The President’s right

Quite against the grain of political conservatism that marked the first three years of his presidency, President Pranab Mukherjee made certain observations that stirred a hornets’ nest. Eyebrows were raised in ample measure because these comments were made at a function to mark the release of a coffee-table book on his political career. Barring the odd interview given to foreign journalists on the eve of visits to their country, Mr Mukherjee does not interact formally with journalists and never takes any questions. Conversations are few and far in between and that too mainly on ceremonial occasions. His views are thereby known through speeches. Because of this, Mr Mukherjee’s suo motu assertions had far-reaching implications and it was necessary to examine factors that led to the President ruffling the feathers of the current political dispensation.

In an earlier column, Silence and the real agenda (October 9), we recounted the sequence that discomfited Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Three tweets caused disquiet and minced no words. “We must remain true to the core values of our civilisation”; “we should not allow the core values of our civilisation to wither away”; and “Indian democracy is a marvel and we must celebrate, preserve and promote its strengths” was correctly interpreted as the Rashtrapati’s disapproval of the wave of intolerance and hate sweeping the country. This presidential intervention, albeit veiled, forced a hitherto quiet Prime Minister to break his silence. He did not outrightly condemn the Dadri incident, but this only showed that while Mr Modi was not on the same page as Mr Mukherjee on civilisational matters, the former could not ignore the President’s remarks because of his constitutional position.

Shortly after this, the President embarked on a trip to West Asia and he set the tone of what to expect in his interview to a Jordanian paper. In a comment, whose import was not lost on anyone, Mr Mukherjee said that religion cannot be used as a mask to justify pursuit of power. Later in the tour, the President underlined the significance of co-existence, multiculturalism and peaceful settlement of disputes. He also indicated that religion cannot be the basis of a state. While these observations carried import in the countries he was travelling through, it also resonated within India. On return, Mr Mukherjee continued wasting no opportunity to underscore India’s pluralism.

In recent days the government has acted, demonstrating that perhaps the President’s statements cannot be ignored any longer. In the first instance, BJP president Amit Shah admonished preachers of hate and prejudice in the party. But emerging from the meeting, Sakshi Maharaj, one of those called for the chastening session, declared that he discussed only pending organisational issues. If this was not enough disregard of the in-camera session, the controversial legislator declared that Bihar was afflicted with cancer and required surgery. Adding that he had heard that the BJP may lose in Bihar, the MP from Unnao said that this would be Bihar’s loss, not the party’s or Mr Modi’s.

Despite this utterance, which cocks a snook at attempts to discipline the obscurantist brigade, finance minister Arun Jaitley took the podium and claimed that the party had put some of its own on notice. He asked that debate should be the basis of resolution of disagreements and not vandalism. This is not the first time that the party leadership has put some significant leaders on notice and warned against making statements violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Yet there is still no clarity on what the government or party proposes to do if the directive is violated again.

But, while how the BJP and government will deal with truant elements is its internal matter, there is need to look at the roadmap ahead in regard to the ongoing serial of the contrasting words of President Mukherjee and the ruling establishment. It will be premature to say that the President by his assertions since January — first on government’s repeated use of the ordinance route for passing laws and, thereafter, consistently stressing India’s pluralism, cultural diversity and tradition of tolerance — has set up a confrontation with the Prime Minister and his government. The ruling clique’s hotheads will undoubtedly view the President with animosity because, in their assessment, anyone who is not their supporter is an enemy of the country.

President Mukherjee is well within his rights to share his disquiet at certain developments in the country. He has been a copybook President and there is no indication of a desire to precipitate a crisis of the sort that became the hallmark of Gyani Zail Singh’s tenure. Apprehensions are not over what the President may or may not do; rather the fears are whether the ruling establishment will also turn its intolerance towards Rashtrapati Bhavan. Because he is so much in the Indira Gandhi mode, there are fears that Mr Modi may begin to view the resident on Raisina Hill with suspicion. It needs to be recalled that Indira Gandhi in 1982 voiced her concern that all the Opposition parties were uniting “to get a President elected who can oust me”. However unrealistic the declaration may have been, Jyoti Basu stated then that it would be “a very bad day for India” if any President chose to dismiss the Prime Minister.

Several constitutionalists argue that presidential powers can also be drawn from Article 53(1), which states that his executive powers can be exercised “either directly or through officers subordinate” to him. Such power has never been used and it would be a travesty if the President dismisses an elected Prime Minister. However, given the multiple ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted and the responsibility that it casts on those holding constitutional positions, the onus of ensuring that the stage of government’s dismissal is not reached cannot just be on the First Citizen. The Prime Minister, too, must uphold the laws of the land, not just in letter but also in spirit. By not reining in the fringe forces so far, Mr Modi has tread in the realm of danger. Mr Mukherjee’s statements should now be followed both in letter and spirit. If not, it will be worrying days because the President is the custodian of the Constitution.

The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times