The Janata government could not have been more inept in its handling of the anti-defection bill. While it had doubtless consulted opposition leaders on the broad principles underlying the measure, it had not at any time made the text available to them. As such, it was not entitled to claim, as it did in the preamble to the bill, that they had endorsed the proposed legislation. It had been even more cavalier in its attitude towards the dissidents in the Janata party itself. It did not involve them in a meaningful dialogue. And when Mr. Madhu Limaye opposed the measure in its present form at the first available opportunity at the meeting of the executive committee of the parliamentary party last Monday and suggested that its introduction be postponed, he was overruled with the help of the majority that the government commands in that body. It has, therefore, mainly itself to blame for the debacle in the Lok Sabha and the consequent loss of face in the country.
There can also be little doubt that the provision regarding the defiance of the party whip in the proposed legislation is liable to abuse. Since it provides that a member who defies the party whip and is expelled within 30 days on that account, is obliged to give up his seat in the legislature, at can legitimately be argued, as it has been by Mr. Limaye, Mr. Rabi Ray, Mr. S.N. Mishra, Mr. Krishna Kant and others, that it can enable a determined and ruthless leadership to impose its will on the party. Indeed, the provision figured in a similar anti-defection measure which Mrs. Gandhi had got prepared during her tenure of office as prime minister. But it does not follow that the proposed legislation should not have been allowed to be introduced in the Lok Sabha. This was especially so in view of a categorical assurance by the law minister, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, that the Janata Parliamentary Party as a whole would have an opportunity to discuss it and that the measure could be referred to a select committee which, needless to say, would have been free to delete the offending provision. In the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that most of the critics opposed the introduction of the bill because they were determined to embarrass the government.
In a basic sense, these are, however, minor points. The critical issue is whether it is useful to enact an anti-defection legislation at a time like this when the country’s political life is anything but stable and when there is talk everywhere of a realignment of political forces. It may appear cynical to return a negative reply to this question. But it is commonsense to recognise that in a highly fluid and turbulent situation like ours, it is not easy, even possible, to enforce norms which belong to more stable times and countries. As it happens, the bill as it stands already provides for the kind of defections which we have witnessed in Maharashtra from the Congress and the Congress (I) and which we are likely to witness elsewhere, including the Centre, in coming months. It only prohibits individual defections which in any case are not taking place and are not likely to take place on a significant scale in the present context.