There was not much doubt that the Barnala ministry in Punjab would survive the no-confidence motions tabled against it by the breakaway Akalis headed by Mr. Badal and the Bharatiya Janata party. Its survival was assured by the support the State Congress legislature party was bound to extend to it. There was considerable speculation about this support in view of the disenchantment with the Barnala government’s record among the Congress leaders in Chandigarh as well as New Delhi. But this speculation was misplaced. Despite its disillusionment, the Congress leadership had to back the Punjab chief minister on two counts. First, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi does not yet wish to take over the administration of Punjab and there are good reasons for it. Secondly, he has nothing to gain by replacing Mr. Barnala with another Akali. This would not have been the case if Mr. G.S. Tohra was not bound to dominate any set-up that emerges in Chandigarh as a result of the removal of Mr. Barnala and the consequent reunification of the two Akali factions. Mr. Amrinder Singh, leader of the Akali legislature party (Badal), may protest that Mr. Tohra is not the sole spokesman of the breakaway Akalis and that Mr. Badal’s and his own politics is very different from Mr. Tohra’s. But all that must lack conviction in view of Mr. Tohra’s track record of outwitting all Akali leaders and his recent return to the highly influential office of president of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. All in all, the State Congress legislature party’s backing was assured for Mr. Barnala. New Delhi might at some later date decide to dismiss Mr. Barnala. But that would be a different affair.
In view of this reality on the ground, it is not quite clear why the Badal group initiated the no-confidence motion. Perhaps it expected to force a split in the ruling Akali Dal. Perhaps Mr. Barnala arrested Mr. Tohra and Mr. Badal in order to deny the no-confidence the necessary support – 23 MLAs had to endorse it in order that it be debated in the house. It is not possible for us to say whether this was in fact the case or whether a discussion on the no-confidence motion would have exposed the lack of unity in the Barnala ranks. The operative word is “exposed”. For it is public knowledge that some of the ministers themselves are not in reality supporters of Mr. Barnala. Indeed, only recently he had to remove two ministers on that account. But all that does not quite clinch the issue. For it does not necessarily follow that some members of the ruling Akali Dal would have voted for the no-confidence motion if it had been tabled and debated. That is, however, one side of the story, the other being that Mr. Barnala can derive little comfort from the fact of his survival, since his ranks remain as incoherent as ever, and the law and order situation as precarious as ever.