The introduction of the bill for the creation of a new state, Vananchal, by dividing Bihar was done in an undemocratic manner on the last day of the winter session. Towards the end of the session, the BJP suddenly decided to introduce bills for the formation of three new states -- Uttaranchal, Chattisgarh and Vananchal. In the case of the first two, the bills referred to the state legislatures of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh were approved with some amendments. These amendments were not taken into account by the central government, nor was any explanation given as to why they are not being accepted. On the Uttaranchal bill, the UP state legislature had passed an amendment for exclusion of Hardwar district. However, both the state legislatures had approved the bills. As far as the CPI(M) is concerned, it is opposed to the creation of new states out of the existing states for reasons which are well known. These have been reiterated in the Political Resolution of the 16th Congress.

When the bills for the creation of Chattisgarh and Uttaranchal come up for discussion in the Lok Sabha, the CPI(M) will state its basic position. But the Party was opposed to the very introduction of the Vananchal bill in the Lok Sabha. The difference between the earlier two bills and the Vananchal Bill is that unlike in the former two cases, the Bihar state legislature had rejected the bill referred to it by the president of India. In September 1998, the bill which was referred to the state legislature as per the constitutional provision was discussed and rejected by a vote of 181 to 106.

IMPRUDENT MOVE

Under the constitution, the procedure for the formation of a new state is set out in Article 3. Parliament has been empowered by law to form a new state by separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more states, and to alter the boundaries of any state. The article also provides that the bill for such a purpose must first be referred by the President to the legislature of the concerned state for expressing its view thereon. The state legislature has no determining say in the matter. So technically, as per the constitution, the central government can claim the right to introduce the bill in parliament and pass it disregarding the opinion of the state legislature. But in a matter concerning the division of a state into two, the federal principle requires that on such a vital question affecting the future of the state, the state legislature's concurrence be got. Since the Bihar state legislature, in its wisdom, decided against the division of the state, it is imprudent on the part of the centre to push for such a division. Such a move would be violative of the federal structure and the rights of the states. It is with this understanding that the CPI(M) stood with those parties which are opposed to the division of Bihar and who opposed the move to introduce the bill in parliament.

The overall political context of the introduction of these three bills must also be kept in mind. The BJP, having suffered a major setback in the assembly elections in three states in November, is keen to go ahead with its agenda even though it has lost political legitimacy and may not be able to push through these legislations in parliament. The fact that it has not resolved the Udham Singh Nagar dispute with the Akalis before the introduction of the Uttaranchal bill, the fact that it has not taken into account the host of amendments made by the UP and MP assemblies to the bills on Uttaranchal and Chattisgarh, show that it is more interested in making a political point than actually getting down to the creation of new states at this juncture. Already the demands for Vidharbha by dividing Maharashtra and the formation of Bodoland were raised in the Lok Sabha at the time the bills were tabled. Conflicting demands putting people against each other will suit the BJP to divert attention from its miserable performance in government.

On the Vananchal issue its own ally, the Samata Party, is divided. Some of the parties who support the formation of a new state do not subscribe to the name Vananchal and prefer Jharkhand. The CPI(M) has been pointing out that the new state, by whatever name it be called, is not a state which will serve the interests of the tribal people as it will have a composition which will predominantly be non-tribal.

ORDINANCE RAJ

Apart from the gross disregard shown for the views of the state legislature, the BJP-led government is also displaying contempt for parliament as a whole. It made no effort during the winter session to put up legislation to replace the promulgated ordinances. The Prasar Bharati ordinance which was brought through the backdoor after avoiding a vote in the Rajya Sabha in the monsoon session, was not introduced in this session. The ordinance on important subjects such as Central Vigilance Commission and the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act were also not brought forward as legislations to be adopted. Instead, the government will now recommend to the president repromulgation of these ordinances.

The resort to ordinance raj is something which is repugnant to the parliamentary form of government. The BJP, in the past, used to be vociferous with regard to the Congress government's resort to ordinance raj. There is a sound case for the president of India to refuse to promulgate such ordinances proposed by the government which are patently a devise to enforce laws on the country which cannot get sanction from parliament. The Prasar Bharati ordinance is one such glaring case.

THWARTING PEOPLE'S MANDATE

Given its abject failure to conduct the business of governance democratically through parliament, the BJP has now supported the idea for a five year guaranteed term for the Lok Sabha. It supports the move to amend the constitution to ensure that there is no mid-term dissolution of parliament even if a party or a coalition loses its majority in the house or is defeated on the floor of the house on a money bill or a major legislation. Its vice-president, K L Sharma, has announced that the BJP would support such a move if other parties agreed. The demand for a five-year guaranteed term of the Lok Sabha has support from other quarters in the bourgeois parties. This was one of the proposals circulated for discussion by Shivraj Patil, the speaker of the Tenth Lok Sabha. Many in the ruling class circles are afraid of political instability and would like to circumvent the people's verdict by ensuring stability for a regime which can look after its class interests.

If a government loses its majority in the house it has to resign. And if no one else is able to command a majority, the democratic method is to dissolve the house and go for fresh elections. Instead of this, what is sought to be put in place is a house which remains permanently for five years and if a government falls through a vote, it will become mandatory for a new government to be formed by any conglomeration or combination of parties. This would lead to the most opportunistic and self-serving combinations to form governments which will have nothing to do with the commitments made to the people or the popular mandate.