A newspaper wrote last week on how the President went back on the signals he had given Home Minister L.K. Advani that he would be willing to go along with the Cabinet's recommendation for dismissal of the Rabri Devi government. A magazine carried the President's side of the story, without attributing it to him, outlining the reasons why he sent back the proposal for the Cabinet's reconsideration.The first item explained the sense of betrayal Advani might have felt and the second gave the President's rationale though not why he changed his mind, if that is what he did. Together, the two reports betray a disturbing trend.The communication between the head of the state and the Prime Minister has, by and large, been kept confidential over the years because the two have to exchange views on a host of issues concerning matters of state which cannot be put down in writing. If these begin to be made public, neither side will feel comfortable about talking to the other. A wariness towards each other can hardlybe a happy development and can create problems in the functioning of the higher echelons of the government.No doubt, the recent controversy has kicked off a fresh discussion about the powers of the President, debated on and off for 50 years. The President's action will make the use of Article 356 that much more difficult except in situations of prolonged riots, financial collapse or insurgency and secession. It has also highlighted the need for a clearer articulation of what constitutes a constitutional breakdown, and stipulated that all the options like a warning to the affected state government must first be exhausted before resorting to this extreme step. The truth is that Article 356 has in almost all the cases been used as a weapon against politically hostile state governments.The disclosures also make for greater transparency about decision-making and this helps to create public opinion which is the most effective check in a democracy. But there is also the issue of the trust between the head ofthe state and senior government functionaries. The Rajiv Gandhi-Zail Singh relations deteriorated because of the breakdown of communications between the two.The first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the first President, Rajendra Prasad, held different views about the powers of the Indian President but their relationship was quite unique. Nehru was clear that power rested in the ministry and the legislature and not in the President, and he made this clear during the Constituent Assembly debates. Prasad, on the other hand, saw his role as more than one of a constitutional head - in the words of his biographer, as "the President of not the Government of India but the people of India". He felt it was his job to keep an eye on the government, ensure no harm came to the nation, and uphold the Constitution.Prasad had raised a hornet's nest by writing to Nehru in September 1951 that he had the right to act outside the advice of the Cabinet. His missive was sent in the context of the Hindu Code Bill,which he opposed on the ground that such a radical measure could not be passed by a provisional Parliament. Tho-ugh he retreated when faced with adverse legal opinion (but by then widespread resistance had forced shelving of the Bill), he reopened the debate in 1960 about the powers of the President.Prasad used to insist on being kept informed about details of government and Nehru used to apprise him of the developments on a weekly basis.It was his custom to call on the President at 9 a.m. every Monday. Once Nehru protested to the President that his letter about the Hindu Code Bill was being discussed by journalists at 1 p.m., though it reached the Prime Minister only at 3 p.m. Prasad got the matter looked into and wrote to the Prime Minister that the letter marked `Top Secret' had not been leaked to the Press by his secretariat but admitted that he had talked about it to three ministers.As the Congress lost ground in the mid-sixties, Indira Gandhi began to use the office of Governor as a politicalinstrument and the presidential candidates she plumped for were chosen for their loyalty more than anything else. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signed on the dotted line though the Cabinet had not approved the move to impose the Emergency.The 42nd Amendment of the Constitution circumscribed the President's powers by laying down that he is bound by the advice of the Cabinet. The 44th Amendment by the Janata government changed it only to the extent of allowing him to send back a proposal once for the Cabinet's reconsideration.There is now a growing opinion that the President is meant to be more than just a British monarch signing on the dotted line, though he is not meant to be a rival power centre to the Prime Minister. Even Nehru subscribed to this view and K.R. Narayanan reflected it when he talked about being a "working President".For, unlike the British monarch, the Indian President is elected, can be impeached, has the powers to appoint the Prime Minister and dissolve the Lok Sabha without therecommendation of the Cabinet and the functions of Parliament are not complete without his seal of approval.It is clear that he is required to exercise much influence, even as the area of his powers remains grey. This calls for a relationship of immense trust between him and those heading the government and for both to demonstrate qualities of statesmanship and a largeness of heart. This is even more necessary now than in the past, with the country in a state of political flux. That is why the disclosures in relation to Bihar create a sense of unease.
