A. K. Sinha
University professor and head of department (Zoology), Co-operative College, Jamshedpur

President’s rule is no solution to the present political crisis in the state. If President’s rule is imposed in the state and re-elections are held in the next six months, it is very likely that no political party would get a clear mandate to rule in the state.

There will be a hang assembly again and matters can worsen.

The only way to get rid of these kinds of political crisis is to bring parliamentary reforms where by Independents and small political outfits do not get leverage to de-stabilise governments. A reform committee should be made at the Centre level to chart out the reforms. Educated people should join politics to ensure drastic political changes for the betterment of masses. It hardly matters, whether NDA or UPA forms the next government in the state. People’s woes, if any, would continue to haunt them. Re-election would also impose a burden on the public exchequer.

Ravinder Singh
Industrialist

Imposition of President’s rule in the state would be the wisest action, in case the Munda government fails to prove its majority tomorrow. In the prevailing situation, those in power would tend to increasingly tread on the corrupt road. Like in Bihar, the state could be retrieved from a period of anarchy after a prolonged President’s rule; the same should be followed in the case of Jharkhand.

Rampal Choudhary
Businessman

I think President’s rule is the best option, keeping in mind the political turmoil in the state. It has become a common practice for independent MLAs to threaten the government at every instance. Since the government is dependent on the support of independents and some parties, it is forced to keep everybody in good humour.

This tendency of succumbing to the diktats of independents and allies impedes development and causes corruption. All this will cease when the state is put under President’s rule for some months.

Uma Kameshwari
Advocate

The point of argument is actually what kind of governance will actually be effective? President’s rule in the state may be imposed but for how long can that last. Such an imposed rule will work when there is civil unrest or strife. But the current political crisis is created for vested interest in power. Elections at the cost of public wealth will take place at some time or the other. The mindset of politicians should change, which a President’s rule will not accomplish. The long-term goal should be to correct our style of governance.

The common man actually does not care which party is in power but what it can do for him.

R.K. Jha
Congress Leader

There is no need to impose the President’s Rule as the UPA is in a position to form the government. President’s rule is imposed only after all the options of forming a popular government have ceased. But that is not the case in Jharkhand. I am hopeful that the alternative government formed with UPA’s support will complete its full term. However, it is better for a democracy if one party or a combination wins the majority. But this is not possible in the present context and a coalition government is a reality.

Bibhas Sinha
Advocate

President’s rule must be implemented at once. The set up in the state has crumpled and the present political situation is testimony to the bare facts. The politics in the state have taken an ugly shape and there is no honesty left in leaders who are supposed to run the state.

The state is not being run the way it should be and there is chaos and anarchy everywhere. The system seems to have failed and an emergency should be imposed, without any further ado. The matter has gone out of hand and the money of the public is being squandered uselessly for no rhyme or reason.

Rohit Herenz
A private employee

The government is not stable and there will never be a full majority government. This has become a phenomenon and there can never be stability. If any one party is dissatisfied, it threatens to withdraw support and bring down the ruling coalition. This is an unfortunate thing. Leaders should rise over their personal interests.

Moreover, to bring down a government is easy. However, to have a better government is something that is rarely possible. Under such circumstances, President’s rule in the state is inevitable and should be the order of the day. If that happens, one can expect some respite and will be free from the hassles of an unstable government.

Bryan Barnes
Schoolteacher

The state should never have formed a government. The state was formed in a jiffy and political parties rushed in to cash in on the resources available. There has never been any planning for the welfare of the people. From the very beginning, had the state been declared declared a Union territory,, the basic infrastructure lacking in the region would have been developed. A better option would have been to let the state exist under the President’s rule and allow it time to develop itself. Once things were in place, it could be handed over to elect a government of the people.

Mahitosh Kumar
Grocer

The present political crisis has ripped apart all expectations of the masses. The government has failed and the proposed new coalition will be no better either. Politicians only yearn for power and their chair. As long as they are in office, their motto is to make money for themselves and favour their dear ones.

Under the present circumstances, one still has the faith that if President’s rule is imposed in the state, things will improve and bad practices will be eradicated.

However, this seems to be wishful thinking, as the political parties will bend all rules to form a government for their own good.