Like the ghost of Hamlet’s father, the Spirit of the Indian Constitution must have walked on the night President KR Narayanan delivered his unprovoked warning to the National Democratic Alliance Government against appointing a Committee to review that august document’s five-decade performance. Speaking at a function to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Republic in Parliament’s Central Hall, the President grimly intoned on the need to “consider whether it is the Constitution that has failed us or whether it is we who have failed the Constitution.”
Certainly this is sage advice. What remains now is for the President to turn the mirror on himself and introspect on the extent to which his own conduct has conformed to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Any honest assessment would have to conclude that he has departed fulsomely from both, even if we dismiss the suspicion that he has been guided by ideological or extraneous considerations. Notwithstanding veiled hints from distinguished predecessors as Mr K Venkataraman, who gave the office of President a new dignity and weightage in our troubled times, Mr Narayanan has persisted in striking out on his own, with consequences that bode ill for the health of the Republic.
His supporters must have been astonished to see him publicly voicing opinions diametrically opposed to those of the Government, while on the same dais as the Prime Minister. It was an incident without parallel in our constitutional history, and it belittled both the office and the Constitution that he was oath-and honour- bound to uphold. By a grim irony, in the very act of warning the Government against the purported review, Mr Narayanan himself failed the Constitution. He failed it in both letter and spirit, first by refusing to be guided by the considered opinion of his Council of Ministers, and secondly by airing a personal opinion at variance with that of the Government.
In this connection, any suggestion that the President has a duty to guide and counsel the Government must be dismissed as sophistry, as such advice is supposed to be rendered in proper forums or through proper channels; not by publicly embarrassing the Prime Minister. Only recently, the President was embroiled in an unseemly controversy with the judiciary, where his desire for reservations in its upper echelons, including the Supreme Court, was widely interpreted as “tailored’“ to promote the career of a particular candidate. The Constitutional Review Committee that is now taking shape under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice MN Venkatachellaiah would do well to examine how best such unwarranted Presidential activism can be curbed, in the best interests of the Republic.
Another aspect that the Committee would do well to examine, in view of the Constitution’s silence on the matter and the lacuna in existing laws, is whether a foreign-born naturalized citizen can legitimately aspire for the country’s top political posts. Last April, President Narayanan displayed a painful insensitivity to national sentiments on the issue by twice inviting Italian-born Sonia Gandhi to form the Government, after the fall of the Vajpayee Government by a shameful ruse. He did this despite the fact that she was not a Member of Parliament. What is more, experts had pointed out legal loopholes under which Ms Sonia Gandhi and her children are eternally entitled to Italian citizenship. Interestingly, for a man given to speaking his mind freely, the President has till date not seen fit to declaim the manner in which Mr Giridhar Gamang cast his vote in the House that fateful day, after having taken oath as Chief Minister of Orissa.
Since the NDA Government had always made it clear that the review would not tamper with parliamentary democracy or the basic features of the Constitution, it is not clear how the President came to the conclusion that there was a proposal to shift to a presidential form of government. But with the Government having clarified that it had no such intention, this matter should be allowed to rest.
It is important, however, if the Constitution is to truly “respond to the changing needs of an efficient, smooth and effective system,” to devise safeguards against the “guerrilla attacks” that toppled the previous Vajpayee Government and forced an expensive, unwanted election on the country. Last year, a few aggressive parties with little public support were able to commandeer an artificial unity of opposition parties in the Lok Sabha and bring down the Government with a single dubious vote. However, they failed to devise an alternative arrangement.
This incident triggered considerable debate on the need for a fixed five-year tenure for the Lok Sabha, both to assuage public fatigue and anger at constant elections, as well as to prevent the developmental process from being constantly derailed by political instability. There can be no doubt about the need for effective safeguards against horse-trading or sudden, irrational shifts in loyalty (such as the Bahujan Samaj Party’s anti-Vajpayee vote after a public declaration of abstention) that can cause a government to fall prematurely. Personally, however, I view the proposed fixed tenure scheme with suspicion, as it could invest the system with the kind of artificial rigidity that the President warned against, albeit in the context of the presidential system. At the same time, one can hardly countenance repeated elections.
The Committee would do well to explore other options in depth, such as the suggestion that an alternative arrangement be first offered to the House before moving a no-confidence motion. This would have the great advantage of transparency, as opposing parties would have to arrive at a clear understanding among themselves on the form of the future government. The 1999 saga of reckless irresponsibility by which a government was toppled with no thought to its successor, and the consequences this would have for the economy and the country, must never be allowed to happen again. Such a move could find considerable support among the people who are weary of frequent elections, as well as with people’s representatives who fear the wrath of an angry electorate. Indeed, this may well be the real fear of the opposition parties that are opposing the review.
There are a number of other issues that demand attention, such as Centre-State relations. While the Centre recognizes the need to decentralize power and give states more say in matters like infrastructure development, the states have raised critical questions about revenue sharing. Mr Ram Jethmalani has talked of the need to curb the misuse of Article 356,
a pet theme with all states. However, the Committee should also suggest what is to be done if law and order in a State breaks down to the point where the Centre desires to impose President’s rule, but Parliament does not ratify the move.
As in other areas where the BJP is striving to infuse fresh life by removing the silt of a decadent system, the move for a review of the Constitution has met with cries against its so-called “hidden agenda”. But with the very composition of Parliament ensuring that no move can succeed without a broad consensus, it is clear that much of the opposition is merely for the sake of opposition. The real fear of parties condemning the move appears to be that reforms to engender political stability by inhibiting wanton toppling games may receive wide public support. This would force them to fail in line, and put the guillotine on their talents for backroom manoeuvres.
The Pioneer, 15 February 2000