The results of the last Lok Sabha elections in 2004 and elections to some of the state assemblies thereafter, including Haryana, showed emergence of a resurgent Congress, under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi. Her refusal to become prime minister added to her stature. This was a welcome development because, as political scientist Harold J Laski has said, a healthy party system is the flesh and bone of democracy. Sadly, first the developments in Goa, then in Jharkhand, and finally in Bihar have tended to put the recent gains of the Congress in grave peril.Jharkhand brings to mind what had happened in Andhra Pradesh, when Congress governor Ram Lal had dismissed the popular government of N T Rama Rao. The incident had provoked even a distinguished retired police officer, K F Rustamjee, with some others to come out in open to escort a convoy of Rama Rao’s MLAs to safety. The norms for appointment of a governor are now well laid down. The recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission and Venkatachaliah Committee have found acceptance in principle, one of which is clearly that a die-hard politician or active one should not be appointed to this high constitutional post. This does not rule out the appointment of distinguished politicians, not so active, known for their integrity. After all C Subramanium and K M Munshi were also politicians.The mandate in Jharkhand admittedly was fractured one, but not an unsurmountable one, not one which necessarily prevented the installation of a popular government. Both the governor at Jharkhand and the Congress spokesmen are not tired of citing one aspect of the Supreme Court verdict in the Bommai case and that is that the trial of strength should take place on the floor of the House and not in Raj Bhavan. True, but there are other well-established conventions which ought to be followed prior to that. The trial of strength on the floor of the House is ratification or rejection of a decision already taken. The earlier decision of swearing-in of a new government after general election is an all-important step. We are today living in a coalition-era and, therefore, either a party or a pre-poll alliance front having a larger number of seats should be called..Of course, the Governor should and has the right to satisfy whether the claim was legitimate. In Jharkhand the NDA clearly got a larger number of seats (36) than the Congress-JMM-RJD combine (33). Over and above, the NDA claimed support of five Independents, whom they produced physically before Governor Syed Sibtey Razi. But by logic beyond comprehension, Razi invited JMM leader Shibu Soren to take oath.Bihar is already set to be placed under presidential rule. Yes, the verdict there was also a fractured one, but the people clearly voted against Laloo Yadav’s mis-rule, reducing his strength in the House to 75. In fact, the Congress’s debacle was mainly because the people thought that after elections the party would align with the RJD. The apprehensions of the people were proved correct when the party extended written support to the RJD. By the same logic, Ram Vilas Paswan succeeded in securing 30 seats largely because of his anti-Laloo plank. Yes he also spoke about keeping distance from the BJP. But issues before the voters were surely not Hindutva or secularism. These were development, complete lack of security and chaotic law and order situation, and growing unemployment. A vote in favour of Paswan’s LJP was, therefore, also against Laloo. The people of Bihar voted a majority of members against Laloo Prasad so that they could be provided with an alternative government. The chief ministership of Bihar was within the reach of Paswan. But he had to make choice between commitment to the people of Bihar and ministership at the Centre. Unfortunately, he perhaps wanted both, an impossibility. The writer is a former CBI officer and is at present chairman of the parliamentary board of the Samata Party
