'A threat to our democratic process'

Rajesh Pilot was one of the few Congress(I) leaders who questioned Governor Romesh Bhandari's recommendation to the President to dismiss the Kalyan Singh Government in Uttar Pradesh in October 1997. His stand was that if the Ministry had a majority in the Assembly, it could not be dismissed. The Governor's recommendation, according to him, was an attempt to misuse Article 356. Venkitesh Ramakrishnan met Pilot to seek his opinion on issues related to Article 356 in the context of recent demands by the BJP's allies to invoke the constitutional provision against many State governments they are opposed to. Excerpts from the interview:

What is your opinion on the demands by the BJP's allies to dismiss the governments in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Bihar by invoking Article 356?

These demands from parties like the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the way they have been raised and the response of the BJP - all highlight the degeneration of our polity, especially with regard to the use of a sensitive constitutional provision like Article 356. It is both unfortunate and ridiculous to make the invocation of Article 356 against a particular State government the basis for a party's support to the Central Government. That is what the AIADMK is doing. It is equally unfortunate and ridiculous to think that a party that leads a Central Government would give an assurance to a particular party that Article 356 would be used against its rival if it joined the alliance. That is what the BJP is supposed to have done. The present controversy over this is extremely unseemly and reflects poorly on our political practice.

But this is not the first time Article 356 is at the centre of a political dispute. Virtually every Central Government has invoked it against State governments run by parties in the Opposition. In this background, would you agree that as far as the application of Article 356 is concerned, political vendetta has been the rule and fair play the exception?

Unfortunately, the misuse of Article 356 has increased in recent times. Most politicians seem to have the only priority of somehow coming to power. It is this lust for power that is responsible for the collapse of most constitutional institutions in our country. Certainly, this is a major threat to our democratic process. A commitment from all parties to stick to their ideology and not madly run after power is the only method to tackle this.

S. THANTHONI

The 1994 Supreme Court judgment in the Bommai case is considered a landmark in the judicial interpretation of Article 356. Do you think that there has been any change in the pattern of use of Article 356 after the judgment?

I cannot perceive any significant change. Attempts to misuse the Article have continued even after the judgment.

What is your view on the demand that Article 356 should be abolished?

I would like to state categorically that I am opposed to the abolition of Article 356. The founding fathers of our Constitution envisaged this provision to deal with situations in which a State government is seen to be violating the Constitution and the rule of law. In our federal system, the provision envisions a strong Centre too; this check is required. How else could you deal with a situation like the one that existed in States like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh after the demolition of the Babri Masjid? Communal violence had broken out in these States and we had BJP-led governments there, whose commitment to the Constitution was suspect, especially because they were aggressively pursuing an anti-secular political agenda. One has to analyse each situation objectively and take a decision.

I supported the dismissal of the BJP governments after the demolition of the Babri Masjid because I felt there was a need for that. But I opposed the recommendation to dismiss the Kalyan Singh Government in Uttar Pradesh in 1997 because I was convinced there was no ground for that. It is not the constitutional provision that is problematic, but they way it is used by us politicians.

The role of the Governor is also in focus in the context of the misuse of Article 356.

Here again, I will only blame politicians. Once you adorn the office of the Governor you are supposed to behave impartially and objectively. But when you have Governors who are ready to discuss with the media their reports to the Centre, which are considered to be confidential, how can you expect impartiality and objectivity?

What is the solution?

I might sound old-fashioned, but the time has come for deep introspection by all political parties on how they are upholding the Constitution to better the lot of the country. Commitment to institutions and ideals should form part of the political and moral core of every party. But obviously this cannot be done by winning over regional allies with the promise to dismiss one Opposition government or the other.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar