Mrs. Gandhi has gone to Assam to canvass support for her party candidates. But she should utilize her presence there to assess for herself whether anything worthy of being called an election can be held in the state at all. The central election commission, too, can undertake a similar review. We cannot and do not wish to anticipate the Prime Minister and the CEC’s conclusions. But we do feel that a situation has arisen which calls for an agonizing reappraisal.
The case for pressing ahead with the poll is well known. Indeed, we ourselves have accepted it. To begin with, the main argument in favour of ordering an election despite opposition by the All-Assam Students’ Union and the Gana Sangram Parishad was that under the existing provisions of the Constitution, it was not possible to keep the state under president’s rule for more than one year, that this period was about to expire and that opposition parties had refused to support the government’s proposal to amend the Constitution suitably. Since then, another argument has got added to it, which is that if the authorities were to surrender to violence in Assam, they will be setting up a dangerous precedent.
There is considerable merit in both these propositions. In fact, that is precisely why we supported the move to go ahead with the poll. But neither argument is really foolproof. The first because a closer examination of events since last November will show that the government itself was not too serious about amending the Constitution. And the second, because Assam is a unique case, the central issue there being not the level of violence but the magnitude of support which the call for the boycott of elections commands. In conformity with their professions the AASU and GSP should have demonstrated this support peacefully on the polling day. Deserted booths would have been a far more eloquent testimony to the resentment of the Assamese people than guns and bombs can ever be. But the violence cannot detract from the fact that there is very strong opposition to the poll in Assam.
It would appear that when the central authorities finally decided to order the election in Assam, they calculated that if they succeeded, the AASU and GSP would become more amenable to reason. We do not know whether they anticipated the present level of violence and its possible long-term consequences for the future of not just Assam but the whole of the north-east. Perhaps they did and felt that the risk was worth taking. In that case, they are not likely to be discouraged. Any way, they can now argue that if they agree to defer the poll at this stage, they will have ensured that the agitators will become wholly intransigent.
But there is the other side of the story. Already, there can be little doubt that the extremists in the agitation’s leadership have come to the fore. As such, the possibility cannot be ruled out that if New Delhi goes ahead with the election, the extremists will take over the agitation. The Indian army, if not para-military forces, will perhaps be able to dispose of such a challenge. But it can continue to fester and create a level of bitterness and alienation which may not be easy to overcome.
We understand that 20 to 25 constituencies are so badly disturbed that it will not be possible to hold anything like a genuine election there. We do not know what the level of Assamese participation in the other constituencies is likely to be. But if it turns out to be well below 50 per cent, say around 25 per cent, the resulting legislature and government will not be able to claim legitimacy and will, therefore, lack the moral authority to manage the affairs of the state. Whatever Mrs. Gandhi’s advisers may have believed and told her, it will be very surprising indeed if the AASU and the GSP leaders, whoever they are in the new situation, will be willing to open a dialogue with a state government produced by the proposed election.
New Delhi faces a cruel choice in Assam. It will run serious risks whether it decides to go ahead with the poll or to defer it. But it must be willing to weigh the risks once again and decide which course is less risky on balance. It must not stand on false prestige. Democratic regimes do not invoke force while dealing with their own people.