India's National Magazine
From the publishers of THE HINDU

Vol. 16 :: No. 05 :: Feb. 27 - Mar. 12, 1999

---

COVER STORY

'A question of federal principles'

Interview with Sitaram Yechury.

Sitaram Yechury, member of Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), is of the view that the dismissal of the Rabri Devi Government has presented several questions before the Bharatiya Janata Party's allies such as the Telugu Desam Party, the Lok Shakti and the National Conference. "Leaders of these parties - N. Chandrababu Naidu, Ramakrishna Hegde and Farooq Abdullah - have championed the cause of federalism and raised significant points regarding Centre-State relations in their political careers. We are interested in seeing how they react to this dismissal when it comes for approval in Parliament," said Yechury in an interview to Venkitesh Ramakrishnan. Excerpts:

How does the CPI(M) perceive the dismissal of the Bihar Government and related events?

First, it is a blatant misuse of a constitutional provision. From Day One, the BJP Government had made no secret of its intention to dismiss the RJD Ministry. The dismissal was basically a political action and the massacres by the Ranvir Sena were used as a pretext. That the intention was political partisanship is also clear from the fact that the earlier recommendation, rejected by the President, was reiterated. This left the President with no option but to sign the proclamation. The continuation of the massacres even after the imposition of President's Rule shows that the law and order situation cannot be improved by dismissing governments.

SHANKER CHAKRAVARTY

The RJD has said that the Ranvir Sena engineered the massacres in order to get its Government dismissed...

The Ranvir Sena's character is well established. It has been targeting Dalits after they asserted their right to land or fought against social oppression. Its fundamental aim is to protect upper-caste interests, and the Sena leadership as well as the rank and file are vocal and aggressive supporters of the BJP. In this context it needs to be investigated whether the massacres were actually instigated. As for the question of breakdown of the constitutional machinery, there are more glaring examples in Gujarat and Maharashtra. While in Maharashtra the Government is openly refusing to punish the perpetrators of the communal riots of 1992 and has summarily rejected the Srikrishna Commission Report, in Gujarat the Bajrang Dal goes on a killing spree. The response of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister to all this is conciliatory and both of them have gone on record exonerating the Bajrang Dal. By no yardstick is the use of the Article 356 tenable in Bihar in the background of all this.

But the CPI(M) had come out against the RJD Government in the past and even launched mass agitations against it.

Here the question is not one of RJD misrule but of federal principles of the Constitution. As far as the RJD Government is concerned, we have led struggles against its corruption and refusal to take up developmental issues. As a matter of fact, the CPI(M) has lost 42 comrades in land struggles in the State between 1996 and 1998. The RJD Government has been responsible for protecting many landlords - some of them belonging to the backward castes - who committed these killings. Our concept of social justice and that of Laloo Prasad Yadav do not really converge.

Still you have made a call to all parties to oppose in Parliament the motion seeking ratification of President's Rule.

Certainly. As I made it clear, the question is one of federal principles. We would expect every party to oppose the motion. Even BJP leaders such as Bhairon Singh Shekhawat had called for the deletion of Article 356 when he was Chief Minister, describing it as an authoritarian provision. Having committed itself to this position, the BJP is resorting to the same old method. We hope that the Congress(I) will also come out against the motion...If not, it runs the risk of continuing with the image of the authoritarian party, which it had during the Emergency. If the Congress should decide to support the motion or abstain, then it would only reinforce the impression that the party is prepared to compromise with democracy. The Congress seems now to have overcome its ambivalence and decided to oppose the motion. With this the continuation of this government becomes very precarious. Opposing the ratification move should be more important for parties such as the Telugu Desam, the Lok Shakti and the National Conference. Leaders of these parties - Chandrababu Naidu, Ramakrishna Hegde and Farooq Abdullah - have championed the cause of federalism and raised significant questions about Centre-State relations in their political careers. We are certainly interested in seeing how they react in Parliament.