)
“So, who’s going to be the next governor,” asked bureaucrats excitedly in Lucknow, after UP Governor B L Joshi resigned.
In the sweltering heat of the former city of the nawabs, it is hard to get worked up without working up a sweat. But most bureaucrats here see this appointment as the most important one since Akhilesh Yadav rode to victory on what people hoped was a governance mandate two years ago.
Since then, many of the men Yadav has adopted — or simply pushed aside — have either begun apologising for him or criticising him. Therefore, the belief the Centre might just step in to short-circuit the Samajwadi Party (SP) government’s tenure is wishful thinking for many but a serious possibility for a small number of officers. In this plan, the role of the governor is absolutely crucial. “The choice of the governor will be the first clue,” said one officer. “In the past, UP has been considered a holiday destination or a reward for governors. But for this (the Narendra Modi-led BJP government), UP is the crux of the politics they propose to roll out in the next ten years.”
What the officer did not say was that it was the governor who will have to be convinced that law and order in India’s biggest state has broken down, prior to recommending central rule in UP, despite the fact that the state has a duly elected, majority government in place, which has tested its confidence in the Assembly several times.
However, not a day passes without one or the other statement from either the Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju or Home Minister Rajnath Singh himself expressing “concern” about the state of law and order in UP.
A breakdown of law and order in a state can lead to the imposition of President’s Rule. However, this is a theoretical position. In 1994, a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of nine Judges gave its judgment in the case of “S R Bommai vs Union of India”, setting out in clear terms the limitations of Article 356 (President’s Rule). The court said any Presidential order clamping Article 356 had to be ratified by both Houses of Parliament. In addition, the powers of the judiciary to review the bona fide or mala fide nature of the presidential order were reiterated. As a rider, the Bench gave a list of 10 situations which did not amount to “failure of constitutional machinery”. One of these was “A situation of maladministration in a state where a duly constituted ministry enjoys the support of the Assembly”. This applies to Uttar Pradesh.
Several officers said though the crime and law and order situation in the state is deteriorating and every day the central home ministry is seeking the “vardaat sheet” (maintained by every police station as a record of crime in the state) in major criminal events, dismissing the government might not be an option for the Union government.
“Just yesterday, somebody — I will not name him — came to me and said there could be a major sting operation expose, a minister for instance, who might have shielded members of radical Islamic groups or who might be overheard talking to somebody in Pakistan. Nothing can be ruled out,” he said.
In an interview to Outlook magazine, just before the elections, BJP leader Amit Shah had hinted clearly the government in UP was unpopular. “242 MLAs in this Assembly of 402 have been members of the BJP at one or other time,” he had told the magazine.
There are others who feel the BJP is working on a bigger plan — of dividing the state. However, this can, at best, be a long-term plan.
