In ‘coalgate’ — and the Rs 1.86 lakh crore notional loss to the exchequer cited by the comptroller and auditor general in his latest report tabled in Parliament — the BJP has found an issue which it hopes could become even more emotive than the 2G spectrum scam.
For, this time it is the prime minister directly in the dock, having held the charge of the coal ministry for three-and-a-half years during UPA I, the period scrutinised by the CAG, and the BJP has demanded his resignation and is not allowing Parliament to function.
Moreover, the presumptive loss in coalgate exceeds the loss incurred in the 2G affair. Coal is an area easier for ordinary people to identify with than was spectrum. Even more worrying for the Congress is the time at which the report comes, when the UPA’s credibility is at an all-time low and any charge made against it today has a tendency to stick.
The BJP, therefore, scents another opportunity to further damage the Congress. And it smells power. That is why a group in the party — led by LK Advani — has adopted a maximalist demand of “no debate”, insisting only on the PM’s exit.
There is talk that the BJP’s MPs may resign from all the parliamentary committees, and even from the Lok Sabha, to put pressure on the government to go in for early elections — as had happened in mid 1989, when the entire opposition had resigned en masse on the Bofors issue.
However, the difference between then and now is that in 1989, there was a clear leader — VP Singh was accepted at the popular level, and by the opposition. Today that is not the case. The BJP, leading the charge, is itself divided on how far to go. It has no clear leader, only several power centres. Its partners in the NDA have openly called for a discussion on the coal scam.
The party has left no route for itself to retreat and to that extent Advani, who wants an early election, possibly before Narendra Modi can hit the national stage next year after the Gujarat elections, seems to be the only one who is setting the political agenda with others forced to react. A group in the party has been in touch with other parties, including Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Mamata Banerjee. For the moment, the Trinamool chief has spurned the BJP overtures, and is suddenly hopeful of a financial package for West Bengal after the exit of Pranab Mukherji from North Block.
The BJP’s latest demand is as much about politics playing out inside the party as it is about the misdemeanours of the UPA.
Ironically, this time, it is the Congress which is ready for a debate on the subject and even for a JPC. It is confident of turning the tables on the BJP, whose chief ministers — of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan — had opposed the auction route for captive coal blocks, whereas the prime minister had suggested this policy in 2004, though he has to answer why it got delayed for five years.
Admittedly, no opposition party worth its salt can let go of an opportunity like the one presented by coalgate to corner its adversary.
And yet, the BJP’s position — that it will not allow a debate to take place in Parliament “because nothing is likely to come out of it” — can be a dangerous one. It talks about the “futility” of referring the issue to a JPC, and curiously it is not demanding the constitution of a JPC to probe coalgate. Its members have walked out of the JPC probing 2G. It sees no good coming out of the public accounts committee, to which the CAGs’ reports are normally referred.
The BJP’s stance is almost like an expression of ‘no-confidence’ in Parliament and its instrumentalities. An extension of this logic would mean an end to debates and to parliamentary functioning itself. As it is, there is a growing cynicism in the country about frequent disruptions in Parliament.
Essentially, Parliament is a talk shop, where, for all its flaws, an engagement between the government and the opposition, between contending views, and between warring groups still takes place — and is possible. It is true that the ruling group often uses the situation to get the better of the opposition. But the moment you dub parliamentary debate as “futile” and instead make a case only for the language of disruption, you are on a slippery slope.
There is a place for street politics and there is a role for parliamentary discussion in our democracy. But the two cannot be interchangeable.
It is one thing for the BJP to mobilise people on corruption and demand the resignation ofthe PM from Ramlila grounds or Azad Maidan, or even inside Parliament, if it wants to, which is its legitimate right.
But to say that it will not allow the PM to speak or a discussion to take place in Parliament till the PM has resigned goes against the basics of parliamentary functioning. Tomorrow every state assembly will stall and disrupt the house, insisting they will not allow the legislature to run till the chief minister has put in his or her papers. Politics — be it of the BJP or the Congress — will come and go. At stake today is the health — and very survival — of our parliamentary institutions.
Edited By Cen Fox Post Team
