The pomp and grandeur that marked the Republic Day celebrations also saw an important proclamation from the President's office – the declaration of President's Rule in Arunachal Pradesh. This decision is bound to raise a slew of political controversies and the last word on the issue may not have been said as yet. One awaits the stand of the Supreme Court, which has been approached by the Congress party.
The decision to impose President's Rule in Arunachal Pradesh involves multiple developments, all of which merit closer attention. It once again draws attention to the use of Article 356, the role of the Governor and the emerging trends in centre-state relations. While assessing the events, it may be useful to keep all the factors in mind.
The (mis)use of Article 356 has been an issue of animated debate for quite some time. Many would concede that ever since the rise of coalition governments and a competitive multi-party system, the recourse to Article 356 has dramatically reduced. The use of the Article has not evoked as much controversies as one saw in the 1970s and 1980s. Its invocation in the case of Arunachal Pradesh has become a focus of attention and controversy especially with the party in power in the state being in Opposition at the Centre. When responding to queries of the Constituent Assembly members on Article 356, Dr Ambedkar had assured the House that this Article was visualized as a 'last resort' which would be invoked in very rare circumstances. Do the political developments in Arunachal Pradesh reflect rare circumstances and does the action of the Union government indicate a recourse to a 'last resort'? If one looks at the politics of Arunachal Pradesh in the last few years, one notices an intense political competition between the Congress and the BJP. One would recall, in the past a Congress-led government of Gegong Apang becoming an Arunachal Congress-led government and then overnight transforming itself into a BJP government only to later once again become a Congress-led government! In the Lok Sabha elections of 2014, the BJP and the Congress shared the two seats in the state. The most recent crisis has been caused by an apparent split in the Congress Legislature Party with a group of rebel Congress MLAs joining hands with the BJP MLAs. The controversy has got further compounded with the Speaker disqualifying the Congress rebels and the Deputy Speaker siding with the rebels and holding parallel sessions. What has further queered the pitch is the intervention of the Governor, an issue which merits independent analysis, as undertaken in the next paragraph. Seen independently and without going into who are responsible, it appears as if the developments in Arunachal Pradesh do reflect a Constitutional crisis and merit recourse to Article 356. Having said that, it is also important to dilate on a few other related issues, which have contributed to the developments, assuming the multiple waves of controversy.
One cannot reflect on the Arunachal Pradesh crisis without focusing on the office of the Governor. While much of the controversies relating to Governors are linked to their actions, many more facets of the dispute are intertwined with who become Governors and how they become Governors. In the Constituent Assembly debates, both Prime Minister Nehru and Dr Ambedkar had expressed the hope that people of eminence who were not active in politics would not be appointed as Governors. They further elaborated that Chief Ministers of States would be consulted while appointing Governors. Both these expectations have not been practiced, not merely by the present Central government but by all parties that came to power at the Centre. The present government has followed the practice of previous regimes of appointing to the position of Governor those who have been associated with the party and as a gentle step forward towards retirement from active politics or retired civil servants whose political positions match those of the government in power at the Centre and often as a reward for loyalty. Chief Ministers have been 'informed' of Gubernatorial appointments rather than being 'consulted'. Especially when the party in power in a state is different from the one at the Centre, the manner in which Gubernatorial appointments are done and the people appointed to the positions has resulted in the relationship between the Governor and Chief Minister beginning in an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. Arunachal Pradesh is no exception in this regard. Given this 'absence of trust', every action of the Governor is viewed from the prism of suspicion and evokes political controversy. If one were to look across the states (not just today but in the past too under earlier regimes), there have been several controversies involving Governors and most of them are linked to this 'aura of suspicion' that surrounds the way they were appointed and their own political past. One cannot hope for a more cordial relationship between the first citizen of the State (Governor) and the head of government (Chief Minister) as long as manner of their appointment and the political background of those appointed is not mired in controversy and defeats the original intent as outlined by the leaders in the Constituent Assembly.
The last few decades in Indian politics has seen the states of India emerging as the new centre of Indian politics. The fact that a Chief Minister became the Prime Ministerial candidate of the party even as he continued as incumbent Chief Minister and went on to become the Prime Minister of India is a clear indication of this fact. It is true that prior to Prime Minister Modi, Prime Ministers Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, VP Singh, Narasimha Rao and Deve Gowda were chief ministers before becoming Prime Ministers, but there was either a long gap between their relinquishing Chief Ministership and becoming Prime Minister or they were not Prime Ministerial candidates during the Lok Sabha elections (Mr Deve Gowda). Further, one notices the importance and impact of State Assembly elections on national politics. The defeat that the BJP encountered in Bihar and Delhi was seen as a setback to the party at the national level even as its victories in Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Haryana and good performance in the Jammu region of J&K, was seen as a positive development for the ruling party at the Centre.
Given the increasing assertiveness of the states and the emergence of a competitive party system, the working of Centre-State relations needs a searching second look. A good way to cement harmony in Centre-State relations is by adhering to the conventions outlined in the Constituent Assembly on the manner of appointment of Governors and the background of the pool of individuals appointed to the position. This would make recourse to Article 356 less controversial. The Arunachal Pradesh episode proves that multiple factors get enmeshed in assessing a political development. While may would argue that the Constitutional crisis in Arunachal Pradesh warranted recourse to Article 356, many controversies that surrounded the event could have been best avoided if constitutional conventions were adhered to and the changing contours of centre-state relations been respected.
(Dr Shastri is a political analyst who is the pro vice chancellor of Jain University)
Comments
0 comment