 |
||
|
||
|
||
(Amidst acrimony and patch up efforts, the unprecedented impasse in
Uttar Pradesh continues. Should Governor Romesh Bhandari step down
or be dismissed or retained? Three experts discuss)
Romesh Bhandari should have resigned and been replaced as governor
of Uttar Pradesh by now.
For the sake of his reputation, and that of the Union government,
Bhandari must do so before the unhappy situation in the state leads
to more acrimony in Parliament.
Seldom, if ever, has a Union home minister stated in Parliament
that a state was "heading towards anarchy, chaos and destruction."
This is not a charge that should be made lightly, or withdrawn if
found inconvenient.
It would be sufficient to dismiss any state government and impose
President's rule on the basis of this statement.
If the state is already under President's rule, the blame can fall
only on the governor. He must be dismissed if he does not resign
voluntarily.
By failing to resign when the Union home minister Indrajit Gupta
criticised the situation in Uttar Pradesh in such harsh terms,
Bhandari demeaned his office and gravely embarrassed the central
government; especially, the home minister.
He made things worse by publicly contradicting Gupta. In these
circumstances, to transfer him is not enough; that will place some
other unfortunate state under his dubious charge.
It may be true that Uttar Pradesh's ills are deep rooted, but never
has it been condemned by the Central government in such terms
before.
If Gupta is justified in making such a damning statement. Bhandari
must go. If Gupta has erred, he should be given a less sensitive
portfolio.
Bhandari's belated apology and Gupta's belated effort to target the
BJP do not resolve the problem. Gupta has held the home portfolio
for nearly 10 months. During this period, Uttar Pradesh has been
under President's rule.
If the state is now in such desperate straits, the Centre and its
governor cannot avoid responsibility.
If we are now to believe that the situation has improved since it
was under the BJP rule, the home minister was irresponsible in
suggesting that it was heading towards anarchy, chaos et al.
Again, if we are to believe reports that Gupta is frustrated
because of differences with the prime minister, surely a man of his
experience and standing should have insisted on handling his
portfolio in own way, or resigned.
The BJP bogey cannot justify such a show of indetermination. Going
back on the issue now will mar the image of the United Front
government more than the BJP's.
Uttar Pradesh's mammoth size and population have always made it
hard to govern.
Lucknow has seldom challenged the tradition of mafia rule in the
eastern districts of the state. Rapid changes of government in the
past have made things worse.
District administration has been weakened by frequent changes in
administrative and police officers to serve the political and
financial needs of each new government.
Forty years ago, the States Reorganisation Commission had
considered dividing Uttar Pradesh into at least three states.
Representative government could not flourish in such a vast
territory with a huge variegated population.
The move was resisted because Uttar Pradesh provided the Congress
Party with the maximum number of MPs and ministers.
Now that the political equation has changed, and at least
Uttarakhand conceded, division of the state should go ahead in the
interests of popular rule.
Ajit Bhattacharjea
Director, Press Institute of India
|
||
|
||
|
||