The separation of the TDP, the National Conference and the Assom Gana Parishad from the United Front is a matter of concern to the secular forces in the country. because on separation they have, in fact, walked into the BJP's parlour. The quid pro quo may not be in the public domain for some time, but in the present stage of our national politics, it would not be unfair to conclude that the leaders of these Parties have been actuated not by national interests but by personal considerations. For example, it has been well known that Dr Farooq Abdullah, the President of the J&K Conference, would like his son, a first-timer to be a member of the Council of Ministers just as three other sons of three other State Chief Ministers have become. If three 'sons' are rising, why not the fourth?
But, this is for the Prime Minister Vajpayee to ponder over. What is important is that in rationalising their decision, the Chief Ministers of J&K and AP have taken shelter behind their concept of serving the interests of their respective States. The Constitution lays down the functions, duties and responsibilities of the Union and the States. It is envisaged that the Union may be governed by a Party or Alliance different from the one in a given State. The relationship between the Centre and the States is not personal but a constitutional relationships. Whatever be the political complexion of the two, they must be guided at all times by the Constitution. If under the existing rules a State merits a certain quantum of Central allocation, no Union Government can deny it to that State. Similarly, no Union Government cannot intervene within the Constitutional jurisdiction of the State as defined by the List II, of the Constitution. This extra-Constitutional argument, therefore, is a very dangerous argument and hits at the very root of Indian federalism.
It is possible that the State Governments are apprehensive of many a skeleton tumbling out of their cup-boards because the protective hand of the United Front has been withdrawn and they are taking pre-emptory action in order that the skeletons remain where they are. In this they might succeed because BJP is prepared to pay any price to stay in power.
As far as J&K is concerned, the stance of Dr Farooq Abdullah is a matter of national concern because his Government is bound to lose credibility in the eyes of the Kashmiri people for his 180 degree shift from the demand for complete autonomy and return to 1950, to collaboration with those who are totally opposed to the very concept of special status for the State. Disenchantment is bound to reignite the smouldering ashes of insurgency.
In any case, why should the two Chief Ministers who were regarded as the pillars of secular order provide a fig leaf to cover the communal character of a party which has not abandoned its philosophy of Hindu nationalism.
