Krishan Kant brings in era of gentlemen-leaders

It shows that for all the fixers who stalk the corridors of power today, there is a still a premium on honesty in public life. And this should be a message to all aspiring to these positions.

No doubt Inder Kumar Gujral, K R Narayanan and now Krishan Kant are beneficiaries of a three way split in the 1996 electoral mandate, nevertheless their image was a decisive factor in their selection. In fact not an insubstantial number of Gujral’s problems stem from the fact that his sideling of powerbrokers have led to their joining hands to retaliate.The unleashing of social forces by the Mandal decision and the increasing politicisation of the scheduled castes made it very difficult to stop the elevation of Narayanan. But it is also a fact that Narayanan was selected by the Congress leadership for Vice-Presidentship in 1992 in preference to B Shankaranand and Margatham Chandrashekhar, who were considered for the post. His reputation and scholarship helped.

It is indubitably a pride for Indian democracy that someone born in the humblest of homes can occupy the country’s highest seat. That a socially ostracised Dalit can make it shows that the logic of numbers has overtaken prejudice of centuries, and that is what change is all about. The political class, which was not prepared to accept Jagjivan Ram in 1977 has now installed Narayanan. Even an upper caste dominated party like the BJP has accepted Mayawati.

Indira Gandhi had also wanted Jagjivan Ram as President before the party nominated N Sanjiva Reddy. But Ram’s name was shot down by four out of seven members of the Congress Parliamentary Board at the time. In 1977, Charan Singh blocked Ram and opted for Morarji Desai though he disliked him.

The President is a symbol of India irrespective of diversities within it. This is the note that Narayanan struck soon after he was elected. When asked to comment on Sitaram Kesri’s remark expressing happiness that a Dalit had become President, Narayanan had replied in an attempt to distance himself from only one section, “I am the President.” But surprisingly, his inaugural speech while striking welcome notes against corruption, lacked the subtlety attributed to him. As for Krishan Kant, to borrow the words of a UF leader, it was the weight of his personality that carried him through. Kant is remembered for his impartial role during the crisis which dethroned N T Rama Rao two years ago. Narasimha Rao had told the Congress Parliamentary Party at the time that Kant would not do anything that was not Constitutionally correct.

Kant’s selection has shown up Sitaram Kesri in a new light. For Gujral, who backed Kant’s candidature, was too weak on his own to have swung it without the wholehearted backing of the Congress President.

Kesri was expected to go for someone belonging to the Mandal family to further his politics and one loyal to him to reinforce the impression that it is he who is calling the shots today. But instead he has given importance, in his own words, to `character, image, integrity’ for the post.(Viewed also through the lens of realpolitik, a fair player can be safer than one who is "loyal" today but does a turnaround the next.)A change of guard in Rashtrapati Bhavan gives a new opportunity to assess afresh the challenges the Presidency is likely to face with coalition politics showing signs of staying put in national government.

Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma’s stint in office has thrown up three important issues for debate. There is the ongoing controversy about what the President – and governors – should do in the event of a hung legislature, and whether coalition politics has necessitated an amendment in the Constitution to lay down guidelines for the constitutional head. Sharma went for the established norm, followed both by Sanjiva Reddy and R Venkatraman, of calling the single largest party first when he invited the BJP to form a government in May 1996. Romesh Bhandari did not choose this route in UP, resulting in an unprecedented situation of President’s rule in the State soon after the conduct of elections.

However, where Sharma could be faulted is in handing over the letter to Vajpayee without being reasonably sure that the BJP leader stood a chance of getting a majority. For at the time, the Congress had already made it clear that it would support a secular formation and the United Front stood behind H D Deve Gowda.

Sharma himself is of the view that in addressing hung parliments there exists no general rule since every situation is different. Therefore the subjective discretion of the President cannot be dispensed with.The second area of controversy was the extent to which the President should interfere in executive decisions. As the guardian of the Constitution, he was performing the role expected of the first citizen when he publicly criticised the Government’s inaction after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, or when he refused to append his signature to the nomination of politicians to the Rajya Sabha, sought informally by P V Narasimha Rao and formally by Deve Gowda. But eyebrows were raised when he sought to change the Government’s recommendation of a Vice-Chancellor or a Governor or a Central Vigilance Commissioner.

However, unlike Zail Singh, he kept his relations with the Prime Minister cordial at least ostensibly, and he did not allow his party loyalties to influence his decisions.

The nation’s first President, Rajendra Prasad, too raised dust when he refused to give assent to the Hindu Code Bill. He had also called for a review of Presidential powers, which prompted Ram Manohar Lohia to quip that one way to settle the question was for Nehru to become President and Prasad to become Prime Minister!

The third issue is a tricky one. Sharma’s frequent trips to Tirupati, almost every couple of months, at enormous cost to the exchequer, raise questions of Constitutional propriety. As a citizen he was entitled to practice his faith. But as the head of state of a secular nation, who represents all religions, should the President display his personal preference for his own faith publicly?