The Jammu and Kashmir Governor is absolutely right when he says that he will not allow a government to be formed by defection. But was the decision to dissolve the J&K House prompted by the fact that there was a possibility of a non-BJP government being formed in the State? While the J&K Governor dissolved the Assembly citing the reason of horse trading, the timing of the abrupt decision is highly suspect, for there had been no sign shown of dissolving the Assembly just some time earlier when there was a move backed by the BJP to form the government in the State. Which raises the question of whether there were other reasons for the strong conviction that led him to dissolve the House on the mere possibility of horse trading?
Jammu and Kashmir has been under President’s Rule and the Assembly kept in suspended animation since June 19, 2018, when BJP withdrew support to the Mehbooba Mufti-led People’s Democratic Party (PDP) government. Since then there have been various efforts made to form a government and just when the PDP was attempting to send faxes to the Governor’s office staking claim to form the government with the support of the Congress and the National Conference, the Governor chose to dissolve the Assembly, which had over a year of its term remaining.
The J&K Governor’s reasoning is that there was horse trading taking place and so he dissolved the Assembly in the interest of the State, to enable the holding of fresh elections for a clear mandate. He cited also the “impossibility of forming a stable government by the coming together of political parties with opposing political ideologies”. If only every Governor in every State of India would act in this manner – pre-empting the possibility of horse trading and defections and the coming together of political parties with opposing political ideologies – then the country would not even require a law to keep the MLAs in check. But then, the Governors would have to be totally impartial in their decisions.
Take the case of Goa, where a month ago two MLAs from the Congress quit the party, resigned their membership of the Assembly and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, all in the space of less than 24 hours. Wouldn’t that amount to an example of horse trading? Had the Governor of Goa acted to uphold the same principles as the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, would the current Assembly of Goa already have been dissolved? There has been sustained speculation of more such crossovers likely to occur in the State, will somebody act to preempt these?
India has had a tradition of allowing alliances to be cobbled up after the election results have been declared, so as to allow the formation of governments, with little attention paid to ideology. The current government in Goa is an example of such a tradition, the government in Karnataka is another, and the government in Bihar is an extreme example of such coalitions. In Bihar, Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) came to power in 2015 with the support of the RJD, but in 2017, when charges of corruption were leveled against the State’s Dy Chief Minister, Kumar asked him to resign, leading to the RJD breaking away from the alliance and bringing down the government. The very next day, Kumar was back in the CM’s office, this time supported by the BJP, a party against which he had aggressively campaigned.
This does call for amendments to the law on defections so as to put an end to the political instability that plays around in almost every State. Neither Governors nor politicians should be allowed to tinker with the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Tinkering with democracy the J&K way
