Sudden the transfer of Gujarat Governor Kamala Beniwal may be, surprising it certainly is not. Hers is a special case even among the politicians appointed as Governors by the previous Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government whom the Modi government is determined to evict from Raj Bhavans. Throughout her tenure in Gandhinagar, Mrs Beniwal was in almost constant tussle with the state government, led until recently by Narendra Modi. As for the issues on which the two sides were at odds, something can be said about her stand on the appointment of the Lokayukta, which is now in court. But she inexplicably sat on some bills passed by the state Assembly, one of which reserved 50 per cent seats in local bodies for women, and another that strengthened anti-terrorism measures.
She clearly stood out in more ways than one. Therefore, it was unrealistic to expect that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government would let her complete her tenure in November where she is. Remarkably, she has been transferred to Manipur where the terrain may not be suitable for a lady of 89 — and that too for only a few weeks. The order to Mrs Beniwal to march to Imphal is also a message to the four Congress stalwarts — Shivraj Patil (Punjab), K. Sankaranarayanan (Maharashtra), Jagannath Pahadia (Haryana) and Sheila Dikshit (Kerala) — who are firmly refusing to resign, though five other Governors have done so. The terms of two other Governors ended only the other day. Consequently, the new government already has a sizeable room for manoeuvre for appointing Governors from among its own leaders who have not yet been “accommodated”. But, for the ruling party, it isn’t enough. It wants every Congress loyalist in any Raj Bhavan out.
For this many, besides the Congress, are sharply critical of the BJP. The accusation that it is following double standards is entirely accurate. But then, by the same token, the Congress is also guilty on the same count. After all, it was the Congress that, on coming back to power in 2004, had set the bad example that the BJP is now pushing through.
At that time the saffron party had protested vigorously. Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had denounced the Congress’ action as “a blow to democracy”, while his deputy, L.K. Advani, had described it as “dangerous”.
As it happens, this time around, on the Governors’ issue, the Congress has an advantage on its side that rulers lacked a decade ago. The Supreme Court delivered a judgement in 2010 to the effect that the “Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union government or the party in power at the Centre. Nor can he be removed on the ground that the government has lost confidence in him”. Under the court’s directive, to remove a Governor the Union government should first build up a case against him. The ruling party is trying to bypass this verdict by hook or by crook. How this pans out remains to be seen.
Removal of Governors is not the only issue that has become a bone of contention between the two mainstream parties whose relations have been so excessively adversarial for so long as to make the working of Indian parliamentary democracy extremely difficult and heavily flawed. Instead of getting better, things look like they are getting worse. For the dispute over the leadership of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha is even more emotive and explosive, and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. Indeed, the Congress is openly threatening to take the issue to the court if Speaker Sumitra Mahajan refuses to give it recognition as the official Opposition and designate its leader, Mallikarjuna Kharge, the Leader of the Opposition.
The Modi government may well be enjoying the torment of the Congress that lacks one-tenth of the total membership of the Lok Sabha which has so far been mandatory for a party’s recognition as the official Opposition. It is the Congress that is requesting or demanding a departure from the established precedent and practice. In the Niagara of words over this controversy the Congress has shifted its position often and different Congress leaders have spoken in different voices. For instance, senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh said that the relevant law should be amended and the Congress given the status it deserves. He was immediately contradicted by a younger colleague, Sachin Pilot, who argued that insistence on one-tenth of the membership was based on no law but on a ruling of the first Speaker, G.V. Mavlankar, that could be changed any time.
In the first place Mr Pilot’s assumption is wrong. As Mavlankar stated, he was introducing the principle that prevailed in Britain from where we have borrowed the entire system of Westminster-type parliamentary democracy. Secondly, in an earlier debate among legal eagles, the Congress spokesperson asserted that under the 1977 law on the subject, there had to be recognised Opposition, regardless of numbers. He was rendered speechless when asked: “Was there any such Opposition in the Lok Sabha during 1980-89 when Indira Gandhi first and then her son, Rajiv Gandhi, ruled the country?” No there wasn’t because no political party commanded one-tenth of the strength of the Lok Sabha.
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has a say in the selection of important functionaries such as the Central Vigilance Commissioners, director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and even Lok Pal. But what is to happen when no party qualifies to be the Largest Opposition Party, as has been the case in the past, with the Congress as the ruling majority? The latest Congress argument is that the lack of the Leader of the Opposition would adversely affect the “spirit of democracy”. In heaven’s name, there was never a Leader of the Opposition throughout the Nehru era. Was the democratic spirit suppressed during his time?
In any case, the ruling of the Speaker would be final. Anticipating what it might be, Congress president Sonia Gandhi has raised the ante. All signs are ominous.
