ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/Era Sezhiyan -- III

'There is nothing wrong in being a regional party. You may confine yourself to a region, but your outlook should be national.'

The last time we met, you said central governments misuse the post of governor to dismiss elected state governments. Now, do you agree with the government's decision to impose President's rule in Bihar?

I will tell you the background in which Article 356 was framed. There was a bitter discussion. Many said it would destroy the federal basis of the political structure of India. Pandit Nehru said they would choose governors who were not party men, who were intellectuals or leading personalities from other fields. Those were pious hopes. But the law did not say so.

Earlier they had a scheme to have a schedule for the duties of the governor, how he should behave, etc. But in the end, it was dropped. They also thought of electing a governor directly from the people. But when you have two directly elected people and a clash occurs, where do you turn? Then they thought of electing the governor from the Assembly, which of course would lead to a majority man controlling another majority man. Finally, they decided the President could appoint the governor. These are the interesting changes that took place in the thinking of the fathers of our Constitution. They also decided that the governor's post would be ornamental and the Article would not be used at all except as a desperate means to take charge of a desperate situation.

Go through Article 355. It says the central government is responsible for the continued existence of a state. If there is any danger to the state, it has the responsibility to save it.

After the bloody days of Partition, the predominant thinking was that if something happened to a state, the Centre should intervene. India's unity was the only thought in their minds. So they decided to have the Article. They said if the constitution of a state is not working properly and if the President is satisfied with the governor's report, the state government can be dismissed. What they meant by 'constitution' was the unity of India, the sovereignty of India, democracy of India. If it is threatened in any part of the country, the Centre should step in to protect not only that part, but the whole of India.

Then they argued how to get this done. They said the governor should report, or otherwise... Note the word 'otherwise'. Even if the governor does not give a report, the President has the power to gather information from other sources.

But certain things happened after that. In 1976, Mrs Gandhi made amendments to Article 356. The Congress, which cries hoarse now, is the party that amended the Article. It said the President's decision couldn't be challenged in any court of law. In 1978, when we came to power, the Morarji Desai government, we rolled it back.

Shouldn't we scrap the Article, as in most cases the Centre misuses it?

No. Everybody wants it to be scrapped. But suppose an uprising takes place in Nagaland, or Kashmir, or Punjab. What should we do? If some miscreants try to overrun the peripheral states, which are small, what should we do? Every constitution has this power.

Do you feel the BJP has lost face because of what happened in Bihar?

But they feel the other way. They are saying it is the Congress that has lost face. They told me they have gained, especially the support of the dalits. They never thought they would go along with the BSP [Bahujan Samaj Party]. Now it has happened. If the BJP and the BSP come together, they will probably score in UP and many other states too. But I am not going into such small gains and losses. I feel this is a good lesson for the BJP not to hurry with Article 356.

Let me ask you about the coming assembly election. It was reported that the Lok Shakti is going to project Ramakrishna Hegde as its chief ministerial candidate in Karnataka. Does that mean you are going to restrict yourself to Karnataka?

Most parties in India, though they are national in outlook, have regional bases. The communist party is restricted to Kerala and West Bengal. I feel there is nothing wrong in being a regional party. You may confine yourself to a region, but your outlook should be national.

It was also reported that the party cadre wants to go it alone in the election, that is, without an alliance with the BJP. What are you going to do?

The aim of all parties is to go it alone and manage everything alone. Sometimes, by trying to manage alone, the party splits too. The reality is that when you are not able to come to the level of capturing power all alone, you should make a choice.

So, are you continuing the alliance with the BJP?

Yes, the present alliance continues. The cadre wanted a strong person to lead the party to the elections and Hegde was their choice. There is nothing wrong in him coming to a region. But it is not going to be very easy. Others may try to block his way, parties that appear to be at loggerheads now may come together. There may be aspirants in the BJP also. Congressmen may have inflated opinions about themselves.

You have been a part of Indian politics for a very long time. These days, everybody describes Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu as a man of vision, the man for tomorrow. Do you feel that way? Do you see any other bright prospect on the Indian political scene?

Yes, Chandrababu is performing well at the state level. But we do not know how he will score at the national level. State politics and national politics are different.

By saying so, I am not de-meriting his achievements. But it is very difficult for me to pinpoint any leader. The training in a training camp or the days in a nursery are very important. The state is the training camp, the nursery, according to me. With the non-functioning of the panchayat-level and district-level politics, you don't see any young person coming up. Young cadre should come up from such networking. But we have shut all those opportunities. These days, everybody wants to be an MLA or MP the moment he joins a party. He has no time to serve the party. Even in American politics, most presidents have come up from the states, serving as governors and senators before becoming president.

So you don't see any bright stars.

I don't say they don't exist. The problem is, I don't get a chance to see them.

In the present system, the present leadership, many of them are not allowed to come up. In the Congress, for example, there may be many young, good leaders. But suddenly Sonia [Gandhi] entered the scene and all the others disappeared. The other day I saw a picture in the daily newspapers. Congress leaders standing in queue to give Sonia bouquets for completing one year as the party leader! And mind you, most of them have completed 30, 40 or 50 years in the party! Just think how many years S B Chavan must have served the party.

You once said Narasimha Rao thinks, thinks and never decides while Deve Gowda decides and thinks later. How would you describe Vajpayee?

I think this man thinks, does and rethinks (laughs). But he does things.

'Democracy has not failed in India, we have failed democracy'

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview