NEW DELHI: Though home minister Sushilkumar Shinde clarified that the
Centre as yet had no intention to take over the reins of the Andhra
Pradesh government, this remains a probable scenario because of the
alleged complicity of chief minister Kiran Kumar Reddy in the Seemandhra
agitation opposing the decision to carve out Telangana with Hyderabad
as its capital.
If Article 356 is invoked now, it will be the second time that the state will come under what is popularly but misleadingly called President's rule due to an agitation in the Seemandhra districts.
The first time was way back in January 1973, when chief minister P V Narasimha Rao was forced to step down because of the "Jai Andhra" agitation.
Ironically, it was then the people of the coastal districts who were demanding bifurcation of the state, in a reaction to the concessions secured by the "Jai Telangana" movement.
But then, given the titular nature of his office, the very idea of 'President's rule' is ironic. Since the President anyway does not himself rule, it would have been more appropriate to call it Central rule if at all the term rule is to be used. It is not without significance that the term "President's rule" does not figure in Article 356.
The implication of this emergency provision is simply that the governor, who is pejoratively referred to as "the agent of the Centre", runs the state government, with the help of "advisers" appointed by New Delhi.
Loosely speaking, the governor assumes the role of the chief minister and his advisors are, like ministers, entrusted with different portfolios.
One school of thought is that even the term "rule" is anachronistic in a democracy where the people are the sovereign and, therefore, the executive is directly accountable to people's representatives in the legislature, whether at the Centre or in the states. In this perspective, it would be more appropriate to refer to governments administering territories as "service" or "seva" rather than rule
If Article 356 is invoked now, it will be the second time that the state will come under what is popularly but misleadingly called President's rule due to an agitation in the Seemandhra districts.
The first time was way back in January 1973, when chief minister P V Narasimha Rao was forced to step down because of the "Jai Andhra" agitation.
Ironically, it was then the people of the coastal districts who were demanding bifurcation of the state, in a reaction to the concessions secured by the "Jai Telangana" movement.
But then, given the titular nature of his office, the very idea of 'President's rule' is ironic. Since the President anyway does not himself rule, it would have been more appropriate to call it Central rule if at all the term rule is to be used. It is not without significance that the term "President's rule" does not figure in Article 356.
The implication of this emergency provision is simply that the governor, who is pejoratively referred to as "the agent of the Centre", runs the state government, with the help of "advisers" appointed by New Delhi.
Loosely speaking, the governor assumes the role of the chief minister and his advisors are, like ministers, entrusted with different portfolios.
One school of thought is that even the term "rule" is anachronistic in a democracy where the people are the sovereign and, therefore, the executive is directly accountable to people's representatives in the legislature, whether at the Centre or in the states. In this perspective, it would be more appropriate to refer to governments administering territories as "service" or "seva" rather than rule
No comments:
Post a Comment