When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. These words were spoken by Cersei Lannister, a central character of the phenomenal TV series Game of Thrones. Replete with twists and betrayals at every turn, no character is safe in this show. You never know who is on which side, and this is true of Indian politics as well. Political leaders tend to serve their own interests first, and those of their parties and constituents second. Throughout the course of history, Indian politicians have been mired in various scandals. Controversy almost always means that there is some form of political involvement.
Sachin Pilot’s revolt against the Indian National Congress party is the latest issue for contention right now. Instrumental to this latest hot topic in Indian politics, is something called the floor test. A floor test is taken to verify whether the elected executive enjoys the support of the legislature. When a party manages to secure a majority in the number of house seats, the governor appoints the leader of the party as the Chief Minister. If any concerns are raised regarding support for the Chief Minister in the house and the party majority is brought into question, then a floor test is conducted. In a situation like that, the leader of the majority party has to take a vote of confidence and prove that he still has majority among those who members of the house who are present and voting. Should the leader fail to secure a majority of votes, then they must resign from their role of Chief Minister. Now as we are aware, a political party leader is appointed Chief Minister only when their party secures majority of the seats in the house. So, it seems obvious that if a floor test is conducted then the leader will secure a majority of votes, since most of the house seats belong to the ruling party. That is how they became the ruling party to begin with. An elected leader will fail the floor test only if members of their own party vote against them. This happens when politicians lose faith in or decide to rebel against their own party. Horse trading is a crucial part of the reason behind members abandoning their party or switching sides to another party. Literally, the term horse trading refers to the buying and selling of horses.
The horse has always been a very important animal in the history of mankind. People rode on horses, used them to drive carriages, used them as beasts of burden and also as a source of meat. It was not very easy to appropriately gauge the value of a horse to get good returns on trades. This opened up various avenues for dishonesty and corruption. In the present day, it is used to refer to various complex bargains and transactions like political vote trading. The horse traders of yore had a reputation for using underhanded and morally dubious tactics to capitalize on their trade and maximize their profits. This is probably one of the main reasons why the expression “horse trading” has now become synonymous with shifting political allegiances and vote trading. There is another expression in Hindi, “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram”, which has a similar interpretation to that of horse trading in politics. This expression is used to refer to the defection of politicians to other parties in Indian politics. This term originated in Haryana in the year 1967, when Gaya Lal, a member of the Indian National Congress, switched sides thrice in two weeks. This triggered a round of serial defections and counter-defections that ultimately led to the dissolution of the Haryana State Legislature, imposition of President’s rule and conduction of fresh elections. An anti-defection law was passed in the year 1985 by the Rajiv Gandhi government as an effort to hinder such defections and subsequent legislature dissolutions in the future.
This law is applicable to both state and Parliament assemblies. Under this law, the Presiding Officer or the Speaker reserves the right to disqualify legislators on grounds of defection. Defection is defined as either voluntary relinquishment of party membership on the part of a legislator or going against the directives of the party leadership during a vote. The latter part includes abstinence or voting against the party. However, this does not mean that legislators are powerless in the face of leadership. Should the decision of the party leader be unacceptable by a large portion of the party, legislators can change or leave their political party, or even merge into another party without running the risk of disqualification. The requirement for this is that two-thirds of the legislators must be in favor of going against the leadership. As mentioned briefly in the beginning of the article, Sachin Pilot’s resignation from the Indian National Congress is the news of the hour now. He was the deputy Chief Minister of Rajasthan and a prominent member of the Indian National Congress political party. Over the course of the last year and a half, Mr. Pilot was repeatedly sidelined by the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot. As deputy Chief Minister, Mr. Pilot was responsible for handling the Public Works Department (PWD), Panchayati Raj ministries and rural development. Six Members of Legislative Assembly belonging to the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) defected to the Congress party last year. Mr. Pilot was the president of the Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee or the PCC during that time. The PCC is an elected committee that is in charge of directing the Congress Party at the state level. Each state has its own PCC.
The six aforementioned BSP members joined the Congress Party in the presence of Chief Minister Gehlot. As president of the PCC, Mr. Pilot should have been kept in the loop regarding this incident. But he was deliberately excluded from the process by Chief Minister Gehlot. This was the first time when the Chief Minister asserted himself within the party, sidelining Mr. Pilot. But it did not stop here. A three-day celebration was planned in December to celebrate the completion of one year of the government. A special booklet highlighting the achievements of the government was printed, which had no mention whatsoever of Mr. Pilot or his achievements anywhere. When he took to social media to make his grievances known to the masses, Chief Minister Gehlot forbid any advertising in the newspapers without approval from the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO). The latest in a series of such incidents was when Mr. Pilot was not included in a core team put together by the government to handle the coronavirus pandemic. It’s not just Sachin Pilot who has been on the receiving end of routine dismissive behavior at the hands of the Chief Minister. Other cabinet ministers who supported Mr. Pilot have complained of being mistreated by the bureaucracy of their own party. The turning point came when a Special Operation Group (SOG) of the Rajasthan Police, formed by the government, served Sachin Pilot with a notice of inquiry.
The SOG was convened to investigate a conspiracy to destabilize the government after the elections, when the Congress party blamed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of trying to poach Congress party members. For Sachin Pilot, this was the last straw, who finally decided to resign his position. He asked for a floor test to prove that the Chief Minister no longer enjoys majority in the house, which hasn’t been held yet. As is evident from such incidents, the regulation and control of anti-defection laws is very complicated and full of loopholes waiting to be exploited. Having no control over defection and allowing legislators to switch sides at will can result in the dissolution of an elected government, as shown by the Gaya Lal incident in Haryana. On the other hand, putting a tight leash on legislators and completely banning defections can be counter-productive. Party members who have been exploited and suffered at the hands of the party leadership and bureaucracy like Sachin Pilot would be denied any justice.
A law such as this is a double-edged sword, open to interpretation. It can be used as a system of checks and balances to keep the party leadership from making poor decisions, or it can be exploited by corrupt politicians to engage in vote trading for their personal gains, leading to catastrophic outcomes. Of course in politics, everything becomes a tool to gain the upper hand over your rivals. However, processes like the floor test try to ensure fair parliamentary proceedings and minimize the instances of political horse trading. Only time will tell how well the anti-defection law has been devised and implemented. The jury’s still out on this one.
