Author: Shyam Khosla
Publication: The Organiser
Date: February 11, 2001
It is no surprise that President
K.R. Narayanan's stringent criticism of the "consultation papers" released
by the Constitution Review Commission and his totally unwarranted comparison
of the proposal to introduce "indirect" elections to President Ayub Khan's
discredited concept of "Basic democracy" has kicked up a big row. The controversy
has the dangerous potential of souring relations between the elected government
of the day and the head of the state. One is reminded of the unseemly tussle
between President Zail Singh and Rajiv Gandhi that had not only soured
relations between them but also threatened to plunge the country into a
deep constitutional crisis, what with Giani Zail Singh toying with the
idea of dismissing Rajiv Government enjoying a two-third majority in the
Lok Sabha.
PM's dignified silence
If the Presidential remarks in the
course of his address to the nation on the eve of the Republic Day have
not created a constitutional crisis, the credit must go to the restraint
shown by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. His dignified silence has
muted, at least for the time being, public outrage against President Narayanan's
tendency to speak out of turn and at the wrong time. This is not to suggest
that public has not resented President's uncalled for criticism of the
Prime Minister's proposals. An outrageous citizen wrote in a letter to
the Editor of a national daily that President was the prisoner of his past--an
obvious reference to Narayanan's past as a Communist-minded Congressman.
It is no one's case that it is not
the presidential prerogative to caution, warn and advise the Government.
The head of the state has the right, nay the duty, to caution and advise
the Government. But this has to be done in an appropriate manner and at
an appropriate time. No President can afford to forget that he has to act
on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
One might have appreciated President's
sharp remarks if he had exhausted all discreet methods to convey his displeasure
over Government's moves. Or something catastrophic had happened like the
debacle in 1962 when President Radhakrishnan publicly criticised the Government.
Why is the President so disturbed over suggestions contained in the "consultation
papers"? These are not recommendations of the Commission. Only suggestions
made public for getting public response. Will the heavens fall if the Commission
actually make these recommendations? These will go to the Government for
scrutiny and approval and then nothing will happen till Parliament approves
them with two-third majority. No party or alliance has that kind of majority
in either House. That means, there can be no major amendment to the Constitution
till there is a broad consensus among political parties represented in
Parliament. What was the need for the President to pour out his "anguish"
if he didn't intend to embarrass the Government?
These are harsh words. One is most
reluctant to say this about the head of the state. But he leaves one with
no other option. Restraint is the keyword when you are on the top. If you
cross the Laxmanrekha, please, don't expect others to suppress their hurt
feelings. Sorry, Mr President, one hopes you don't take it personally.
But you will do well to follow the norms and resist advice from "fellow
travellers" to say things that lowers the dignity of the office you hold.
Cross-fire among politicians
The Prime Minister may have reasons
to maintain a dignified silence over President's remarks. BJP President
Bangaru Laxman had none. He hit back and rightly so. Former Prime Minister
Chandrashekher did not relish BJP's frontal attack on the President but
urged the constitutional authorities like the President and the Judiciary
to exercise restraint in their public utterances. He also advised political
leaders not to join issues with persons occupying high offices. As usual
the most ridiculous response came from the Congress. An official spokesman
of the party justified the Presidential remarks on the promise that he
was bound to share his concern and caution the nation as he was sworn to
protect the Constitution. The Congress party that initiated most of the
80 amendments to the Constitution during the past 50 years has convinced
itself that a review of the Constitution amounts to "undermining" it. This
is an extension of the obnoxious slogan "Indira is India". Now they want
us to believe that "Congress is India". This exposes the party's Fascist
ideology and undemocratic spirit.
Although one is -not in agreement
with the suggestion that indirect elections to Parliament will reduce role
of money and muscle power in politics, one is amazed at the Congress spokesman's
claim that the idea was not originally mooted by the Mahatma. The Congress
spokesman does not seem to have read or understood Gandhi. He knows only
Sonia Gandhi who was born in Mussolini's Italy and is, therefore, totally
ignorant about Mahatma's concept of indirect elections.
The Prime Minister's repeated suggestions
about a fixed term for prime ministers and chief ministers. Nothing can
be farther from truth. He is for stability. That is why he made the above
mentioned suggestions. These are well intentioned but there is no national
consensus on these issues. In fact, Jai Prakashnarain advocated "recall"
of erring legislators and Krishan Kant, who is now Vice President, has
been pleading for introducing a "negative" vote in which a voter can reject
all the candidates in fray. Difference of opinion need not lead to calling
names. In a democratic polity, one must not only tolerate but also respect
the opponent's viewpoint. For that matter, this writer is not in agreement
with Prime Minister's view on presidential form of Government and fixed
terms of Parliament and Assemblies. But there is no harm in discussing
and debating these issues. Those who are demanding scrapping of the Constitution
Review Commission have a closed mind. They lack the democratic spirit though
they swear by it.
Need to improve Commission's functioning
While one is in total agreement
with the need to allow the Commission a free hand to do thorough review
of the functioning of the Constitution and come up with concrete proposals
to appropriately amend the Constitution, one must point out that the standard
of certain consultation papers produced by the Commission leaves much to
be desired. The Chairman of the Commission, who is a highly respected jurist,
involves professionals of repute in the work if the Commission has to produce
a document worthy of a national debate in and outside Parliament.
The Commission appears to have ignored
certain areas that for an in depth study and solutions to the problems
that surfaced during the past 50 years. One such area is the functioning
of the political parties, their sources of raising funds, maintaining of
accounts and holding of periodical party elections. Another area where
the Commission can do some useful work is to come up with suggestions for
selecting candidates for elections at various levels. As things stand today,
in most political parties, including the BJP and the Congress, it is the
job of top leaders who take decisions about candidates to be put in their
respective parties. In most cases, top leaders know very little about the
candidates chosen by them. Can Commission come up with fresh ideas to streamline
the system of selecting candidates?
Judicial accountability is yet another
area where the Commission does not seem to have applied its mind. Judicial
system is decaying. There, is an urgent need to make Judges more accountable.
The same is true of the civil services. They are unaccountable but have
a stranglehold over every aspect of the polity. They are the decision-makers
more often than not, make the ministers dance to their tune. Commission
must apply its mind to suggest appropriate amendments to make civil services
accountable to the people.
