For the Prime Minister to expect Romesh Bhandari to do the decent thing and quit rather than himself straightforwardly rid the country of a man who has set new lows in Indian political life is an act of distasteful ambition. Running from a problem has long been Inder Kumar Gujral's talent, but this time the buck must stop with him. Bhandari has committed a grievous violation of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai case. He has similar violations to his credit in the past. He is not to be offered the privilege of resigning, if he so wishes, with decorum and dignity intact. Not that he has shown any intention of being dignified. But if he was prepared to go quietly, Bhandari should still be exposed to the ignominy of a dismissal as an example to would-be adventurers in other Raj Bhavans. If he did resign on his own, that would in no way absolve Gujral.So what is making Gujral so squeamish? He acquitted himself shamefully in the last round of the UP drama, loath to rufflehis friends. He was jolted from his characteristic wimpishness only by the President returning for reconsideration the recommendation to dismiss the Kalyan Singh Ministry. That was a case of Gujral getting cold feet, not of belated principled behaviour. This time he did one better, by fleeing the Capital when the Cabinet should have been busy urging Bhandari's sacking. True to form, he is now trying to get Bhandari discreetly to resign rather than himself show the minimal decisiveness required. His conduct leads to the realisation that the hope of power swells strong in his breast. In his very last days as Prime Minister, it might seem reasonable to suppose that he would want to be remembered as for once doing the principled thing. But I.K. Gujral is not taking any chances that might compromise whatever slim chance he may fancy he has of retaining his office. And so he will not upset his allies who revelled shamelessly in the UP drama. Harbouring ambition, however, is no crime, even though his performancewould make his return as Prime Minister unfortunate for this country. But certainly he should not be allowed to get away with improper behaviour in order to buttress his self-serving ambition.
There is a strong constitutional issue at stake here. The President has acted through this crisis, as in the one before, with remarkable restraint and propriety. However, there is clearly a breakdown in the UP Raj Bhavan's functioning. It is incumbent on the Prime Minister to recommend his removal so that the President may discharge his duties in a constitutional way. The alternatives are two, if it is assumed that Bhandari will not go on his own. He either thumbs his nose at India's democracy, or the President takes action on his own. The first is absolutely unacceptable. The second would mean forcing the President into an activism and an interpretation of the Constitution which set dangerous precedents. If Gujral fails to respond to the President's letter with what action is required of him, he would precipitate aconstitutional crisis, and should be held responsible for forcing Rashtrapati Bhavan by default to be hyperactive.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
