This Article is From Apr 25, 2016

'Destabilising Small States Unacceptable': Sena Attacks Centre On Uttarakhand

On Uttarakhand, Shiv Sena's criticism will worry the government more than the Congress'.

New Delhi: As the Uttarakhand row moved to Parliament today, ally Shiv Sena's criticism will worry the government more than the "killers of democracy" slogans raised by the Congress-led opposition.

The Shiv Sena, which is a partner of the ruling BJP in Maharashtra and at the Centre, has spoken strongly against its use of Article 356 of the Constitution to impose President's Rule in Congress-ruled Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh.

"We are not happy with the imposition of President's Rule. We have been traditionally against the use of Article 356. Using the clause to destabilise governments in small states for power is not acceptable," senior Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut told NDTV.

A prickly ally since it was designated the BJP's junior partner after assembly elections in Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena has also scathingly criticised the Narendra Modi government on its handling of the severe drought in the state. "The PM is a world leader. He addresses 20 rallies in Assam and West Bengal.  Why doesn't he visit Marathwada and see personally the suffering of people?" said Mr Raut

The government has agreed to an Opposition demand to discuss in Parliament the drought that has ravaged 13 states. An ally's note of dissent in such a discussion will be a serious setback.

It can in any case ill-afford contrary allies as it struggles to push key legislation like the Goods and Services Tax bill through the Rajya Sabha or Upper House of Parliament where it is in a minority.

In the 15 Parliament sittings before the Budget session ends on May 13, the government has to ensure least disruption and maximum legislative work.

Those hopes were dashed early today as Parliament reconvened after a long recess, with the Congress ensuring multiple adjournments as it demanded a discussion on Uttarakhand in both houses. The government has argued that the matter is being heard in the Supreme Court and so cannot be discussed just yet.


 
.