On February 20, the CWC met shortly after PM Manmohan Singh made a last, unsuccessful bid to change the mind of CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat. The meeting, attended by the PM, Sonia, her political secretary Ahmed Patel and Union external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee et al, devised a face-saver: the President's rule idea could be shelved once the poll schedule was out (even though there is no constitutional bar to its imposition even afterwards). This would silence the criticism from the Samajwadi Party and the BJP that the UPA was resorting to Article 356 to postpone polls by six months only so as to prevent UP legislators from voting for the presidential elections due in July! In any case, the air defused on February 21, as the EC announced a poll schedule spread over an unprecedented seven phases spanning a month.
But several questions remain unanswered: Where did the idea of imposing Article 356 come from? Though there are clearly many good political reasons for not pursuing the President's rule route, what compelled Sonia—some say, prompted also by son Rahul Gandhi—to push for it? While no one is seriously taking Mulayam's accusations of a Sonia-Narendra Modi tie-up, why is more credence being given to his accusation of a "corporate" hand—a reference apparently to industrialist Mukesh Ambani?
Congress sources claim the idea was initially mooted to Union minister Kapil Sibal, who emerged during the crisis as Sonia's special advocate, by Satish Misra, BSP MP and party supremo Mayawati's right-hand man. It's difficult to get any confirmation for this, but it makes eminent sense—for central rule would have benefited the BSP most. The sense in pre-poll UP is that the BSP is the frontrunner, though it may not get a majority.
But why would the Congress back the BSP's designs? Says a UP Congressman: "President's rule, by ensuring a level playing field, would have diminished the SP's final count by at least 25 seats: those would have gone to the BSP. Currently, we are in fourth place behind the BSP. So a larger BSP tally means a greater likelihood of them seeking our support to form the government. But if it is less, the BJP will be its first choice as partner." And, he adds, "even a junior partner status in the UP government would mean the starting point for a Congress revival."
But beyond this 'political' reason, Congress sources say, the fact that Sonia herself called DMK chief M. Karunanidhi, NCP chief Sharad Pawar and Bardhan to canvass for central rule signalled something more. (The first two promised support, but Bardhan didn't.) The "personal" attack Mulayam and Amar Singh had launched against the Gandhis reportedly played a key part in convincing Sonia that the Supreme Court judgement (disqualifying 13 BSP MLAs who had crossed over to the SP in 2003) provided the perfect opportunity to strike.
The Congress has itself been deeply split on the use of Article 356. Within government, the PM and law minister H.R. Bharadwaj had argued from the start that nothing in the SC judgment empowered the Centre to dismiss the Mulayam regime. But finance minister P. Chidambaram and Sibal provided legal back-up in favour of it.
In the party—as was demonstrated at the CWC meeting—the opposition to Article 356 was a bit muted: the sceptics did not want to make their differences with Sonia too apparent. But some top leaders advised caution—like general secretaries Janardan Dwivedi, Digvijay Singh, B.K. Hariprasad, ex-UP CM R.N. Yadav and spokesman Satyavrat Chaturvedi.
If it plays cautious, the Congress would have deflected blame from itself, but the damage would stick. The SP has withdrawn support to the UPA, and passing laws in the Rajya Sabha may become tough. The UPA is now 120 in a 240-strong RS, though it still enjoys a majority of 304 in the Lok Sabha. The crisis has also brought the Left closer to the SP. Finally, reports from UP suggest Mulayam has used the crisis to consolidate his Muslim base by playing victim.
