'There should be transparency'

Rajesh Pilot, Congress(I) Working Committee member and Member of Parliament, is strongly in favour of transparency in the use of Article 356. He says that there should be no blunt political motive in the application of the Article. However, he argues that the Article must be retained in the Constitution. Excerpts from the interview he gave T.K. Rajalakshmi:

In the light of the events involving Bihar, what are your views on the use and abuse of Article 356?

The Bihar case is a peculiar one. It is unfortunate that the Central Government took the plea that law and order situation had deteriorated there and that mafia raj was in place. On that basis they wanted to apply Article 356 and dismiss the Government or keep the Assembly in suspended animation. Even as the Rabri Devi Government proved its majority on the floor of the House, a move to dismiss it was made. It is obvious that there was a political motive to this. The Home Minister says that the law and order situation is bad in Delhi. The Prime Minister says that it is bad in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra. Then the same yardstick should be applied everywhere. There should be transparency. Unfortunately, even before the Bihar Governor sent his recommendation, the Prime Minister said in Gwalior that Article 356 should be applied. Normally, the Prime Minister does not speak until the Cabinet takes a decision. It is the culture of collective responsibility. I am happy that the President sent the recommendation back for reconsideration.

SHANKER CHAKRAVARTY

All political parties are to blame for this (abuse of Article 356). We (Congress(I)) never misused Article 356 with a blunt political motive. It (the abuse of Article 356) started in 1977 when Charan Singh, as Home Minister in the Janata Party Government, dismissed all the nine Congress(I)-run governments in one stroke. We, in the manner of politicians, followed the same practice when we came to power in 1980. We are at fault at some level but the Congress(I) in the last 40 years has not used Article 356 in such a blunt manner as has been tried in Bihar.

What is your opinion about previous instances of use of Article 356 by Congress(I) governments and the actions of Governor Romesh Bhandari in dismissing the Uttar Pradesh Government in 1997?

I really do not know all those instances. Misuse of Article 356 had been there. I am not denying it. We must have made some mistakes. The events of 1977 and 1980 are examples of blunt application of Article 356. Even in U.P., it was wrong. I had opposed it in the Working Committee. What Bhandari did was also done with a political motive. An elected government was not given a chance to prove its majority.

What impression do these events convey about the office of Governor? Do you think that Governors should be appointed with the concurrence of State Governments?

Since 1952, politicians have been appointed Governors. But they kept the grace and dignity of the Governor's office intact. Politicians of that calibre and category do not exist any more. The credibility of the institution has suffered erosion. Hard-core politicians are being appointed Governors, and their only aim is to help their party. Parties in power have to be careful about whom they appoint Governors. The Governors, in order to re-establish the dignity of the office, have to act according to the Constitution and not according to the wishes of their parent party.

What are your views on the perception of the Bharatiya Janata Party president Kushabhau Thakre that if Article 356 cannot be used in Bihar then it may well be declared redundant?

He is the BJP president. He has little option but to say so. When the recommendation was sent back for reconsideration by the President, the Home Minister said that the chapter was closed. The Prime Minister comes back from United States and says that the options are open, and that the allies would be consulted on whether the recommendation should be sent back to the President. The Prime Minister and the Home Minister are talking in different languages. They are confusing the nation. The views of the BJP president are not the country's views. We from the Congress(I) feel that Article 356 should be there but should not be misused as in the case of Bihar.

Under what circumstances can Article 356 be used? Does a long-standing demand by a section of the opposition in Bihar warrant such a situation?

It is to be used when the security of the nation is at stake, when a financial emergency prevails and the State cannot hold out on its own, when law and order deteriorates to such a degree that life becomes unsafe for the common man. There are other reasons as well. Mainly we should be transparent in using Article 356 so that the nation does not misunderstand the party in power. I personally feel that Article 356 must be applied sometimes when the nation's integrity is involved.

Is a political realignment possible at the national level?

As far as the Congress(I) is concerned, we would like to strengthen our base first and come up on our own strength. But we are keeping our options open. If any support is required from secular forces to fight communal forces, we have kept that option open. In Bihar, we are cooperating on these lines so that communal forces do not take over the country. We differ with the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Communists on many issues, but we are keeping the window open in the interest of the nation.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar