COVER STORY

'Go back to Vajpayee, or to the voter'

Stunned by the defeat of the confidence motion, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies are doing everything possible to keep the remaining flock together. The minor contradictions that are manifesting themselves among other parties that are seeking to provide an alternative government seem to offer solace to the dispirited political formation that has been voted out. BJP general secretary M. Venkaiah Naidu spoke to V. Venkatesan about what went wrong, and how the BJP expects the political scene to unfold. Excerpts:

You were confident of victory in the vote of confidence. What went wrong?

Two things upset our calculations - the BSP, and Saifuddin Soz.

The BSP is not a reliable party. It made a categorical statement in the Lok Sabha that it will not vote. Kanshi Ram had assured us that BSP MPs would abstain because he does not want a Congress(I)-Mulayam Singh Yadav regime.

As for Saifuddin Soz, he was present when the National Conference took the decision (to vote in favour of the motion of confidence). He had agreed to abide by the party's decision. For various reasons, he went over to the other side. This made the difference. Otherwise, we had our strategy and our strength. Right from the beginning, we all know that the arithmetic of the Lok Sabha is such that the BJP did not have an absolute majority to form a government on its own. Now, one party - the AIADMK - has ditched us and gone against the mandate. But in spite of that, we have been able to come to the half-way mark in terms of support.

Was Speaker G.M.C. Balayogi wrong in allowing Orissa Chief Minister Giridhar Gamang to vote?

Giridhar Gamang had no right to vote. Nobody questioned his right to be a member. Nobody wanted his disqualification... The issue raised by (L.K.) Advani and Rangarajan Kumaramangalam was that persons elected to the Lok Sabha and who were subsequently sworn in as Minister in a State would be holding an office of profit. The rulings given by earlier Speakers on three occasions, and the interpretations given by experts, clearly say that such persons continue to be members, but that they cannot take part in the proceedings of the House.

A person who is sworn in as Chief Minister, and a person who has promised the people of his State that he would perform his responsibilities as the head of the State and follow the Constitution, comes back to the Lok Sabha to decide the fate of the Prime Minister. This is totally unethical, immoral and illogical. They referred to the case of Sushma Swaraj. Nobody is questioning their right to be members. Sushma Swaraj never took part in the proceedings of the House during the period she was Chief Minister of Delhi.

The vote shows that you did not have a majority after the AIADMK withdrew its support.

The other parties are united against us, but they are divided amongst themselves. And there are parties that are ready to change their opinion overnight, like the BSP. A deal was struck overnight. The Congress(I) is notorious, it is known for such manipulations. We did not promise anything to Mayawati. She lied before the House. Her words have no validity at all. She has no credibility. The BSP can tell lies, can change its stand any number of times.

From Day One the BJP has been of the view that the mandate - not fully, but by and large - was for a coalition led by Vajpayee. I stated at that time that it was a choice between a Government under Vajpayee or fresh elections. In the present situation, when the Opposition is totally divided, the only way is to go back to Vajpayee, or to the voter. We have to choose between the two. Vajpayee has shown the country that he is capable of leading the coalition.

Jayalalitha wanted the withdrawal of all cases, dismissal of the DMK Government, institution of cases against M. Karunanidhi, P. Chidambaram, and postings of certain officers against whom cases are pending. We did not agree to them. But we accommodated her demands insofar as they pertained to Tamil Nadu's development. She said on March 25 that Vajpayee was the best leader, but she changed her stand after the tea party hosted by Subramanian Swamy. She must explain the change in her stand. I presume the Congress(I) has promised to fulfil her demands. The Congress(I) is capable of doing anything.

Do you regret having entered into an alliance with the AIADMK?

P.V. SIVAKUMAR

No. Our alliance had the people's mandate. We won on the understanding that there should be an able leader and a stable government. She has broken the alliance in Tamil Nadu. We did not say one word against her all these 13 months in spite of all her irresponsible statements. She criticised Pramod Mahajan, George Fernandes, Advani, Jaswant Singh, but the party did not react. Every party has the right to choose its own alliance partners.

Are you sure that your alliance will remain intact?

The other parties can do anything, their history is such. Even Kalpnath Rai, who has problems with the Samata Party, voted in favour of the motion. If you start speculating, then there are people in the Congress(I) who are averse to Sonia Gandhi becoming the leader. There are parties like the RSP and the Forward Bloc which have gone on record that they will not support a Congress(I) government. The TMC says it will oppose the AIADMK being part of the government. Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav say they will be in the government. In that case, the BSP will not agree. There are many inherent contradictions on the other side. The issue is not the BJP. The Opposition has brought down the Government through manipulation and false promises. It is for them to come forward and offer an alternative.

How do you explain your appeal to the President - that he should insist on letters of support from parties representing more than 271 MPs in the Lok Sabha before inviting anyone to form the Government?

We are not asking him to set a precedent. He had asked us to give letters of support. We complied with that. We have just shown that we have a strength of 269-plus (including the Speaker) in the Lok Sabha. Others have proved that there are 270 members against us. They have not proved that they have a strength of 270-plus.

Apart from the RSP and the Forward Bloc, even the Janata Dal is divided over extending support to a Congress(I) government. The President has to play a role not only as a custodian of the Constitution; he should also plan his action so as to ensure stability. His action should not lead to instability. If the other parties are not able to convince him of its majority support, he should call back Vajpayee, who will try to give better stability and tell the President that he enjoys the support of more than 270 MPs in the Lok Sabha. The President should take immediate action, and ask the other parties whether they will be able to form a government.

There was a functioning Government. By bringing down the Government, without an alternative, some parties have taken the country to chaos and confusion. If they had moved a no-confidence motion (and lost), they could not have moved another such motion for six months. Besides, the inherent contradictions among them would have come to the fore. A Congress(I)-inspired no-confidence motion would not have been acceptable to the RSP, the INLD and the Forward Bloc. An AIADMK-inspired no-confidence motion would not have been acceptable to the TMC. That is why they forced us to move a confidence motion. If the President considers the mood of the country - that frequent elections are not good - he should insist today itself that the others show the support of 270-plus members in Lok Sabha. If they cannot do it, he should call back Vajpayee in order to avoid elections. And if Vajpayee too is not able to prove majority support, we can go for elections. The country cannot afford frequent elections. However, simply because the country does not like elections, you cannot allow somebody who has no mandate to rule.