The BJP yesterday refused to move its motion on Uttar Pradsh in the Lok Sabha, fearing its certain defeat in the House would send the wrong signal to Lucknow, where its coalition government was about to be installed.
They also feared that, besides giving the non-BJP parties an opportunity to unite despite their various differences, the debate would also allow the United Front to attack some BJP leaders over their alleged involvement in the murder of former BJP MP Brahm Dutt Dwivedi.
The party also did not wish to further corner Governor Romesh Bhandari who would be playing a crucial role even after the formation of a BJP-BSP coalition government. Bhandari was unlikely to be recalled, some leaders contended at the BJPs parliamentary party executive meeting at which the party decided not to move the motion.
It was chaired by the Rajya Sabha opposition leader Sikander Bakht in the absence of former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. Vajpayee went to Lucknow to facilitate the new governmnts induction on Friday.
Some party leaders were afraid that hitting out at Bhandari during a debate would leave a bad taste just when they had to work with him. Now that the UP issue is resolved we do not want to look like we are going after Bhandari. We want to give Bhandari a message that he is not alone, said one.
The BJP, in fact, wants to use Bhandari for its political advantage, he said, pointing out that Bhandari has no ideoloical or political affiliations.
A BJP speaker and a favourable Governor could be crucial if there is any crisis in the coalition. Also, the goverenmnt would need the Governors permission to prosecute some of the corrupt bureaucrats alleged to be close to Yadav.
For the record, the party took a moral posture in not moving the motion. The BJPs deputy Lok Sabha leader Jaswant Singh, who had the permission to move, said that he was not moving the motion as I do not wish to cause further contention between high functionaries of the republic. During his brief speech in the House, he said that the Speakers decision to allow the debate under Rule 184 was a significant legislative landmark.
Later, he claimed that the objectives of the motion had already been achieved. He said he was amazed that the parties which opposed the introduction of the motion under Rule 184 opposed his decision of not pressing for the motion.
Their conduct is really the best commentary on this unholy alliance of 13 parties supported from outside by two parties.
Singh, however, could not clarify satisfactorily the reason for not allowing the House to discuss the principle of the cabinets collective responsibilty. He merely said that the ministers statements have been making it too obvious.
The Lok Sabha Speaker PA Sangma, while allowing the motion under Rule 184 had relied heavily on the the assumption that the principle of cabinets collective responsibility seemed to have been violated by contradictory statements on home minister Indrajit Gupta and Governor Bhandari.
