Power play

Gone is the practice dating back to Nehruvian times of the Prime Minister briefing the President on all important matters of the State on a weekly basis. Even though the incumbents at Rashtrapati Bhavan were Congressmen loyal to Indira Gandhi during her premiership, she observed these courtesies. There was a breakdown between the two constitutional authorities during Rajiv Gandhi8217;s tenure and a controversy raged whether the then President, Zail Singh,had the powers to dismiss him. Rajiv refused to call on the President and had even put off a cabinet expansion for that reason.

It is not clear why Atal Behari Vajpayee did not apprise the President about what the government proposed to do. The government8217;s logic that the NDA8217;s intentions were clear in its manifesto would absolve the PM of keeping the President informed on many matters. After all, he can always read about what the government is doing or intends to do in the newspapers.

At the same time, it is equally strange that the President did not convey to the Prime Minister his strong reservations on the issue, either orally or in a letter, before expressing his views publicly.

Then there is the issue of the President8217;s right to question something mandated by the people by virtue of its inclusion in the manifesto, on the basis of which the ruling group won an election. That argument holds only up to a point. Hypothetically speaking, if a party advocates, say, something like the abolition of thejudiciary and manages to win an election, should the President accept it quietly?

The President has a right to caution the government and if he is not going to do it about issues involving the Constitution, which he is supposed to uphold, what is he there for?

But the President going public is justified only after he has exhausted all other avenues and the government refuses to give his words the importance they deserve. If the Prime Minister and the President start to debate policy publicly, it would only confuse the country. Open differences of opinion can also go to unsettle the political situation.

The first President, Rajendra Prasad, used to shoot off letters to Nehru on a host of issues. He advised the Prime Minister against a plebiscite in Kashmir; he changed the protocol order bringing the Vice-President into the number two position in place of the PM; he argued against large Cabinets; cautioned him on the use of Article 356 in Andhra Pradesh in 1954; he even recommended changes in his addressto the joint session of Parliament decided by the government. All this, however, was done in private, except once when in a famous and controversial speech at Delhi8217;s Law Institute he talked about the need to reconsider the powers and limitations of the President.

Last fortnight, the Prime Minister and the President virtually contradicted each other publicly, one speaking after the other, from the same platform. And the occasion was meant to commemorate 50 years of the Constitution. They read from printed speeches which had been distributed to MPs attending the function. If it is true, as is being claimed, that the Prime Minister8217;s Office had no idea about what the President was going to say, it is a cause for even greater concern.

It is an open secret that a communication gap has existed not just between the President and the Prime Minister but also between secretaries looking after their work. The President8217;s secretary had complained that the cabinet secretary did not even bother to reply to hisnotes.

There is nothing wrong with an exercise to have a fresh look at the Constitution after 50 years. The trouble stems from the suspicion with which opposition parties and the President have viewed it. Many parties fear that the BJP led government will try and replace the parliamentary form of government with a presidential model in the future. Since the NDA does not have the requisite two-thirds majority to push through any amendments to the Constitution, they suspect the BJP of getting ready with its next election plank. Had the government taken the Opposition into confidence, this may not have happened. As it turns out, the exercise has made light of the Prime Minister8217;s word, humiliated a former President, united the Opposition, and diluted the terms of reference, which in any case should have been evolved in consultation with all parties.