Stables and governments

The Bharatiya Janata Party's proposal to appoint a committee to "review" the Constitution has caused a storm of protest. While amendments to the Constitution were one thing, some people have been saying, its revision is quite another matter. But of course, the BJP, like almost everyone else, knows full well that unless it can carry the Opposition with it, it cannot today hope to pass an amendment to the Constitution, even in the Lok Sabha, where it is relatively better placed; leave alone fight an uphill struggle in the Rajya Sabha and the Supreme Court to revise or rewrite the Constitution in a way that will change its "basic structure".

As such the "review" proposed by the BJP is perhaps primarily intended to agitate the point that "Pakistan having gone to the Muslims, it is unfair that even India is denied to the Hindus". Developments of the past decade have made it all too clear that this question lurks large in the minds of many people. This being the case, it seems to me that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by having the issue brought out into the open, instead of being discussed in a conspiratorial fashion behind closed doors. That way, we can at last get down to specifics; and to an open and public discussion of questions like how far we really want to go. Whether in fact the Hindus really want "Hindu rule" to do to India what Muslim rule has done to Pakistan. Do they really want Hindu (or Hindi) rule to box India in the way that Jewish rule has boxed in the forever-embattled Israel, or in the way that dreams of Aryan or Sinhalese rule have snuffed the life out of Sri Lanka.

The BJP does, however, also have a more concrete and immediate objective in mind; it would like to amend or alter the rules of the game so as to ensure a stable government. This is quite in keeping with the trend so far. Those in power are always for "stability"; those on the outside totally opposed to this "sinister" design. At first sight, it would seem that the Congress(I) is an exception to this rule; it has consistently been lobbying for stability even when it is in the Opposition. But this is only because it has been trying to promote the idea that only the Congress(I) can give us a stable government. This in effect gives the party a free hand to destabilise non Congress(I) governments by even the most crude forms of manipulation and adventurism; only thus can stability be brought about.

The first major blow in this battle for stability was struck in 1985, when Rajiv Gandhi's government, then enjoying an overwhelming majority, amended the Constitution by enacting the anti-defection bill. This may have brought Rajiv some time, as opposition within the Congress(I) began to snowball two years later.

But it can be argued that it was precisely this sense of false security that, by allowing Rajiv to live in a world of illusion, like Indira Gandhi during the Emergency, caused the Congress(I) to take such a drubbing in the elections that followed.

The present coalition Government of the BJP has been toying with two ideas to indefinitely prolong its tenure; as part of its untiring effort to give us a "stable" government. First, it would like to amend the rules of procedure of the Lok Sabha to ensure that those bringing forward a vote of no confidence against the Government must simultaneously table the proposed alternative. That is to say, when voting out one government, members of the Lok Sabha must simultaneously vote in another.

I have deliberately avoided mentioning a Constitutional amendment in this connection. It just might turn out that it is not necessary for this limited purpose. In any case, the BJP is sure to actively explore this option in an effort to circumvent the constraint of numbers; arguing, in the courts and outside, that it has "reason" on its side.

The other proposal that the BJP has been toying with is to amend the Constitution to ensure that each member of the Lok Sabha (and each member of the State assemblies?) is allowed a full five year term. To the extent that Opposition parties find it hard to come out against so "reasonable" a proposal, this amendment could well pass muster with the requisite majority; not only in the Lok Sabha but in the Rajya Sabha as well.

There is, however, a problem. One of the important things that has all along helped keep the ruling party in place is the fear that, were it to be toppled, elections might become necessary. In other words, security of tenure for the elected "representatives" of the people, attractive as the idea might be for them (given the rich and cosy spoils of office on the one hand and the high cost and risk of facing an election on the other) would tend to work against the interests of the ruling party or coalition; today, and in the years to come.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : A passion that grows vertically
Next     : Nothing quite like the Emerald Isle