Oh, to be President Narayanan

And now, President Narayanan has criticised the relevance of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), Prime Minister Vajpayee’s suggestion for having a fixed tenure for legislatures and his government’s economic policies.

There is no doubt that the gradual decline of the power of Indian prime ministers over recent years, particularly since the advent of the coalition politics at the Centre, has allowed the president a new dominance. This was not the case before. Consider the following: In 1959, President Prasad got an invitation from the then US President Eisenhower to visit his country. The president accepted the invitation and requested the government to make the necessary arrangements. Nehru literally vetoed the request by saying that no useful purpose would be served by such a visit.

On November 28, 1960, President Prasad delivered an address while laying the foundation stone of the Indian Law institute. The gist of his address was that the Indian president had more powers than the British monarch who, for all practical purposes, was a rubber stamp. Copies of his speech were not distributed to either the guests or the members of the press. They were "locked" in the office of the institute; the staff had "strict orders" (from the government) not to distribute them!

Nehru was of the view that conceding the President’s right to exercise independent judgment in certain matters would inevitably limit the authority of the prime minister. So much so that in most cases he did not even inform President Prasad of the appointment of governors and ambassadors; the latter read about them from the morning newspapers.

Those who justify President Narayanan’s actions under the plea that he is a true Nehruite committed to the Nehruvian vision and, therefore, he would never remain a silent spectator to the erosion of liberal, socialist and secular values are simply missing the point. Nehru would never have tolerated a pro-active president. President Narayanan and his supporters are angry at the very concept of the NCRWC — they appear to think the ideas of the drafters of the Indian Constitution are eternal. Let it be recalled that the electorate for the Constituent Assembly was confined to a fraction of the total adult population, the qualifications for the vote being property, education and payment of tax. The mass of the people, the have-nots, was totally unrepresented. In fact, it can be argued that being men of reasonable affluence and education, the drafters of the Indian Constitution were solely concerned with the political rights and civil liberties that were denied to them during the British Raj. Hence, theoveremphasis on fundamental rights, unaccompanied by "duties" to the nation. Hence, too, the inadequate attention to how the country would attain economic prosperity — possible only under a stable polity.

We should welcome debates on how to remove the various ills afflicting our polity. However, instead of looking forward as the changing times require, President Narayanan and his supporters may be accused of looking backwards towards the Constituent Assembly. In the process, they display a mindset that is not very different from those who relish the idea of a "Ram Rajya", the very forces they, ironically, are claiming to fight against.

(The writer is a national fellow at the Indian Council of Historical Research)