House Call 184

Whatever the outcome of the Gujarat vote in Parliament, one thing is clear: the BJP-led NDA government isin for some embarrassment. Some of its key allies are likely to air their grievances over the situation there,even though they may eventually vote for the government. Even if most of them assure their support, it is alsolikely that some cross-voting, however minimal, may reveal cracks in the ruling alliance. That Parliament washeaded for a debate on Gujarat, when it met after its annual summer recess, was never in doubt. What was incontention was the rule under which this debate would take place.

Lok Sabha deputy speaker P.M. Sayeed, in the hot seat in the absence of a regular speaker, resolved thetwo-week deadlock after protracted deliberations in which the BJP-led government insisted that Rule 193, whichdoesn't entail a vote, be invoked. The BJP also said debating "state issues" in Parliament would setan unhealthy precedent. But bolstered by key NDA ally TDP's insistence on the ouster of Gujarat CM NarendraModi, the Opposition insisted on Rule 184, which makes voting mandatory. The matter was put up foradjudication before Sayeed, a 10-term Congress MP from Lakshadweep who's won more times than anyone in thepresent LS, A.B. Vajpayee included.

Overruling the treasury plea, Sayeed observed that "the gravity of the situation is also self-evidentfrom the fact that the army has been called out to aid civil authority...in the circumstances, the Gujaratsituation cannot also be construed as an ordinary law and order matter which is the concern of the stategovernment only." Sayeed also quoted a 1997 adjournment motion relating to events in Bihar that had beenconverted into a discussion under Rule 184 (incidentally, at the behest of the BJP).

The challenge before the BJP is to avoid major embarrassments. Already, one of the fence-sitters, theNationalist Congress Party of Sharad Pawar (with eight MPs), has announced it would vote against thegovernment. The TDP's position remains unclear but party sources say Chandrababu Naidu has assured Vajpayeethat he would not put the government in trouble. Says the TDP's Yerran Naidu: "We are waiting for wordfrom Hyderabad." Trinamul's Nitish Sengupta says they would vote with the government; so may allies likethe dmk, pmk and others. Meanwhile, parliamentary affairs minister Pramod Mahajan has been telling party MPsthat after the alliance with the bsp in UP, the government is on a safer wicket.

While the LS vote's outcome will not affect the government's stability, it has put the BJP-led combine on thebackfoot. Opposition members are expected to put the Modi government's role under the scanner and the centralgovernment in the dock. So did Sayeed's ruling take the BJP by surprise? Vajpayee had described the ruling as"unfortunate", even though the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) immediately denied that he had used theword.

Later at a press briefing, party spokesman V.K. Malhotra said the BJP had accepted the verdict "whetherhappily or otherwise". As a counter, he said that the party would bring up, under Rule 184, Bihar andWest Bengal for discussion in the LS. If that happens, Sayeed would be put under pressure to say 'no', withseveral precedents being set at one go.

The government's safety also lies in the vaguely-worded motion moved by the SP's Ramji Lal Suman. Instead of asharp attack on the central and Gujarat governments, the resolution is rather lukewarm, almost self-defeatingin purpose. Says the motion: "This House expresses grave concern over the failure of the administrationin ensuring the security of the minority community in various parts of the country, especially in Gujarat, andurges the government to take effective steps to restore the confidence of the minority communities and toprotect them." By widening the debate's focus, chances of the BJP highlighting communal incidents inCongress-ruled states also cannot be ruled out.

There were also indications that for all the plethora of soundbites and 'strong' statements, a little dramahad been enacted behind the scenes. Well-placed sources in the coordination committee say that when it came todebating the crunch issue of communalism in Gujarat, the Congress was positively uncomfortable and its deputychief in the Lok Sabha, Shivraj Patil, was at pains to insist that any potential for controversy—like theparty's role in communal mobilisation in the state in the '60s and '70s—be left out of the ambit ofdiscussions.

However, the die has been cast. Now the Rajya Sabha has also accepted the debate on Gujarat under Rule 170,which entails voting. The government is sure to lose the vote there, given that it does not have the numbers.It can now only hope that the vote in the LS goes as expected. In the event of that not happening, it could bea huge embarrassment for the treasury benches, leading to demands for the government's resignation on 'moralgrounds'. The central government, besieged as it is by national and now international criticism over theGujarat riots, could find itself cornered then.