Some see President’s rule in Jharkhand as an inevitability. But this need not have been the case. Theoretically, the Congress and Babulal Marandi’s Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (JVM) could have got together with the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha — although the JMM leadership is a carpetbaggers’ conglomerate — and a few greedy Independents, and sprung another government on the hapless state. But it is just as well such a course was not adopted. It would have produced a government conceived and constituted in bad faith — in the full knowledge that its stability was far from assured, and that an attempt to rule was being launched with no objective other than to loot the treasury. Something similar happened after December’s Assembly election in the state. The post-poll alliance that the JMM and the BJP got into was wholly opportunistic. The BJP had no business being in government — it was a defeated party and many of its senior leaders in New Delhi had advised caution and counselled against trying to get into the driver’s seat yet again. Nor did this desperate search for shortsighted gains end there. After saying it was ending support to the Shibu Soren government as the JMM had backed the UPA government’s budget in Parliament, the BJP did a somersault when a desperate JMM tempted it with an offer of the chief minister’s post. This was shabby on the BJP’s part: the party will have to do better and keep its nose clean if it wishes to be taken seriously at the national level.
In sum, the decision on President’s rule, keeping the Assembly in suspended animation, was possibly the best of a bad bargain. Where the state goes next is uncertain. After all, the flimsy numbers of various parties in the Assembly cannot change, and the question will arise after six months whether a viable political front can be brought into being. If not, the state can look forward to another six months of Central rule, followed by elections. This is hardly a good advertisement for a democratic order. The prospect of another state election in a year can possibly be avoided if an all-party government could be devised with a clearly-laid-down programme. Much would depend on the Congress. If the Centre suggests an all-party dispensation in Jharkhand, Congress MLAs — eager for power — are likely to be disappointed as they will have to share the spoils of office. Will the Congress leadership be ready to make the sacrifice?
Governments in Jharkhand have been unstable ever since the state was formed. None of the promise of development for its tribal population — the reason for creation of the state — has been realised. Jharkhand offers the perfect example that, in general, small states are politically unviable. The preponderance of small parties with too few MLAs, and a multiplicity of Independents — all extraordinarily eager to drive hard bargains, usually throws the political scene into turmoil. The story is repeated much too often to sustain the view that small states are fundamentally good for democratic governance which keeps people at the centre. Punjab and Haryana are exceptions that prove the rule, and it is worthwhile to recall that it was Haryana that acquainted the country with the “aya Ram, gaya Ram” phenomenon. While a new round of Central rule is being ushered into Jharkhand, the Union home ministry should take steps to post officials with a proven record of service to the people. Only then would the Central intervention be deemed worthwhile. Besides development goals, the time of President’s rule will have to be utilised to put down lawlessness and the Maoist menace.