The naysayers

When you have the law on your side,’’ the experienced lawyer told the rookie, ‘‘hammer away with the law. When you have the facts, hammer away with the facts.’’

‘‘What if neither the law nor the facts support our case?’’

‘‘Hammer away on the table!’’

Do you understand the Congress strategy a little better? The party has vowed to oppose the imposition of President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh yet it also seeks the use of Article 356 in Gujarat. Both motions are in the name of democracy and that fount of all virtues, ‘secularism’.

The two demands contradict each other, but looking for logic misses the point. The Congress is gambling there is no such thing as bad publicity. So Congressmen raise a ruckus in Parliament, Sonia Gandhi pretends to sit in a dharna (succeeding only in looking remarkably uncomfortable), and everybody gets a lot of airtime and column space.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Congress has threatened to create a crisis by blocking the motion to sanction President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh. So, much as Sonia Gandhi hates it, let us throw the cold light of reason on her position(s).

The Congress opposes President’s rule in UP on the ground that it is a crime against democracy to suspend the Vidhan Sabha before it has met even once. The principle is unimpeachable, but here is where theory runs up against facts.

What is the alternative in Lucknow? The Congress has an answer: ‘‘A secular government!’’ And how, pray tell, will this be achieved?

The BJP and its allies won 108 seats. The Bahujan Samaj Party has 98 seats. The first group has announced its willingness — even its determination — to sit in the Opposition. The latter says it shall refuse to support anyone else’s bid for power. And the 206 seats they hold between them are just over the halfway mark. So what hope is there of anyone — ‘secular’ or ‘communal’ — forming a ministry?

There is no point asking the president to withhold his approval of using Article 356 because it is ‘undemocratic’. The governor employed precisely the same pro- cedure as President K.R. Narayanan three years ago.

After the Vajpayee ministry fell by one vote, the president asked for letters of support from members of Parliament of everyone who tried to form a government. I do not know how many people remember it, but Prime Minister Vajpayee gave a list of 271 (one short of a majority). Sonia Gandhi could not get past 233 — at least partly because the Samajwadi Party refused to play ball. The president then decided on a general election.

Governor Shastri followed the same method. Mulayam Singh Yadav may have staked his claim but he could not produce the numbers — at least partly because the Congress refused to back him openly. The difference between Delhi in 1999 and Lucknow in 2002 is that there is no provision for President’s Rule as far as the Union government is concerned!

What other options did the governor have? He could have asked a man with 147 MLAs — almost three score short of a majority — to form a ministry? In which case one might as well put up a ‘For Sale’ sign outside the Vidhan Sabha — such a move would be an invitation to defection. Mulayam Singh Yadav is well short of a majority even if the Congress’ twenty-odd MLAs are added to the Samajwadi Party’s kitty. (Everyone has changed positions since the last Assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh. The Deve Gowda ministry, a ‘secular’ unit backed by the Congress, preferred President’s Rule to a BJP-led ministry. The BJP had about 170 seats at the time, as much as the Congress and the Samajwadi Party put together today.)

The governor’s second alternative was to call for fresh elections. This, as I am sure some shall try to point out, is precisely what the president did in 1999.

It is a tempting thought. After England’s 155 run loss in Wellington, Nasser Hussain told his men something on the lines of ‘‘You got us into this mess, and you can get us out of it!’’ The voters of Uttar Pradesh are responsible for the fractured Assembly, and they should be asked to put it right.

But managing an election in something the size of Uttar Pradesh — larger than all but four or five countries in the world — is not as cheap as holding a one day international. Elections are necessary if the various parties involved cannot come to terms after a reasonable time. But this is precisely why Article 356 was written into the Constitution — to provide breathing space until normalcy returns.

Speaking of elections, a new president will be elected in June. The electoral college includes members of the various legislative assemblies, and those from UP carry a lot of weight. Can you disenfranchise UP by dissolving the Assembly? Or is it to be in a coma, revived for the poll, and then sent back to slumber? Neither is an advertisement for parliamentary democracy as India celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the first elections.

The Congress’s thesis in Uttar Pradesh — that the strength of a ministry be tested in the Assembly, not Raj Bhawan — is turned on its head in Gujarat. Nobody claims the Narendra Modi ministry has lost the confidence of the House. The Congress would have been on a stronger wicket had it demanded fresh polls instead of Article 356 (which are due in twelve months in Gujarat).

Boiled down to essentials, there is nothing positive in the Congress’ statements. ‘‘We shall not support Mulayam Singh Yadav!’’ ‘‘We shall not support President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh when the question is put to the Rajya Sabha!’’

That is very nice, but what exactly does the Congress support? A second set of elections might not be desirable given that the Congress polled under 10 per cent of the votes, losing even the Amethi Vidhan Sabha seat.

Tomorrow is the ides of March, and I am sure quotations from Julius Caesar shall be coming in fast and furious. Well, here is one that sums up the contradictions in Congress statements in Lucknow and in Gandhinagar: ‘‘... for mine own part, it was Greek to me.’’

Earlier Columns