Loyalty versus consensus
By Kuldip Nayar
Satureday,June 23,2007
LETTER FROM NEW DELHI
INDIA’S president is a ceremonial head under the constitution. Yet, the office has assumed so much importance over the years that no political party, particularly the ruling one, can afford to have an indifferent, much less a hostile president. Only he has the power to invite a party to form the government and it doesn’t need to be the largest.
This situation has arisen because there has not been a single party that was able to secure a majority in parliament in the last two decades and none looks like it will have one over the next two decades. The president will continue to be an arbiter. With the general elections in 2009, this may well be the reason why Congress is insistent on having its loyal member Pratibha Patil at Rashtrapati Bhavan when there could be unanimity on President Abdul Kalam.
Another clout which the office of president has come to acquire is the power to dismiss state governments. The constitution’s Article 356 authorises the president to take over the administration of a state in case of a “failure of constitutional authority”. He and his nominee, the state governor, are judges. Pronouncements of failure have been on dubious grounds. Often the party or coalition at the centre has dismissed governments of the opposition in states for political reasons. The president’s concurrence is essential and hence the anxiety of the Congress to have its own person.
Incidentally, the president has dismissed state governments nearly 95 times since independence, beginning with the ouster of a communist government in Kerala during Jawaharlal Nehru’s rule. Nehru, however, saw to it that the constitution-makers did not give the president the authority to take over the government at the centre. Even when a government loses a vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha, a caretaker government is in charge, not the president. This has stalled dictatorship in India.
There is yet another crucial power the president enjoys. He can withhold assent to a bill passed by parliament. President Zail Singh returned the postal bill which authorised the government to intercept private mail. The government could have re-endorsed the bill in the cabinet whereby the president would have been bound to give his assent. But this did not happen because of wide public protests.
These considerations have led political parties to propose their candidate for succeeding Kalam who finishes his five-year term this July. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the Congress and supported by the Left, has nominated Pratibha Patil, the National Democratic Front (NDA), led by the BJP, Vice-President Bhairon Singh Sekhawat, and the Third Force (United National People’s Front), President Kalam for a second term.
The Congress was the first to make the announcement which, to say the least, poured cold water on general expectations for a tall person. A party which at one time mentioned the name of its stalwart, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, had only the unknown Pratibha Patil to field.
I have no doubt that India will bring laurels to womanhood when it elects Pratibha Patil. All those who have welcomed her candidature because she is a woman will feel gratified on her victory. Strange, the UPA should highlight the gender angle. Surely, there is more to the office of the president.
I have met Pratibha Patil as Rajasthan governor. I have found her simple, austere and clad in khadi from head to toe. However endearing these qualities, the country is looking for the next president, not for the chairperson of a khadi board or social welfare organisation. And the manner in which the UPA and the Left came to arrive at the name does no credit to those selecting it.
When Home Minister Shivraj Patil was not acceptable to the Left for his “soft Hindutva views”, CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechuri suggested a woman. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, apparently at the nod of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, mentioned Pratibha Patil’s name. CPI leader Bharadan said that he had known her to be a good person. The name was finalised then and there.
Unfortunately, the president’s election has got mired in politics and controversy. The office enjoys so much respect that it should never be subjected to voting which may vitiate the atmosphere and divide the nation. Whether it was the BJP’s googly, or a desperate move to stall the person who has unflinching loyalty to Sonia Gandhi, the result was a pleasant surprise. The name of Kalam came to the fore. Practically, all parties, except the UPA-Left combination, rallied behind him.
Kalam is a tried hand, non-partisan, above communal and provincial pulls. His popular rating is over 90 per cent as the response to the surveys conducted by TV networks indicates.
True, the name figured almost towards the end. This was because the two main parties had their own candidate. He could either be a consensus candidate or not in the race at all. Even after knowing that Kalam’s election can be unanimous, Sonia Gandhi went ahead with the filing of Pratibha Patil’s nomination. If Sonia can get a Congress member as the president, why should she have a person who was the choice of the Third Front and the NDA?
But this is not the point. What matters is a unanimous choice. The biggest argument in favour of Kalam — and it is a weighty one — is that he is acceptable to all in the opposition, including the BJP which is not known for favouring Muslims. In Kalam, the nation has a known personality. Nehru selected Rajendra Prasad, Radha Krishnan and Zakir Hussain, all towering personalities, for the office. The name is important because the president must be well-known and one who is respected and trusted by the people.
The contest can also be messy and uncertain. The electoral college has a little more than a million votes comprising the elected members of parliament and the state legislatures. The UPA-Left commands a little less than half a million votes. With Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party, the vote goes up to more than half a million, clinching the election of Pratibha Patil.
But since there is no whip allowed for presidential polls and balloting is secret, cross-voting cannot be ruled out. This happened when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi fought against the Syndicate, the old guard in the Congress, and opposed the party’s official candidate Sanjiva Reddy.
V.V. Giri, the independent candidate, supported by Mrs Gandhi, won on the vote of second preferences. The Congress cannot take Pratibha Patil’s election for granted. However belated, the effort to have Kalam is a step eminently worth cherishing and pursuing — and defending to the last ditch because it can avert a fierce, divisive contest. The nation will emerge more cohesive and more united.
The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/23/op.htm#2