The much-pilloried Romesh Bhandari, former governor of Uttar Pradesh, is now joined at the stocks by another Bhan-dari, S.S., present Governor of Bihar. Romesh Bhandari was a ranking Indian Foreign Service Officer who made it to the top of the IFS before joining the Congress and then being excoriated as an agent of the Samajwadi Party. The other Bhandari is a life-long activist of the RSS whose sole claim to being appointed Governor is that he is one of the great gurus of the sangh parivar.Romesh Bhandari's fall from grace was because he was accused of playing politics to, first, prevent the BJP from assuming office in Lucknow and, then, facilitating what turned out to be its very temporary fall. S.S. Bhandari is now trying to earn his place in the Hall of Infamy by propounding the doctrine that majorities in the House count for nothing compared to the Governor's personal assessment of the law and order situation.The BJP vociferously insisted throughout the Romesh Bhandari controversies that onlymajorities, as established on the floor of the House, by whatever means, and decree of the results by whim of the Speaker, by whatever means, counted. The BJP Prime Minister now tells us that majorities count for nothing, dismissal is possible if the Governor is satisfied that the law and order situation has deteriorated irretrievably.One need not hold a brief for Laloo Prasad Yadav and his good lady to wonder whether such cynicism is the best way of preserving constitutional proprieties. The BJP had established a considerable political presence in Bihar in the general elections of March this year. It gives them the opportunity to avenge themselves on Laloo for his arrest of L.K. Advani when the Advani rath yatra was wending its way through Bihar en route Ayodhya. But surely such vengeance should be exacted politically, not by constitutional ruse.There is nothing to show that the law and order situation in Bihar is any worse than it has for some time been. There is also plenty to show that politicalinstability has been sparked by the Centre's insistence on pushing through the reorganisation of the state without adequate consensus. Thus, both the BJP decision to rechristen Jharkhand by the non-Tribal expression `Vananchal' and the demand of its own partner, the Samata Party, for up to Rs 70,000 crore compensation for the rump state of Bihar, as well as its continuing war with the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha over the alleged payments to their leaders to buy their support in the 1993 vote of confidence, have so destabilised the BJP political strategy for Bihar as to make the BJP stumble even before they have begun to run.In this scenario, Laloo Prasad Yadav has decided to make an issue of what is undoubtedly the most important issue before any state: its very existence. He is kicking off by asking the House to vote its confidence in his wife's government specifically on the question of whether the House would wish to agree to the partition plan for the state conceived by the BJP-led coalition at the Centre.The debate on the vote of confidence affords the BJP all the opportunity its desires to show up Laloo Prasad's contradictions in this regard. It gives them the opportunity to fashion new alliances that could undermine the Laloo order. It gives them the opportunity to underscore the inconsistencies of other political opponents. This is called democracy.However, instead of availing itself of these democratic opportunities, the BJP leadership, including and up to its Prime Minister, have started listening to the siren song of their sangh parivar guru. True, at the time of writing, the decision has not yet gone one way or the other. True too that, at the time of writing, the apparent volte face of the Bihar government on the future dispensation of tribal Bihar does jeopardise its prospects in the House. But surely a party which so vehemently opposed one Bhandari's personal satisfaction should entertain some measure of scepticism about another Bhandari's personal satisfaction.At the end of the day it is theelectorate that endorses or rejects decisions about the dismissal of a government that enjoys the confidence of the House. The classic case is that of the DMK government elected in 1989 with a majority so overwhelming it virtually wiped out the opposition. Two years later, in January 1991, it was dismissed without even a recommendation in this regard from the Tamil Nadu governor of the time, S.S. Barnala, now a cabinet minister in the Union government that is considering Rabri Devi's dismissal. The Union government's decision was characterised by the DMK as whimsical and arbitrary. Four months later, the Tami lNadu electorate rejected every DMK candidate bar ex-chief minister Karu-nanidhi, who won only his own seat and that too by a whisker.Karunanidhi was handed this massive rejection because even if Governor Barnala chose to close his eyes to what the LTTE was up to in cohorts with the DMK, the people of Tamil Nadu did not need a report from the governor to see what was going on before their own eyes.Retrospective rejection is what an arbitrary Governor suffers at the hands of the people. It demeans the high constitutional office he holds.It is probably too late already for the Governor of Bihar to mend his ways. His best hope is that good sense will at the last moment dawn on Delhi and they will desist from acting on his demand to dismiss a state government that has unambiguously established its majority in the House. But if good sense ultimately eludes the sangh parivar they are in for a stern reckoning at the hustings. The verdict in the next Bihar assembly elections will be a referendum on Governor S.S. Bhandari.
