In Arunachal, if Tuki fails, hold fresh polls

Though spokespersons are way down in the hierarchies of political parties, their words are important as for millions watching them on television, they represent the top brass. Barely hours after the Supreme Court had on Wednesday delivered an unprecedented and unanimous (5-0) ruling restoring the status quo as it prevailed on December 15, 2015, in Arunachal Pradesh, one of the BJP’s publicists termed the court’s verdict as vichitra (peculiar). Later, on TV shows, all BJP spokespersons were combative and picked holes in the judgment. Media reports suggested they had been briefed by Arun Jaitley, who holds neither the I&B nor law portfolios. The party’s response to the Supreme Court ruling demonstrated several home truths.

First, it showed that the BJP is institutionally not oriented to accepting any viewpoint — whether of the judiciary or any other constitutional authority — that diverges from its own. The court is to be lauded when it delivers verdicts palatable to the government and ruling party. But when it articulates politically awkward opinions — either by an observation, ruling or verdict — the court is pilloried.

Second, the party’s knee-jerk response demonstrated its acute embarrassment at the turn of events mainly as it came close on the heels of the earlier Uttarakhand case, where the BJP had tried to install its government with the help of Congress rebels. Third, the party’s anger at the court mirrors the realisation within it that the verdict had led to an enormous political setback and exposed the BJP’s claims that it acted according to the Constitution — first in Uttarakhand and now in Arunachal. If the verdict on Uttarakhand was all about continued misuse of Article 356, the Arunachal order leaves no doubt that the governor acted way beyond his brief and meddled with the Congress’ internal politics in the state in order to benefit the BJP.

Argumentative spokespersons are merely doing their job — not accepting that their party made a mistake. But the two episodes also showed the ease with which the BJP and its government have taken to the path of constitutional impropriety, like earlier governments at the Centre. The promise of ushering in greater federalism was just another of its hollow pledges. Take the case of the Arunachal governor — the court notes “the political posturing in the state of Arunachal Pradesh commenced after the governor — Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa — assumed charge on June 1, 2015.” It must be kept in mind that the court did not impute anything, but that it chose to mention this coincidence is not a happy augury and doesn’t provide certification of non-partisanship of the Centre’s nominee while presiding over the affairs of the state.

Later, after these opening remarks, the court ruled: “It is not within the realm of the governor to embroil himself in any political thicket. The governor must remain aloof from any disagreement, discord, disharmony, discontent or dissension, within individual political parties.” The Opposition, particularly the Congress, has been arguing that Mr Rajkhowa actively promoted dissension against the Nabam Tuki ministry and acted beyond the powers he enjoys under the Constitution. The verdict states: “The governor was obliged to adhere to and follow the constitutional principle that is, to be bound by the advice of the council of ministers... but chose to ignore it... The governor acted in a manner not only opposed to a rule of law but also opposed the rule of law...” When the governor was appointed, eyebrows were raised as he had been a career bureaucrat and that too from neighbouring Assam. There were questions about his impartiality and in hindsight, with benefit of the court’s observations, it can be said his appointment had a political objective.

Another perturbing conclusion from the entire sordid episode is that the BJP is no different from the Congress in managing the political affairs of northeastern states on a patron-client model. The BJP has continued the Congress style of wielding political influence in the region by dealing with party units and allies like a franchiser treats franchisees. For long MLAs in this region have moved lock, stock and barrel from one party to another as the story of “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” continued unfettered. Take the case in Arunachal: Kalikho Pul and his group of ex-Congress MLAs joined the People’s Party of Arunachal in March, a fortnight after he became the chief minister. This party was formed way back in the 1970s but was an insignificant entity in recent years. From being a political nonentity, it suddenly catapulted to being the ruling party, and with BJP support. Clearly, the rent-a-party political model in the Northeast continues with the BJP’s encouragement.

Both in Arunachal and Uttarakhand, the BJP presented incongruous arguments to justify the blatant act of destablising elected governments. In Uttarakhand, the charge was led by Mr Jaitley with a Facebook post whose arguments for justifying imposition of President’s Rule were thrown out by the Supreme Court. The BJP is driven by Narendra Modi’s political objective of ushering in a “Congress-mukt Bharat”, but using unconstitutional means is deplorable. The Congress too slipped badly when it came to managing its own affairs in these two states. Its leadership did not heed the early warning signs and gave the BJP the opening it needed. While in Uttarakhand, Harish Rawat has managed to get his government up and running, in Arunachal there’s no certainty if Mr Tuki will be able to rally the numbers behind him. The Congress leadership has no option now but to parley with its MLAs, including rebels, and explore an alternative if Mr Tuki’s continuation is not acceptable to the majority. In it fails, the state will slip into political uncertainty. In that event, the BJP must order fresh elections to give people a chance to elect another government. Keeping the Assembly in suspended animation will only enable horse-trading and further erode the Centre’s credibility.

The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times and Sikhs: The Untold Agony of 1984