HVK Archives: The berate dictator
The berate dictator - The Telegraph
Sunanda K. Datta-Ray
()
10 May 1997
Title : The berate dictator
Author : Sunanda K. Datta-Ray
Publication : The Telegraph
Date : May 10, 1997
It is not every day that formal charges are framed against a former prime minister
of the world's biggest democracy It is not every day either that allegations of a
massive scandal hang like the sword of Damocles over the head of the president of
the ruling coalition's dominant partner. Change is implicit in every moment. Yet,
we may be moving towards some sort of watershed, providing we recognize the signs
and learn the right lessons from them.
Neither aim will be achieved if anyone tries to short cut the evolutionary process
with a pre-emptive coup. This is why T.N. Seshan's ambition to "play an
outstanding role to guide the country" must be firmly discouraged.
As it is, many contrary trends are beginning to surface. Political plurality to
take a constructive view of the election results - is bound to transfer to the
states some of the powers that the Centre has so far enjoyed. The Congress
coalition is fracturing along regional, not ideological, fault lines. The Supreme
Court is emerging as a militant guardian of what it regards as national norms and
values. The Central Bureau of Investigation gives every indication of acquiring a
life of its own, even when its acts are denounced for favouring (or penalizing)
particular targets. The criminalization of politics makes it impossible to tell
where the world ends, and the underworld begins.
With so many imponderables, we can do without an activist president, thank you.
What we need is not so much superego as balance and harmony, and a workable
compromise between the "consecrated obstruction" (the term used for England's
interventionist George III) and the concept of "roi faineant," literally King
Do-nothing.
No one can predict what the polity will look like eventually, but the clamour for
a smack of firm government by some man on a white horse to rescue the country from
chaos and corruption is not surprising. The notion of the Westminster system
disguising an executive presidency - necessarily clandestine since it will be
without constitutional sanction - will appeal most to these faint hearts.
But there is nothing wrong with his song. If fault there is, it lies in the
singer The singer will remain the same even if the Constitution is bent and
twisted to satisfy the vanity of a civil servant who is guilty of the unforgivable
folly of identifying his own ambition with the nation's well being.
The presidential office is embroiled in enough controversy as it is. Conceptual
friction goes back to the roots of our republic. When Rajendra Prasad suggested to
the constituent assembly that the president was not bound to accept the advice of
the council of ministers, B.R. Ambedkar replied: "If he does not accept the advice
of the existing ministry he shall have to find some other body of ministers to
advise him. He will never be able to act independently of the ministers."
Initially, this was a matter of convention. With his reverence for British
institutions, and seeing the presidency as analogous to the British crown,
Jawaharlal Nehru felt that any stated limitation on the head of state's authority
would be derogatory to his dignity.
Lacking her father's sensitivities, Indira Gandhi made explicit what was
previously implicit. Though Morarji Desai undid much of the mischief of the 42nd
amendment, the 44th amendment left untouched the curbs on the president.
But ambiguity persists. Does the president's commitment to "preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution and the law" mean he alone is the custodian of those
undefined "basic features" of the Constitution that, according to the Supreme
Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case, no Parliament can change? If so, it would
give him a permanent watching brief over the council of ministers. The oath
binding him "to the service and well-being of the people of India" might also
imply a mandate that is independent of the government.
To further complicate matters, the prime minister and council of ministers hold
office during the president's "pleasure". No one has yet pronounced conclusively
whether the president can withdraw his "pleasure" even if the prime minister
enjoys a majority in Parliament.
Finally, Article 78b gives the president an undeniable right to call for
information. But as became evident when Zail Singh tried to obtain the Thakkar
commission's report, and details of the Bofors and German submarine purchases, the
right is unenforceable. Successive British monarchs have tried with similar lack
of success to obtain information on the honours that their prime ministers bestow
- or sell In both cases, the head of state has discovered he has no coercive
measures at his disposal to force the head of government to divulge information he
does not want to.
A mismatch of politics and personality compounded the incipient conflict. The
very first presidency was born in controversy Nehru wanted C. Raiagopalachari but
Vallabhbhai Patel and his allies carried the day and Prasad was installed in
Rashtrapati Bhavan. Yet, all the differences between Nehru and Prasad, Desai and
N. Sanjeeva Reddy and Rajiv Gandhi and Zail Singh, to say nothing of Indira
Gandhi's stratagems to get the maverick V.V. Giri elected, might pale into nothing
compared to the storms to come.
If he succeeds, Seshan will be the only incumbent other than Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan, not to be formally baptized in the rough and tumble of party
politics. But this might make his ascendancy all the more dangerous for the
political equilibrium. In spite of never having been in party politics, he is far
more a political animal than many practising politicians.
Second, an accretion of power by a Rashtrapati Bhavan that is seemingly neutral
and seemingly above the fray might. seem attractive to lay people. Incorrectly
diagnosing our problems as systemic, many Indians would welcome the discomfiture
of directly elected leaders. Nothing could be more calamitous for long term
political stability
All this creates a delicate situation that can be resolved only through
understanding and goodwill. Our Constitution is different from that of the United
States which expects the president, congress and supreme court to act as brakes on
each other. Ironically, this triangular system of checks and balances was
introduced because, having suffered at the hands of the famous "consecrated
obstruction" the obtuse George III - the Americans did not want again to be
saddled with an elected tyrant. Our Constitution does not envisage the same kind
of formal curbs on the prime minister. But in a more subtle way the president and
the Supreme Court do serve that purpose.
However, it would be self defeating for either to be overtly interventionist. That
would be against the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. In practice, it
would precipitate a gridlock. Even if a public that is disgusted with the antics
of some of our politicians initially welcomes an activist president, murmurs are
bound to arise sooner or later The president reigns,, he has no mandate to rule.
If he does take on that illegal responsibility there would be no legitimate means
of seeking redress from his dictatorship. Happily for India, the method of
selecting the president gives an outsider very little chance of making it.
Regeneration can come only from the political grassroots, from the sweat and toil
of mobilizing the forces of goodness in the country, not from the lonely splendour
of Rashtrapati Bhavan whose beguiling trappings of power can go to the head of
even a modest man. India, one hopes, will be recast in the crucible of experience
to strengthen a system that reflects the democratic consensus. If that consensus
demands that a former head of government be brought to trial, then so be it.
But such a revolutionary event can only be justified if it cleanses the process.
If it stops short of that, people will put it down to political vendetta
Back
Top
|
