Is our Constitution to be run on the increasingly popular principles of intrigue, deceit and moral bankruptcy? The Karnataka crisis celebrates the triumph of the avid greed for power over any and every kind of moral scruple. When this crisis started, H.D. Deve Gowda audaciously compared his situation to that of Rajaji becoming the chief minister of Madras. The comparison is as perverse as the constitutional crisis he has perpetrated in Karnataka.

The 2004 Karnataka elections yielded no winners. The highest assembly seats went to the BJP (79), Congress(65) and JD(S) (58) in a House of 224. The JD(S) led by former Prime Minister Deve Gowda and his son H.D. Kumaraswamy have brought about the downfall of every coalition they have joined. The Congress-JD(S) coalition which supposedly represented the secular front collapsed in 2006 at the instance of the JD(S). Anxious to grab power, the JD(S) swung to the BJP’s orbit whereby H.D. Kumaraswamy would become chief minister of a JD(S)-BJP coalition in exchange for the BJP candidate becoming chief minister in October 2007. Nobody believed the huge charade of Deve Gowda agonising over the hurt caused to secularism by allying with the BJP. Having already brought down the Congress-led coalition, the JD(S) has now refused to honour its promise to hand over the leadership of government to the BJP, after the JD(S) miraculously returned to secularism fortified by its good showing in the local elections.

But we have to trace our way back to H.D. Deve Gowda’s MoU of 12 conditions that he had sent on November 1 to the BJP. The memo defies fantasy. It was not a common minimum programme. It was a statement that the JD(S) will effectively run the BJP administration. The BJP would reign but the JD(S) will rule. No administrative postings or promotions were to be made by the chief minister without consulting the JD(S). The advocate-general and other law officers would be appointed by the BJP and the JD(S) in consultation. The blackmail clause enabled either party to withdraw from the coalition if certain so-called highest standards of governance were not met. The JD(S) threatened that it took no responsibility for any ‘untoward incident or unhealthy development’ during the BJP regime. Effectively, it told the BJP: ‘We will tell you what to do. Our party cohorts will criticise you. If our standards are not met, we will paralyse you. At any point, we can invent an excuse to dethrone you.’ Is this the way coalition governments are to run? Since 1967, Indian politics has been plagued by defections. The anti-defection law of 1985 as amended in 2003 did little to discipline floor crossings and suitcase politics. From Kihoto’s case in 2002 to the UP judgment of 2007, the Supreme Court has failed to give a coherent interpretation to the anti-defection law.

... contd.