FOR the BJP, it's a Catch-22 situation. A government critically dependent on the support of regional parties finds itself with no option but to hit them with what hurts most, the psychological brahmastra of Article 356. In satisfying one ally, the Samata Party, and the BJP cadres in Bihar, it risks alienating all the rest. Judging by the poor attendance at the meeting of BJP allies called by home minister L.K. Advani last week, the government will have a hard time piloting a proclamation of president's rule through the Lok Sabha, much less the Rajya Sabha, where it does not enjoy a majority.
For the Shiromani Akali Dal, it's something of an emotional issue. Punjab was the first state government to have been dismissed, as early as 1951. Both Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal and Union minister Surjeet Singh Barnala have been at the receiving end of Article 356 in the past. The Akalis, not allowed to complete a five-year term by the Congress, were the first to demand deletion of the offending article. Abuse of this provision is the one issue on which they have consistently remained united.
For Barnala, it's a particularly difficult dilemma. Unceremoniously ousted as chief minister in 1988, he was later to be removed as governor of Tamil Nadu when he refused to comply with the Centre's directive to dismiss the majority DMK government. Pleading ill-health, he didn't show up for the cabinet meeting which approved dismissal of the Rabri Devi government or for Advani's meeting. The party openly declared its opposition to the move in Chandigarh, with BJP-baiter Gurcharan Singh Tohra going so far as to call it a "murder of democracy". Already upset with the BJP on several other counts, including the inclusion of Udham Singh Nagar district in the proposed state of Uttaranchal, the use of Article 356 is a fresh strain on the alliance and on Badal, who is its architect. SAD leaders were bitter about the fact that the BJP was taking them for granted.
The Telugu Desam Party, whose Yerran Naidu was asked to attend but stayed away on the instructions of Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu who was then in the US, faces a dilemma it has encountered earlier. As part of the United Front government, it had fought against the move to impose president's rule in Uttar Pradesh, but finally acceded to pressure from the Samajwadi Party's Mulayam Singh Yadav. The arbitrary dismissal of the N.T. Rama Rao government in 1984 hasn't been forgotten and the party has taken a principled stand against Article 356, sending clear signals that its support in Parliament cannot be taken for granted.
Opposition from the other allies—the AIADMK, the Biju Janata Dal, the Trinamul Congress and the Haryana Lok Dal—is based on 'we want our demands met' politics. If Rabri can go, why not Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu, J.B. Patnaik in Orissa, Jyoti Basu in West Bengal and Bansi Lal in Haryana? Trinamul leader Mamata Banerjee went even further, asking for the dismissal of the Assam and Tripura governments as well on the grounds of a deteriorating law and order situation and corruption. At Advani's meeting, the AIADMK's R. Janarthanam did not oppose the imposition of president's rule in Bihar but insisted that it be first used in Tamil Nadu—the line taken by law minister R. Thambidurai during the Cabinet meeting.
Party chief J. Jayalalitha warned that if the Centre did not comply with her demand for dismissal of the DMK government "it will only imply that it is not seriously concerned about containing and putting down terrorism".The reasons cited for Rabri Devi's dismissal apply even more forcefully to Tamil Nadu, she insists. Jayalalitha's demand for dissolution, rather than 'suspended animation', of the Bihar assembly, followed by elections within two months, is quite clearly motivated by the fear that her flock may not remain together.
HER warning against horse-trading in Bihar arises from the possibility that the BJP, emboldened by success in splitting the Rashtriya Janata Dal, might target other regional parties. BJP state leaders had declared their intention of engineering a split in the RJD as early as the party's national executive in Jaipur. Already, the cracks in the AIADMK front are showing with the MDMK, PMK and TRC taking an independent line on supporting the BJP government. The PMK has also come out in favour of the BJP's move on Bihar.
It was pressure from her allies that reportedly prevented Jayalalitha from withdrawing support to the BJP government in early August. Rumours that a BJP Rajya Sabha MP had all but managed to woo six of the 18 AIADMK MPs were rife early last month. Jayalalitha, suspecting former Union minister of state for finance and former party organising secretary R.K. Kumar of perfidy, removed him from his post.
The BJP can seek scant comfort from Lok Shakti leader and commerce minister Ramakrishna Hegde, who declared his opposition to the use of Article 356, but said he would abide by the collective decision of the Cabinet on the issue. Hegde who has always been consistent in his opposition to Article 356 has placed on record his dissatisfaction through a telegram to the prime minister in which he said the proposed dismissal of the Rabri Devi government was a "blow to democracy".
The BJP, however, has found a not-unexpected ally in Janata Dal leader Ram Vilas Paswan and Rash-triya Janata Party MP, Anand Mohan. Only two of the six Lok Sabha JD MPs, S. Jaipal Reddy and I.K. Gujral, went to the president to register their protest against the proposed imposition of Article 356 last week. Anand Mohan is reportedly upset about the killing of a party office-bearer in the course of the Bihar bandh called by the RJD last week. Asked how he was going against the party line, Paswan snapped, "Hum Bihar ka ground reality dekhenge ya Janata Dal ka resolution dekhenge (should we see the ground realities in Bihar or the JD resolution)?"
