HVK Archives: The Bourbons of imperial Delhi
The Bourbons of imperial Delhi - The Economic Times
T V R Shenoy
()
11 September 1996
Title : The Bourbons of imperial Delhi
Author : T V R Shenoy
Publication : The Economic Times
Date : September 11, 1996
They learn nothing and forget nothing, was the barbed
commentary of a contemporary on the idiot Bourbons who
precipitated the French Revolution.
It is hard to imagine, say, Indrajit Gupta or Murasoli
Maran tottering around in buckled shoes and perukes, but
the similarity to the Bourbons is all too clear. They
have chosen to learn nothing from the history of their
own parties. Witness their silence on Gujarat.
To settle the issue of the Mehta ministry's strength in
the wake of Shankersinh Waghela's rebellion, the Gujarat
Vidhan Sabha was summoned to a special session. As it
happened, Speaker H L Patel was in hospital. He was in
no condition to take the chair. In came Deputy Speaker
Chandubhai Dhabi. From the very beginning no rational
man expected even a shadow of justice from the
Congressman. It is gloomy comfort that all these
forebodings were absolutely correct.
Dhabi began the day with the announcement that he had
recognised 46 MLAs as members of the Mahagujarat Janata
Party (MPJ). He based this on the fact that these MLAs
had signed a memorandum to the governor seeking a
separate status. The Deputy Speaker calmly announced
that Dilip Parikh, floor co-ordinator of the MJP had
"proved" that all 46 stood by their old statement. He
airily brushed over the fact that 18 MLAs have since
returned to the BJP fold.
Since the Deputy Speaker had begun by disregarding the
Assembly, he decided to end in the same manner. (Nobody
should say that Dhabi was not consistent.) While the
outraged House was still gasping for its collective
breath, Dhabi merrily announced that he was adjourning
the House sine die.
The Gujarat Assembly had been summoned for a specific
task - to ascertain whether or not the Suresh Mehta
ministry possessed the confidence of the House.
Chandubhai Dhabi was required to do just one thing - put
the question to the assembled MLAs. What did he do?
First, he tried to settle the issue for the Assembly by
creating a new party from hot air. Next, he just told
everybody to go home.
This lunacy has got to stop. Democracy means permitting
everybody to have their say. If a single man can silence
the rest by abusing his position that is dictatorship.
I yield, now, to the Bourbons of imperial Delhi. Past
masters at spouting maxims on democracy, they refuse to
act by them.
I believe the people in Delhi - United Front, Congress,
and BSP alike - have adopted a hands-off attitude for the
record. But Indrajit Gupta, Murasoli Maran, and Kanshi
Ram should not get off the hook so easily. The history
of their own parties should have led them to speak out at
a Speaker's abuse of his powers.
In 1968, Ajoy Mukherjee was the head of a rickety
coalition in West Bengal. (Jyoti Basu was his deputy
chief minister and the true power behind the throne.)
Some MLAs then said that they had withdrawn support to
the ministry, reducing it to a minority in the West
Bengal Assembly. Governor Dharam Vira requested the
chief minister to prove his strength at a special session
of the Assembly. Ajoy Mukherjee, for reasons best known
to himself, refused. The governor then dismissed the
chief minister, and P C Ghosh took the oath of office.
The new chief minister asked for a chance to prove his
strength. He had reckoned without the Speaker. In a
historic pronouncement, Bijoy Bannerjee calmly announced
that he did not recognise a ministry formed behind the
back of the House. Faced with the prospect of leaving
West Bengal without any government at all, the
conspirators caved in. The home minister, I am sure, has
not forgotten the messy episode.
Now for the industry minister. In the early' 70s, the
united DMK was foundering on the rocks of the rival
ambitions of M G Ramachandran and M Karunanidhi. The
MLAs found themselves forced to choose between the
party's chief vote-catcher and the sitting chief minister
of Tamil Nadu. Maathi Azhagan, then Speaker of the
Assembly, sided with the new party, the Anna DMK (the
words 'All India' were a later addition). Deputy Speaker
Srinivasan cast his lot with the parent party. The
subsequent drama in the Tamil Nadu Assembly and the
verdict of the then Deputy Speaker are now part of
history. But Maran, a participant in those exciting
days, will remember.
And I am sure that Kanshi Ram's memory is equally clear
on the strange case of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly and its
activities in the days of Speaker Yadav. For this, one
need look back no farther than a year ago. The summer of
1995 won't go down as Indian democracy's finest hour.
The alliance between the Bahujan Samaj Party and the
Samajwadi Party had come to an end, denying chief
minister Mulayam Singh Yadav his majority in the UP
Vidhan Sabha.
The chief minister insisted that it was his right to put
the question to the Assembly. The governor then summoned
the House to a special session. The initiative now
passed to speaker Yadav.
Mulayam Singh Yadav had engineered a split in the Bahujan
Samaj Party. The Speaker announced that he recognised
the break-away group as a separate party.
Some MLAs then denied that they belonged to the new
party. Charges of forgery, extortion, and outright
kidnapping were flung back and forth. Before the issue
could be settled, the Speaker adjourned the House sine
die.
Amidst scenes of utter pandemonium, the united anti-
Mulayam Singh Yadav forces - including some of his
current Janata Dal colleagues - joined hands to unseat
the Speaker himself. This achieved, a motion was moved
against the Mulayam Singh Yadav ministry. Mayawati
became chief minister of Uttar Pradesh.
Ever since Speaker Bannerjee asserted the rights of his
office, it was on the cards that those powers could be
abused. But Bannerjee made history by defying the
executive's attempt to ride roughshod over the
legislature. He did not dictate to it himself. In Tamil
Nadu, Deputy Speaker Srinivasan strove to ensure that it
was the Assembly where the strength of the rivals would
be tested. He did not ask them to do so in his own
office.
Both men would have been astonished at the presumption of
Speaker Yadav and Deputy Speaker Dhabi. The questionable
decisions of the latter pair surrendered the powers of
the legislature to either the courts or the governor.
Governors are not necessarily unbiased. Well before the
Deputy Speaker entered the fray, the governor of Gujarat
was playing a dubious part. He was noticed flying to
Delhi to meet Narasimha Rao. And, for good measure,
Pranab Mukherjee and Matang Singh too. This makes him,
shall we say, somewhat unsuitable as a judge.
(For the record, the legal position is that the governor
has no locus standi. The Supreme Court ruled in the
Bommai case that the only forum to judge legislative
strength is the floor of the House. And the word 'House'
does not mean Raj Bhawan!)
But there is no point blaming the Deputy Speaker or the
governor. The root of the trouble is that lust for
power, a hunger so great that it eats away at the
provisions of the anti-defection Act.
Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan foresaw the failings of such
laws as far back as 1969. He proposed a simple solution:
an NW or MLA who changed colours would be denied office
for the duration of the life of the House. Simple and
effective. Far too effective. In 27 years no party has
had the guts to move such legislation. They prefer to
play esoteric games of numbers.
Speaking of numbers, democracy has been defined as 'one
man, one vote', People like Speaker Yadav and Deputy
Speaker Dhabi have modified this somewhat. They believe
that they are the 'one man' and the 'one vote' that can
be cast is theirs and only theirs!
Back
Top
|