The Centre's choice to use Article 356 of the Constitution to impose President's Rule on Uttarakhand is disturbing. The state had seen a full-scale revolt by members of the legislative assembly against the Congress-led state government. However, other methods should have been tried to ensure a working government before the imposition of President's Rule, which should always be the last resort. The suspicion that the Bharatiya Janata Party, which stands to gain from a realignment of Uttarakhand politics, has meddled for political reasons is strong - especially as this follows a similar set of events in Arunachal Pradesh. The BJP is nominally committed to increasing the effectiveness of federalism in India, and this pattern of behaviour in terms of imposing central rule diverges from that stated end.
Nor is the behaviour of the Congress in Uttarakhand above reproach. For one, recordings purporting to show the bribing of rebel legislators have been released. The former chief minister, Harish Rawat, has claimed that the footage is fake - but the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Chandigarh reportedly disagrees. This should be pursued through the legal system, and if Mr Rawat can find independent testimony that exonerates him, then well and good. But it does cast a shadow over the Congress' attempts to claim the moral high ground. The behaviour of the party was already dubious given that, as Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has claimed, the proceedings of the Uttarakhand Assembly suggest that the Appropriation Bill was passed through a voice vote even though a division of votes was specifically requested. Had the government been formally defeated on the Bill, it would have had to resign - but not granting a proper vote was inappropriate.
However, there is still no excuse for the Centre's dismissal of the Rawat government before it faced the test of numbers in the Assembly ordered by the state's governor, K K Paul. The speaker of the Assembly had dismissed nine Congress members, and the party claims that it had the support of the 27 remaining Congress members and six others. But the dismissal of the government means that the BJP, with 28 legislators, could well use this time to find the numbers it needs to stake a claim to government in the state. It is true that the imposition of President's Rule has to be ratified by both Houses of Parliament, which might be difficult given the numbers in the Rajya Sabha - but, in Arunachal Pradesh, the ratification was never needed as a new government was in place before the end of deadline for such ratification. If the BJP intends something similar in Uttarakhand, then it will be an improper use of the powers of the Union government. It was hoped that the days of Article 356 being used to help the prospects of the party in power at the Centre were past. But this does not appear to be the case. Both national parties bear much blame for the state of affairs in Uttarakhand.
