A Hallowed Institution That Mirrors The Split Personality Of A Nation
By Jawed Naqvi
26 June, 2007
The DawnFar from having a ceremonial role as originally assigned by the country's constitution, an Indian president in today's coalition era has come to play a decisive role — that of inviting a candidate of his choice to become prime minister. The rules for a hung parliament, a feature of every Indian government since 1989, are generally open to wide interpretation. It was thus that President Shankar Dayal Sharma made a bizarre offer to Atal Behari Vajpayee, after the inconclusive general elections of 1996, to become prime minister for the first time.
He asked Mr Vajpayee to prove a majority which he knew he simply didn't have, nor was he going to have, in that particular Lok Sabha. Naturally, the government fell after a mere 13 days in office. Mr Vajpayee decided that a trust vote would be too embarrassing for his isolated Bharatiya Janata Party to face. And so he resigned without probing his chances in parliament. It is said that those 13 days were used to pore over crucial files in some key ministries where the BJP had its first shy at truly federal power. Moreover, the last day of the 13-day government became an occasion to sign a controversial deal with Enron for a power unit in Maharahstra. The American project continues to be in a mess. Without presidential indulgence all this would not have been possible. By contrast, Rajiv Gandhi, who had many more seats in parliament following the hung verdict in 1989, had declined to take office when it was offered as, in his view, it was
not his mandate to rule. Gandhi was assassinated during his next attempt to gain the elusive mandate in the 1991 elections.But in 1991, P.V. Narasimha Rao, who succeeded him, ran clearly short of a majority. However, he was given a chance to form a government. When the moment for a trust vote came he was allowed to retain power by a momentary parliamentary consensus. Fair enough. But how did Mr Rao respond to the reprieve? Well his party literally bribed a group of MPs from the tribal state of Jharkhand. This enabled him to win not one but several confidence votes that followed, including the government's budgets piloted by Manmohan Singh. This was essentially how India's much touted economic reforms came about, by a parliamentary subterfuge rooted in bribery of MPs who were later convicted by a court and given prison sentences. A more scrupulous president would have pre-empted these charades at the outset. Also without a conniving president Indira Gandhi would not have succeeded in declaring a national emergency in 1975, when civil liberties were suspended and political opponents thrown into jail.
These are some of the possible reasons why the race for India's presidency has become heated and even obnoxious. After all two years from now, if not earlier, there will be general elections with a reasonable chance of returning a messy coalition. It is possible that Congress mascot Rahul Gandhi would be a candidate for the top job against someone daunting, say a candidate of the BJP. The presidency would be absolutely vital in tipping the balance in a close race, or even in interpreting the verdict of a hung parliament. No one wants to take any chances and therefore rival dirty tricks departments are having a field day. India has to elect a new president on July 19. The process involves all MPs and state legislators. The result would be known on July 21.
As happens across much of the world that follows the antics of this grand office of the nation's first citizen, there is a nationwide schizophrenia enveloping India too. It is triggered by the fact that we who heap calumny on a person one day in the name of democratic freedoms are mandated the next day to regard the same quarry as sacrosanct and inviolable because he or she has now become president of the country. You can insult a presidential candidate but not the president because that would be insulting the constitution, a serious offence. The same holds true for the coup leaders in India's neighbourhood, both civil and military, who all are required to be addressed as Excellencies by their foreign interlocutors even though everyone knows they are mere usurpers. And how can we forget that His Excellency the President of the United States continued to enjoy the sobriquet for years after he was found dallying with a young female intern at the White House, an act that nearly got him impeached but ended with a tame apology.
Coming to the elections in India, after President Abdul Kalam removed his name from the race, there are basically two serious candidates left in the fray. The opposition has put up Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, a former police constable (Matric pass), who made it good as a BJP politician. He is vacating his post as India's vice-president to fight the elections as an independent candidate. Why or how a former BJP politician can be deemed an unattached candidate has much to do with the political filibustering that marks this coveted race. Shekhawat's lobbyists include the BJP which says that he has a good chance of winning the office. Given the fact that the ruling coalition's candidate, Mrs Pratibha Patil, has the declared support of more than 50 per cent votes she should be the clear winner, not even needing a second preference count. Shekhawat can, therefore, only win the race if he succeeds in poaching the votes from the ruling coalition's MPs and MLAs. How on earth such a thing could ever be justified in a fair, transparent and accountable democracy is hard to figure out.
On the face of it Patil appears to be as qualified as Shekhawat if not more with a law degree and years of experience as a state minister. More recently she was the governor of Rajasthan. If elected she would be the first woman to hold the office of the president. But she has said somewhere recently that Mughals invaders were responsible for the veil that Hindu women wear. The remark is being interpreted as implicitly communal if also rooted in ignorance.
The ensuing debate was joined by historians, including the renowned Irfan Habib, who noted that instances of seclusion of women in India went back to Mauryan times. He said: "It is silly to talk of the Mughal invasion being the reason for the seclusion of women and introduction of the veil…The seclusion of women was seen even in Mauryan times. It is, in fact, mentioned in Kautilya's Arthashastra. To say it was because of the Mughals is like saying that they brought sati to India, which is absolutely untrue. From someone who is hoping to be president of India, she should have been more careful. After all, she is an educated woman."
Having said that, Prof Habib can do no more than wring his hands in frustration. He is an ideologue of the Left Front that has hailed Patil's candidacy as a great victory for secularism. In any case the alternative is the BJP's Shekhawat. And so yet again the people are getting ready for a bout of political schizophrenia, cheering candidates whose abilities they are so publicly circumspect about.
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top