It is a month since the electoral results in West Bengal were announced after an excessively acerbic campaign. The polls ended in a thumping victory for the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress, which won almost 73 per cent of the 292 assembly seats on offer, with a popular vote share of 48 per cent. In contrast, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which deputed the entire might of the party and government in the electoral campaign, won a mere 23 per cent of the seats in the Assembly.
Although the BJP secured a vote share of 38 per cent, in the first-past-the-post system this crushing blow is as humbling as it can get. However, the multi-pronged response of the central government, its nominee in the state, Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar, and the party leadership demonstrates that the present regime is yet to come to terms with the verdict.
This response, led deplorably by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, goes against democratic, as well as federal principles. It reveals that despite its lip-service to democratic elections, the ruling party at the Centre is unwilling to accept defeat.
Events unfolding at a staggering pace over the past month, demonstrate that the BJP and Centre are intent on using unconstitutional processes and violating official regulations with the ultimate aim of destabilising, and at a later point, consider dismissing the elected state government.
Although recent headlines were dominated by the events centering around the now-retired chief secretary of West Bengal, Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the pettiness displayed by the ruling regime is symptomatic of a much larger malaise.
This is not the first time that Modi has violated the principle of federalism. Take, for example, the Pragati meetings (Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation). It is relevant to recall that this three-tiered administrative monitoring platform, involving the Prime Minister’s Office, Union government secretaries, and chief secretaries of the states, bypassed elected representatives. Almost every non-BJP chief minister has complained how the Centre has bypassed state governments, with the change of law clipping wings of the elected government in Delhi taking the cake.
The Pragati initiative was among the first structured violations of the federal guidelines drawn by the much-vaunted Sarkaria Commission report in the 1980s. Paradoxically, as the Gujarat chief minister, Modi had advocated that the states be given greater autonomy and used to be routinely critical of the UPA government for the so-called intrusions into the domains of the states.
That BJP leaders were poor losers was evident even before Banerjee took the oath of office for the third time. Sadly, Bengal has a tradition of post-verdict violent targeting of losers by those who emerge victors. Even the overall loser lets out a swipe or two in constituencies where they are dominant. The threat of “I will thrash you after the polls” is often used by goons of the parties during the campaign.
Despite being aware of this unfortunate practice, the Election Commission, in charge of supervising the state’s law and order situation before the chief minister was sworn in again, let its guard down. Although technically Banerjee had no responsibility to manage the situation, a social-media-driven campaign led by BJP leaders accused her of triggering violent incidents.
If this was not sufficient, the conduct of Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar was unbecoming. He rushed to discussing the post-poll violence with Modi while not having a word with the chief minister-designate.
Furthermore, immediately after administering the oath of office to Banerjee, Dhankhar sent her a public message over live television: “Our first priority is to bring an end to the senseless, horrendous post-poll violence...You have to rise above partisan interests.....” He had little business to cast aspersions on a leader elected with a landslide in less than a week of the verdict.
As an agent of the Centre, Dhankhar too was indulging in politics from public platforms. The governor indiscriminately used “discretion”, choosing to fan passions by visiting sites of post-poll violence in Cooch Behar despite the disapproval of the chief minister.
He further lowered the dignity of the constitutional post by behaving like a battle-scarred politician, screaming at people when greeted with black flags. He needlessly berated a police officer despite not sticking to the agreed route. Once again, Dhankhar criticised Banerjee in public, by addressing a press conference and on Twitter.
If these were not sufficient violations of the federal spirit, the Centre dispatched several teams to West Bengal to survey the situation and criticise the state government. These separate teams consisted of union government officials, nominees of the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women. The intention of these visits was to prevent Banerjee from settling down in her renewed job and provide time to the government to probe the incidents.
Significantly, post-poll violence began declining within a day or two of Banerjee taking the oath, indicating that the state government was no longer in a state of paralysis when the reins were technically in the control of the ECI.
The former cabinet secretary to the Union government, KM Chandrasekhar, in an article on la affaire Alapan Bandyopadhyay, pointed out that the “appointment and deputation of IAS officers require agreement between the central government and the state government”, besides the “willingness of the officer”, before being moved out from the state to the Centre.
Citing the relevant item of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the former bureaucrat pointed out that an officer is “deputed” from the state to the Centre and not the other way around, and this process “always involved a decision of both the central and state governments.”
Although Banerjee is neither a great democrat nor a team person, in this instance she cannot be faulted. The Centre not only did not consult her government, but it also provided no evidence why after routinely extending Bandyopadhyay’s service days earlier, a sudden need to post him in Delhi arose. Significantly, the position was not disclosed making it evident that the decision was a form of ‘punishment’.
Certainly, this demonstrated that Modi was being vindictive and wished to penalise Bandyopadhyay. His crime? Diligently following the order of his boss. Expecting Bandyopadhyay to act on his own is encouraging insubordination. Banerjee’s assertion that the targeting of the officer was indicative of Modi consistently discriminating against people of Bengal has immense political potential and can lead to a rise in sub-national angst against the Centre. This will not only be politically damaging for Modi but has grave implications for the country.
The decision to convert the meeting between the prime minister with the chief minister into one attended by a large group, including Suvendu Adhikari, was certainly taken with the intention of riling Banerjee. She rightly questioned this move because there is no precedent of the leader of opposition attending a meeting where the purpose is administrative stock-taking after a natural disaster.
This decision highlights the only political move that the BJP has taken after being humbled in the polls. The appointment of Adhikari sent a clear message that he is the BJP’s future chief ministerial face. This is aimed at retaining leaders who crossed over from the Trinamool Congress before the polls by signalling that they have a future. But the move has the potential to cause unease among old-timers in the party, especially the ideologically committed. Continued efforts to destabilise Banerjee’s government and sharper polarisation however provides solace to them. They also have even fewer political options than the newcomers.
But setting the party’s house in the state in order after the inability to repeat the performance of 2019 (when the BJP established leads in 121 assembly segments) is hardly on Modi’s priorities currently. In the process of appeasing his vanity, Modi has shown that his promise of governing India by bolstering cooperative federalism was also another jumla, mere glib talk. The model that has been unveiled in recent days is coercive federalism.
(The writer is an NCR-based author and journalist. His books include The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right and Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.