| Presidential
Indiscretion The President can have
view but his job involves upholding norms.
For one who set out to be
a copybook head of state, yet with a difference, President K.R. Narayanan has erred.
Notwithstanding Rashtrapati Bhavan's attempts to focus attention on the methodology of a
"leak", the recent controversy over judicial appointments centres on a
presidential indiscretion. No one questions his right to suggest, either formally or in
private, changes in the guidelines for appointing judges. In fact, after India Today
revealed the President's communication to the Government, many politicians and
organisations have favoured extending affirmative action to the judiciary. Rashtrapati
Bhavan has also indicated that this is not the first time the President has suggested such
a course. The point, while well taken, skirts the basic issue. President Narayanan didn't
stop at suggesting that the judiciary should represent a cross-section of society. He, in
effect, admonished senior judges for overlooking "eligible" candidates. The
conclusion is obvious: the President was charging the selection college with caste bias.
It is a grave charge and one that is calculated to offend.
It is also a transgression of the President's prerogative. While the head of state has a
complete right to apply his independent judgement and even refer matters back to the
executive for reconsideration, he cannot unilaterally suggest policy changes. If there are
to be quotas in judicial appointments, it is for Parliament to decide. Until then, the
President must go along with existing norms governing judicial appointments. He cannot be
seen to be actively promoting unnamed "eligible" candidates for reasons that
lend themselves to unsavoury speculation. Doing so sends all the wrong signals. The
President is the head of state for the whole of India. It is a position that is above
religion, caste and gender. He cannot promote an agenda that runs the risk of being
perceived as sectional. Not unless that is the law of the land.
The Tail-Ender
The taming of Thackeray holds out lessons in
coalition management for Vajpayee.
To compliment Shiv Sena chief Bal
Thackeray for his wisdom in calling off his threat to disrupt the cricket series against
Pakistan is a bit like thanking an arsonist for alerting the fire brigade. Thackeray's
about-turn wasn't the outcome of some inner voice rebuking him for his insanity. The Sena
retreated because it was painfully aware that its crazy scheme lacked any support. Not
only was the entire country horrified by the desecration of the cricket pitch in Delhi,
but Shiv Sainiks ran the real risk of being at the receiving end of public fury after the
vandalism at the BCCI offices in Mumbai. Forever a bully, Thackeray finally turned tail
when Home Minister L.K. Advani communicated Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's
determination to dismiss the Maharashtra Government if the Sena persisted. This meek
capitulation should be a clue to the Centre as to how to deal with Sena belligerence in
future.
There is another important lesson for the beleaguered
Vajpayee administration. For too long it has allowed itself to be held at gun-point by
irrational allies and obscurantist friends with sectarian agendas. This has cost the
Government its credibility and lost it public support. Ordinary people cannot make the
subtle distinction between Sena and BJP, between BJP and RSS and between RSS and Vishwa
Hindu Parishad. To them it's all the same, the same parivar (family). The lunacy of one
invariably rubs off on the other. If the prime minister is to govern effectively, he must
rein in all the allies and all wings of the Sangh Parivar. They cannot be seen to be
speaking in different voices and marching to divergent tunes. The people have no love for
weak governments. They want clarity, decisiveness and direction. The Government managed to
extricate itself from the cricket mess. But it was a close shave. India can do without
more nervous palpitations. |