Pic: The Hindu

B S Yeddyurappa’s Karantaka Janatha Party is making its debut this time during the elections. Although many would call it just an off shoot of the BJP due to the ideology of the leader, Yeddyurappa the man himself would disagree.

Yeddyurappa is a known fighter and he appears to be the only man on the campaign trail at the moment. He has adopted to a door to door campaign, but what is most important is he is on a revenge mission and his intention is to beat the BJP.

Although Yeddyurappa has fielded 224 candidates, his primary areas of interest would be 38 constituencies where the BJP is strong. He has decided that he would focus on these constituencies alone the most to ensure that his former party is defeated.

The 38 constituencies that Yeddyurappa has ear marked a hard core Lingayat belts and he is looking to eat into the vote share of the BJP. This has come as a major relief for the Congress as it believes that if Yeddyurappa does manage to get most of these seats it would assure them of a tie up with the party when the government needs to be formed.

The Congress which sounds optimistic about crossing the magic number of 113 would fall short by at least 25 seats at the end of it. This would be due to one major factor and that is the party faces a severe anti incumbency in nearly 20 constituencies. For the Congress it is very important that it makes up these seats and the best option would be to let the KJP dig into the vote share of the BJP in the 38 seats that it is targeting.

The question now is how many seats will the KJP be able to win. Most analysts give the KJP around 6 to 10 seats. While it may not help the party much, it sure does help the other parties especially the Congress. While Yeddyurappa may not be able to win many seats, the one thing he would ensure in every constituency is that he would eat into at least 5 per cent of the BJP’s vote share.

The Congress does realise that the vote this time is more against the BJP rather than a vote in their favour. There is no real Congress wave in the state and many are not even familiar with the leaders of the party. The Congress is expecting a lot out of the smaller parties and the independents. Their ticket distribution process has left more people fuming and it appears that the party would have a very disturbed campaign. There are sulking old horses in the party like Dharam Singh, Mallikarjuna Kharge and Jaffer Sharrief whose kith and kin have not been given tickets. It is evident that these persons would try and do more damage to the Congress.

The state Congress does realise the pit falls ahead and hence there is over dependency on the damage that Yeddyurappa would do the BJP. Yeddyurappa too on the other hand will play to the Congress. Both are very united in deciding who would battle important BJP leaders. In Shimoga, the Congress would let Yeddyurappa have his way and would not try and field a strong candidate. The case was very evident in the Rajajinagar constituency as well where the Congress fielded a weak candidate against BJP’s

Former law and parliamentary affairs minister, M C Nanaiah says that the chances of the BJP and the KJP are very low this time. The BJP for sure would be in the third place and the real fight is between the Congress and the JD(S). The KJP at the end of it is another split group of the BJP and will not do the damage which many are expecting.

Will these combinations work and how much Yeddyurappa could hurt the BJP to benefit the Congress. One would have to wait for the results on May 8^th.

Ideally a state funeral would mean that the arrangements are made by the state with full police bandobast, honour which includes the gun salute as well. The body is also draped with the National Flag.
However over a period of time that rule has changed and state funerals are accorded depending upon the stature of the personality.
Former Law and Parliamentary Affairs minister, M C Nanaiah tells rediff.com that it is now the discretion of the state government to accord a state funeral. There are no set guidelines for the same. Although there has been a rule as mentioned above, it does not necessarily need to be strict. Each state has the discretion to accord a state funeral to a person depending on his or her stature.
The state takes into consideration the contribution made by the person to the state. It could be in the field of politics, literature, law, science, cinema etc.
The person has to be acceptable to one and all in the state and he or she should be a social figure.
There is no special meeting to decide on who should get a state funeral. It is only the Chief Minister who takes such a decision upon consultation with a few senior cabinet colleagues. Once a decision is taken the information is conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner, Police Chief and Superintendent of Police of the respective area who have to make arrangements for a state funeral.
India’s first state funeral was held for Mahatma Gandhi. State funerals were also organised for Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi.A state funeral was arranged for Mother Teresa. Very recently Sathya Sai Baba was also accorded a state funeral.

How does the formation of the NCTC shake up the federal structure? It is a well known fact that law and order are subject matters of the state prescribed under the Indian Constitution. However there is also Article 342 of the Indian Constitution which gives the Centre powers to prevent illegal activities in any part of the country. While this being the debate, we speak to three persons who have dealt with security, legal and state issues.

Before getting into the debate it would be interesting to see what is India’s Federal structure: The Constitution provides for distribution of powers between the Union and the States. It enumerates the powers of the Parliament and State Legislatures in three lists, namely Union list, State list and Concurrent list. Subjects like national defence, foreign policy, issuance of currency are reserved to the Union list. Public order, local governments, certain taxes are examples of subjects of the State List, on which the Parliament has no power to enact laws in those regards, barring exceptional conditions. Education, transportation, criminal law are a few subjects of the Concurrent list, where both the State Legislature as well as the Parliament have powers to enact laws.The residuary powers are vested with the Union.

M C Nanaiah, former law and parliamentary affairs minister, state of Karnataka: Many states have raised fears that the NCTC could become e partisan and political in nature. Yes, law and order are subject matters of the state and if the centre is trying to override it with the creation of the NCTC, then it does affect the federal system as the Constitution makes it clear that law and order are subject matters of the state government. As far as fighting terrorism is concerned then under Article 342 of the Indian Constitution, the central government has the right to prevent illegal activities of this nature. Terrorism is a matter that spreads across the country. It is not just a subject matter of the Union Government alone. It is better to deal with such matters by means of interaction and not take independent decisions. What I fail to understand is why has the central government gone ahead and come up with something without proper consultation. Why not call for a meeting of all Home Ministers, top ranking police officials of the state before arriving at a conclusion. The very fact that the government of India has not thought this to be necessary itself shakes up a federal system. States have an important role to play in law and order and they need to be consulted failing which it is opposed to the concept of a federal set up.

Counter terrorism cannot be the responsibility of the central government alone. State have a role to play by feeding or passing on information and hence all have to work in tandem. If the union government feels that it is not necessary to keep the states in the loop then it is taking away the powers of the state governments in matters enshrined under the constitution. The states fear that it will lose its independence and the NCTC will become political and partisan in nature.

In cases of terrorism it is the states and also its people who will be affected. Tackling terrorism is everyone’s problem and hence there needs to be consensus on the issue. The NCTC could well misuse its powers and this is what the state governments fear. A federal system mandates that the Union and State governments work in tandem and going by the manner in which this issue is handled it becomes clear that the Union government wants to impose its will all by itself. There is an urgent need to call for a meeting and then arrive at a consensus. For a federal system to work fine there is a need to cooperate.

There is a need for absolute need for cooperation. Ultimately it is a concern of the people the entire country. There is external and internal terrorism. None can over ride the Constitution and hence the central government should have in its wisdom taken up the issue only after proper consultation with the state governments. Here what I gather is that the central government has created a body which will do nothing but step in and study the issues in the state. This could be a very dangerous precedent and hence there is every need to involve the states. Instead of pro longing this issue and furthering the controversy it would be better to call for a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister and address all concerns once and for all.

C D Sahay, former Chief, Research and Analysis Wing: There are many sides to this argument or debate what has been going on. There is a legal issue and what one needs to also study is what the differences of perception which fall within the realm of the state. Law and order is the responsibility of the state and this is how our federal system is structured. However by the same token one cannot compromise on national security. In such a respect and in order to upkeep the federal nature of our state there should be a more positive approach and the issue needs to be dealt in a more cooperative manner. It is always better to evolve consensus on such major issues. Moreover terrorism is a national concern and hence there ought to be a consensus on the subject. Issues of national security have been discussed so often in Chief Minister conferences and yet I do not know why this subject was not taken up and a consensus arrived at.

Now to the other question as to why the states are crying foul and term the formation of the NCTC as a set back to the federal structure. Are the states trying to score political points? I think what must be worrying them is that here is a new organization which has been created which has not been given a charter of only collecting intelligence. The intelligence would flow from the existing intelligence organizations and this body would have the powers to conduct searches and also carry out arrests without the consultation of the state machinery. This I think must be worrying the state governments. The NCTC would be working under the Intelligence Bureau and in effect what would happen is that it becomes an arm of the intelligence collection agency. Now here is a deadly cocktail where one collects intelligence which is in the first place a hush hush affair. Then the same is analysed, evaluated and then the agency proceeds to carry out an arrest. If one needs to deal with terrorism then it may appear to be a very effective approach. However it could be dangerous as well considering the sweeping powers this agency has been given. Effectively you could be creating another ISI. This body has been bestowed with nation wide powers and such activity is carried out without consultation with the states. Here is where the issue begins as this is not what is prescribed under the running of a federal set up. In such a scenario there would be no checks and balances. Take the CBI for instance which is being used more often than not for political purposes. An NCTC as long as it is used for national security purposes it is fine. The big question arises what if it is not?

There is a grave need to study the powers of this body and also ensure that the states are kept in the loop to a large extent. The other debate to the kind of powers that the NCTC has been given could be understood when we take into account a 26/11 attack. Bit and pieces of information was shared, but did Maharashtra get their act right. No they failed pathetically. Had there been an NCTC at that time, it is presumed that it would have collected the intelligence, analysed the same before activating itself only to have handled the situation much better.

I do agree that with the formation of the NCTC, the show across the country is being run from New Delhi. If misused then the central government could run riot and shake up the federal set up and also powers that the state governments enjoy. Somewhere along the line there is a need to sit down and work out a compromise. I would say this as this issue is too important for it to be derailed. There is a legal debate too involved in this where the powers of the state governments to handle law and order is concerned. We need to think what the framers of the Constitution analyse? One needs to take into account the current scenario and challenges that were not present at the time our Constitution was framed. Terrorism is not a simple law and order matter and more often than not this crime has no jurisdiction and has inter state and also international ramifications.

While fighting national security we do need to take a lot of factors into account. The federal set up prescribes that the state and union work in tandem and this issue cannot be left out too. We need to think in a cool and calm manner and understand the issue. Address the concerns of the state government have checks and balances but do not dilute it to an extent that it becomes ineffective. However at the end of it one must also keep in mind that if this new entity does not have the powers to operationalise intelligence then what is the use of such a body?

Justice Santhosh Hegde, former Judge, Supreme Court of India: Yes I do think that this would shake up the federal structure of our country. Law and order is a state subject and all laws are under the control of the state. However at the same time the Union Government too has an obligation in this subject. A consensus is the need of the hour and it is sad to note that in this case central diplomacy has been lost. A federal set up mandates that work is carried out in tandem. A central government cannot eat into the powers of the states as this could set a dangerous precendent as the NCTC would be bestowed with sweeping powers to such an extent that it overrides the powers of the state. This is however not the first time that the federal set up is being threatened. Even during the Lokpal issue the same sort of thing happened. The states were not consulted. The basic requirement of a federal set up is that the union government keeps the states informed and everything is done in consultation when it is a subject of national interest.

The Union Government should have called for a meeting of the state governments and the Chief Ministers. There are states which are troubled by terrorism and they would have required central help. When this being the case, there has been a complete lack of diplomacy and a large amount of arrogance on part of the central government. If they forcefully keep their forces in the states then it affects out federal policy. In federalism one needs to take into consideration the views of the partner in this case the partner being the state government. If you try and prove that you are the strongest then it leads to disruption of the federal policy of the state.

I am happy with this new assignment and I am grateful that the Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister have entrusted me with this job, he said when asked. I will focus on my new portfolio and this is an important ministry and I will look to take it forward by doing some very good work.

Moily’s exit from the law ministry was an expected one and as the Supreme Court began to pile on the misery on the Government of India almost all had said that the law minister will be the first target during the re-shuffle. Moily did come across as a person who was interested in judicial reforms and certain statements made by him did indicate the same. However his critics say that they remained mainly statements and even blame him for not being assertive enough when it came to taking hard decisions.

This brings us to a crucial question as to how important is the position of a law minister. Several lawyers point out that it has not been a very high profile ministry but in today’s context when there are more scams than ministers in a government, the position of a law minister becomes extremely important in nature.

Former Law Minister of Karnataka, M C Nanaiah who was the leader of the opposition when Moily was the Chief Minister has this to say about the recent development.

I personally have seen Moily functioning very closely. He lacked a crucial quality and that was to keep his team together. In today’s context, the Law Ministry is a very crucial post. The government is battling many cases and hence a strong law minister is required. The government is going through a very rocky phase as of today and Moily on the other hand had been shooting his mouth off too much which in turn has only angered the government. It looks as though by making this change, the government was looking for a more sane and competent person.

A law minister needs to be an expert and a proper aptitude is required for this post. The statements that are made by a law minister need to carry weight and I would not rate Moily very high. Even during his tenure as the Chief Minister, he did not carry the conviction that was required.

With the government facing the flak of the Supreme Court today, it is the law minister who has to coordinate the law officers and face the court. Today unfortunately for Moily who should have been more pro active it is not the vested interests who have ensured this change, it is his own vested interest which has brought about the change for him.

Just after being changed, Moily had said in New Delhi that no one likes reforms and he was doing everything to introduce a change. A lot of things are the fault of the administrative ministry and it has nothing to do with us. We are only the face in the court, he had also said. However today Moily refuses to comment on all that he had said yesterday and only says that he is looking forward to his new portfolio. My top priority today is to pass a new bill which would replace the  Companies Act. I have to see this bill through and this is a major challenge before me he also added.

Sources in New Delhi however add that the issue is not all that simple. The government found the law ministry to be a completely mismanaged one. There were dual representations in the 2G scam where Gopal Subramainam was concerned and this had led to several conflicts of interest. The ministry has come under fire several times and to add to the head ache the Supreme Court was going hammer and tongs against the Government. In New Delhi they were looking for a man with more aptitude and also who could be more assertive by nature. In Moily they found more of an academic and they were looking for someone more shrewd. Moreover he was also dealing under the shadow of a very pro active former law minister, H R Bharadwaj who on several levels was considered to be the perfect candidate for the post.

Justice Santhosh Hegde, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India says that the duty of the law minister is to advise the government on all matters before the Supreme Court of India. If the Supreme Court has taken up an issue suo motu, it is for the Law Minister to advise the government on how to go about it.

I however will not accept the argument that a law minister has to be a constitutional expert. No person can an expert on all subjects and political and legal personalities are completely different. As a law minister apart from having a fair idea of the law, he needs to be diplomatic. In the case of Moily, I think he has been changed mainly because the government did not find the representation before the Supreme Court effective enough. What Moily ideally had to do was to take stock of the situation and advised the government properly. The cases before the Supreme Court are of supreme importance and it is the job of the law minister to ensure that the government is represented properly before the court.

Like in every action there are two reactions to this incident as well. We speak to former Law Minister of Karnataka, M C Nanaiah and Advocate General, Ashok Harnahalli about the actions of the governor.

M C Nanaiah, former law minister of Karnataka and JD(S) leader: First and foremost the report of the governor is a mere speculation. None of us know for sure what he has written in his letter of recommendation. Looking at the manner in which Karnataka has been governed in the past couple of years, I say that this is a fit case to invoke President’s rule in the state.

Many speak today about the order of the Supreme Court which reversed the order of the speaker disqualifying the 11 rebel BJP MLAs. However look at the Yeddyurappa government and its functioning in the past couple of months. Corruption, scandals and everyone does remember the manner in which they conducted the trust vote the last time. You must also remember the Operation Lotus that they conducted to win over some MLAs from other parties.  It becomes clear that he has had no regard for the provisions of the anti defection law and this amounts to a break down of the constitution. All this just makes one thing clear and that is Yeddyurappa does not want to govern but only wants to protect his chair.

The governor has in the past written several letters to the Chief Minister reminding him about the state of affairs. Has Yeddyurappa changed after these letters? The governor has always had a fit case to suggest imposition of President’s rule in Karnataka and the recent Supreme Court verdict has only come to his rescue.

I know a lot of people are speaking about the Bommai verdict in this context. How can this verdict apply in the instant case? The Bommai verdict does not say anything about a constitutional violation where as the current issue is centric only to that. The Bommai verdict only makes it clear that the strength of the government can be decided only on the floor of the house.

Ashok Harnahalli, advocate general of Karnataka: The Governor has no grounds to suggest imposition of President’s rule in the state. The grounds are not sufficient. In his letter to the government ofIndiahe has gone on to make a series of allegations which range from corruption to horse trading.

The issue of president’s rule comes into play only when the government has lost support or is in minority. The BJP in Karnataka is not in minority. In fact the verdict of the Supreme Court clearly states that the 11 BJP MLAs are part of the government.

The governor has adopted very flimsy grounds. If there is an issue with the numbers then he should convene a session and test the strength of the government. Here he does not even want that session to take place.

Good governance is not the job of the governor. He cannot cite mal administration and he can use the President rule option only as a last resort. In this case where is the break down? If he is speaking about the trust vote conducted a couple of months back then I feel that it is wrong. Not only in Karnataka, but MLAs fight in every assembly and that does not mean you go around dismissing the government.

The governor also goes on to cite the issue of mining and corruption. Where mining is concerned the state has imposed a ban on export and has also told the Supreme Court that it is committed to the cause of stopping illegal mining. Speaking about the corruption charges, then the matter is before the court and it is for the judiciary to decide on that and the governor cannot act suo motu on such an issue when the matter is pending before the court of law.

One must remember that propriety is completely different when compared to statuatory action and the President’s rule must be invoked only if there are proper and satisfactory grounds to do so.