IN THE HOT SEAT: Lyngdoh (centre) with Tandon (right) and Krishnamurthy

The Narendra Modi Government recommended dissolution of the Gujarat state legislative assembly as far back as July 19. Even so, uncertainty about when the elections will be held persists. Opposition parties contested advancing of the elections, which were due only in February 2003 in the riot-ravaged state. They took their battle to the Election Commission (EC) to explore if it could put off the polls.

Their beseechings have pitchforked the EC into occupying political centrestage-Nirvachan Sadan is preoccupied with receiving delegations arguing for and against quick elections in Gujarat. It is not just political parties who have been calling on the EC; civil rights groups and movie star Sharmila Tagore have also been queueing up at its door. On its part, the commission has seemed only too happy to arbiter the dispute among various parties, asking legal experts in political parties to give their arguments in writing.

MODI VS VAGHELA

Early Headaches Presidential-style contests appear to have become the norm in India, with assembly polls increasingly presented as a straight fight between two chief ministerial aspirants. Even so, few battles are as intense as the one between Gujarat's Chief Minister Narendra Modi (BJP) and Shankersinh Vaghela, president of the Congress state unit. BALANCING ACT: Vaghela (right) is banking on Solanki and Ahmed (left) Election 2002-or 2003, if the EC talks tough (see main story)-is the supreme test for both leaders. Though arch-rivals, they have much in common. For a start, both have to take on internal rivals. Inner-party compulsions are also influencing the caste coalitions Vaghela and Modi are building. Modi's fundamental problem is the Patel community, 18 per cent of the Gujarati vote. Keshubhai Patel, who was replaced by Modi as chief minister in 2001, is decidedly sullen. He turned down a cabinet berth at the Centre recently and has reportedly refused the job of state BJP president as well. Though he denies it-"Of course I will campaign"-Keshubhai's participation in the poll process is still a question mark. Keshubhai is a big name in the Saurashtra region. To offset him, Modi is considering giving tickets to candidates recommended by Pravin Togadia, vhp secretary-general and himself a Patel from Saurashtra. The corollary to this will be a Hindutva-driven BJP campaign. That aside, Modi has to overcome the perception that he is not a team player. He has misgivings about state unit chief Rajendrasinh Rana and spokesman Nalin Bhatt. Some attribute this to the chief minister's ego, others to the fact that the local party functionaries are far junior to Modi and can't match his political skills. The Congress has Patel concerns too. Vaghela has signed a peace treaty with Madhavsinh Solanki, former chief minister, and revitalised the KHAM combination of Khastriya, Harijan, Adivasi and Muslim. Vaghela (Rajput) and Solanki (OBC Khastriya) are old contenders for the same social constituency. They have reportedly got together with the understanding that Vaghela will promote Bharat Solanki, the old man's son. The KHAM alliance-likely to be bolstered by party leader Ahmed Patel's standing among the minorities-is congenitally anti-upper caste, anti-Patel. So the Solanki-Vaghela truce has ruffled the rest of the Congress. Amarsinh Chaudhary, another former chief minister, sees the support for a recent entrant to the party-Vaghela joined the Congress only in 1998-as treachery. Says a Chaudhary aide: "With Vaghela in the saddle, the Congress has a steep climb at hand in the Patel-dominated Saurashtra region. He has also cost us the urban middle class support." Vaghela, like Modi, will probably spend the rest of the year looking over his shoulder. -Uday Mahurkar

To be fair to the anti-BJP parties, the commission was the first to raise hopes that it would stand up to any pressure to advance elections in Gujarat. Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh himself hinted that he was not averse to playing a pro-active role. Certainly, if Modi thought he had presented the EC with a fait accompli on July 19, he had to think again.

Initially, the Congress was reluctant to oppose elections lest it be seen as a defensive move. If it changed its mind, it was with one eye on the Muslim vote-over 10,000 of Gujarat's people still live in refugee camps-and to give the new state Congress President Shankersinh Vaghela (see box) time to settle down.

Whatever the political background, constitutionally the Gujarat election has become a tug-of-war between Article 174 and Article 324. Article 174 specifies that state legislatures have to meet every six months and Article 324 dwells on the superintendence powers of the Election Commission. The BJP insists the EC is bound by Article 174 to hold elections in Gujarat before October 4, since the state assembly last met on April 6. The Opposition, on the other hand, is urging the EC to invoke the superintendence powers vested with it under Article 324 to determine an appropriate time to conduct elections.

"It is not fashionable to agree with the BJP. But let me tell you there is no ambiguity in the Constitution. The six-month deadline is applicable both when the assembly is prorogued as well as when it is dissolved," points out BJP spokesman Arun Jaitley.

Senior counsel and nominated Rajya Sabha MP Fali Nariman almost agrees with Jaitley. "Article 324 does not give the EC the carte blanche to hold elections whenever it deems fit," he says. "You can't read that into the Constitution. The EC cannot go by newspaper reports. Mere violation of human rights also doesn't mean that elections can't be held."

PATEL RAP: Modi's biggest problem is winning over the Patel community

Congress MP Kapil Sibal admits that Article 174 is not exactly irrelevant. "At the same time," he stresses, "these are situations that cannot be decided on specific provisions of the Constitution. To make the Constitution workable it has to be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with democratic principles."

Sibal debunks the BJP's citing of elections in Punjab and Assam in the 1980s. "Those elections are simply not comparable to the Gujarat situation," the lawyer-politician says. "Elections were held in those states to send a message to militants and to the international community."

Legal circles, however, caution that if the EC decides to hold elections after January, there could be a constitutional crisis. The caretaker Government in the state cannot continue beyond six months, that is, beyond January. The Modi ministry will have to step down and President's rule imposed. Can Article 356 be imposed without a "breakdown of law and order"?

Nation

EC'S CHOICE OF ARTICLES ARTICLE 174: "Six months shall not intervene between its (the Assembly's) last sitting in one session and the ... next session." ARTICLE 324: "Superintendence, direction and ... conduct of elections to the legislature shall be vested in the Election Commission."

Nariman points to a precedent: "In 1970, President's rule was imposed in Kerala after the assembly had been dissolved. The caretaker Achutha Menon ministry was forced to resign." In the elections, however, Menon's CPI was voted back to power. Will saffron Modi follow in the footsteps of red Menon?

Maybe he won't have to. BJP sources realise Lyngdoh may prove a sticky customer. They are, however, hopeful he will be outvoted by his colleagues, B.B. Tandon and T.S. Krishnamurthy, and that elections will be held in September-October. For the moment, it's the EC which is in the hot seat.