Opinion - News Analysis   

A no-holds-barred fight

By Inder Malhotra

A no-holds-barred fight between the BJP and the Congress-led ruling coalition in New Delhi over the dismissal of the four Governors appointed by the previous regime is now unavoidable. BJP stalwarts, in statements reminiscent of Churchillian speeches during World War II, have served notice that they would take on the United Progressive Alliance Government on the "floor of Parliament, outside in the streets and in the courts of law."

Combined with the ongoing tussle over the "tainted" Ministers this could disrupt the Budget session of Parliament almost as completely as the previous, brief one was. But that is a different story. For the present, the focus is on the issue of the marching orders given to the Governors of Goa, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.

Both sides are doubtless playing not just partisan politics but also realpolitik. Even so, the BJP's overblown rhetoric, concentrating on the "fixity" of the Governor's five-year tenure begs the question. In the first place, the BJP and its allies are slurring over the fact that only four of the Governors appointed by them have been sacked while several others are not being disturbed. Even Madan Lal Khurana in Rajasthan and Rama Jois in Bihar, whose removal was also expected, have been left alone.

Moreover, there is a basis for the selective sending away of the BJP-appointed Governors. Three of the four — Kidar Nath Sahani (Goa), Kailashpati Mishra (Gujarat) and Vishnukant Shastri (Uttar Pardesh) — are hardcore stalwarts of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Singh (RSS) who should not have been appointed to the august office that calls for political impartiality and objectivity. Had the Government that had sent them to the Raj Bhavans been returned to power they would have certainly continued in their sinecures. But with the BJP's defeat in the elections, they should have quit on their own.

Not only did they fail to do so, but also, under the BJP's astonishing directive, dug their heels in even after they had been gently told by the new Government to pack up. After that there was no alternative to their dismissal by the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. It is no secret that the President would have preferred to get rid of the unwanted Governors simply by appointing new Governors in their place rather than withdraw from them the Presidential pleasure. But evidently, the UPA Government had not got its act together, necessitating an awkward two-stage operation.

This confirms the impression that the new Government has yet to find its feet and settle down. The case of Haryana's ex-Governor, Babu Parmanand, was slightly different. He had had little to do with the RSS because he is one of those "migratory birds" who found it profitable to cross over from the National Conference in Jammu and Kashmir to the BJP. His trouble was that, like a new convert, he was more loyal than the king. As Governor during the Lok Sabha poll he made a disgraceful speech appealing for votes for Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He should have been sacked then and there.

All this brings me to the second and crucial point — the utter hypocrisy and invalidity of the BJP's hue and cry over the ouster of the foursome. Its leaders are pretending that nothing like the removal of Governors after a regime change has taken place ever before. This claim is demonstrably false.

Both Mr. Vajpayee and his doughty deputy, L.K. Advani, were members of Morarji Desai's Cabinet that had, in 1977, summarily sent packing practically all Governors appointed by Indira Gandhi. On returning to power three years later, she had reciprocated the compliment in equal measure.

This pattern has since been repeated, not least during the brief reign of V.P. Singh at the end of the 1980s. Nothing can be more telling than what Mr. Vajpayee's Government did in 1998. It told three Governors and a Lieutenant-Governor to put in their papers. That foursome, unlike the present one, left quietly. After first arguing that it was kosher to sack Governors appointed by Inder Gujral's "caretaker Government," the BJP has suddenly became silent on this point. Evidently, someone had reminded it that it was the Narasimha Rao Government that had appointed Krishan Pal Singh whom Atalji chose to remove as Governor of Gujarat.

None of the problems discussed above would have arisen if successive Union Governments had implemented the Sarkaria Commission's wholesome recommendations on the appointment of Governors that have been gathering dust since 1988. The Commission has regretted that the number of Governors who have displayed the "qualities of ability, integrity, impartiality and statesmanship has been on the declining side." And it has added that nothing can be more damaging to the system than sending to Raj Bhavans "discarded and disgruntled politicians" from the ruling party at the Centre.

In an astute observation, the Commission emphasises that politicians from the "ruling party at the Union" should not be made Governors of any "State which is being run by some other party or combination of other parties." Sadly, both the Congress and the BJP have been flouting this sage advice with equal gusto.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Updates: Breaking News |

Stories in this Section

• Iraq in chains
• Rulers without a mandate?
• A no-holds-barred fight

Copyright © 2004, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu