V. Venkatesan. Excerpts:

How would you justify the Cabinet recommendation to the President to invoke Article 356 in Bihar?

K. PICHUMANI

I have been an opponent of Article 356. But as long as it is there, I believe there will always be situations where it has to be used. If there is one State where Article 356 can be used in the most legitimate way, it is Bihar. The people of Bihar are facing an unprecedented situation. Bihar is in the lowest rung of the ladder insofar as development activities are concerned. It was once considered the best administered State. Today, it is the worst administered State, if there is any administration at all. Politics there is corrupt; the bureaucracy is corrupt; the police are completely in the grip of the Chief Minister. There is nothing that the citizen can expect there.

Bihar has sent me to Parliament six times. I have no words to express my inability to deal with the problems which my constituents face, whether it is in the matter of basic civic amenities, schools, hospitals, or most important, in the matter of jobs.

Do you think President's Rule will rectify these problems?

I am not in favour of President's Rule. We want the Government which has brought Bihar to this sad state to go.

Are you in favour of the deletion of Article 356 from the Constitution?

Yes, I would advocate the deletion of the Article from the Constitution if that is the only way of ensuring that the Congress(I), which first used it in Kerala against the Communist Government (in 1959) and then against every non-Congress(I) Government elsewhere in the country, does not have the opportunity to misuse it again if it comes to power. The Congress(I) has played havoc with the Constitution, misused this provision from the time of Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi and thereafter.

Constituent Assembly debates clearly reveal that Article 356 is not intended to be used to ensure good governance in a State or to stop bad governance.

It has been stated categorically in what circumstances Article 356 should be used. The Supreme Court has codified the circumstances in which it can be used. I believe that any person with a minimal understanding of the Article and a reading of the Supreme Court judgment should have no difficulty in recognising the fact that the Article has to be invoked in Bihar.

Do you disagree with the President?

We, as a Government, have disagreed with the President, with due respect to him. We have said that our action in making this recommendation was fully justified. For the time being, we are not sending back the recommendation.

Why is it for the "time being"?

Because, if the situation takes a turn for the worse in Bihar, where people are going to be subjected to further abuses of the Constitution, then the Government would like to act. If a situation should arise to send it back, we will not ask for suspended animation of the Assembly, which has created so much misunderstanding, wholly uncalled for. Because the Governor's recommendation was for dissolution, our own thought was for dissolution. When our party's (Samata Party) delegation met him - we have met him on more than one occasion on this issue - we prayed for dissolution. At the Cabinet meeting, the Home Department circulated a note which the President had sent with regard to the Uttar Pradesh problem (of 1997). The President had said that as per the Supreme Court verdict in the Bommai case, he can dissolve the Assembly only after Parliament adopted a resolution to that effect. Since the President had taken such a position in that instance, we decided that we will ask for suspended animation. Unfortunately, this has been interpreted by our opponents as a hidden agenda to try and create a situation whereby the President would be confronted with an alternative government in Bihar through horse-trading.

But the BJP's Bihar State unit president is already on record claiming that the question of forming an alternative government from this Assembly was open.

The BJP State unit president is not the Union Government or the Union Cabinet. The Union Cabinet took a decision and conveyed it to the President. In fact, L.K. Advani, in the presence of the Prime Minister and myself, made the point to the President that we would have normally recommended dissolution, but because of the Supreme Court's decision and your (President's) stand, we decided not to do so.

Do you think the Cabinet made a mistake in not issuing directives to the State Government under the Constitution before recommending the use of Article 356?

There is nothing in the Constitution which says that the Cabinet should send directives. What is suggested is that before taking an action of this nature, one should warn the State Government. I do not believe that the State Government consists of schoolchildren and that we are headmasters who will go on warning them. If the State Government does not obey our directives, what do we do?

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar