Why is public debate shunned over the roles of President and Governors?

@RavikiranRKD

Mumbai: It can be termed as the biggest illusion of the ongoing period that in our parliamentary democracy the political dispensation alone- which includes the elected governments as well as prominent parties in Opposition, is supreme and their word or wish should be treated as decisive.

This inference can be drawn in view of the present turmoil over newly amended/enacted farm laws, equally surprising posture adopted by some of the non-BJP state governments against its implementation, political mud-slinging over the role of the Governors in non-BJP states, to say a few.  

To add it further, the book- The Presidential Years, by late Pranab Mukherjee, which was released a few days back speaks loudly about the Narendra Modi-led NDA government and the chaos in Congress party. Moreover, a few decisions by Governors such as Bhagat Singh Koshyari (Maharashtra), Kiran Bedi (Puducherry) and Jagdeep Dhankhar (West Bengal) have been critically analysed, objected by the ruling parties, raising questions over their role.  

The Constitution of India has clearly set down roles of Parliament, Judiciary and Executive- known as three pillars of Democracy along with the principles of powers of separation. Constitutional bodies and their roles have been specified along with the obligations. To avoid any imbalance between the three pillars various measures have also been delineated.

It’s no longer surprising that people who have held crucial positions in their political or administrative career find it convenient to pen down their memoirs only after demitting the offices. Same has happened with an astute political personality such as Pranab Mukherjee whose book- The Presidential Years has hit the market recently.  

From Governor of Arunachal Pradesh J P Rajkhowa, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Ex-President has narrated several instances of the stand he took. At one point he has said he was not privy to the important decision of Demonetisation and how he was informed only after its announcement.

Known for his sharp memory and ability to deal with diverse issues during his over three-decade old political career, Mukherjee wrote about the ‘failure’ of the Narendra Modi government to ensure smooth and proper functioning of Parliament. He also disapproved of PM Modi’s decision of stopover in Lahore to offer greetings on Pakistan counterpart Nawaz Sharif, on the backdrop of strained relations between the two neighbouring nations.

On this backdrop, one can easily recall the relations between the previous Prime Ministers and the Presidents when meetings between them had been a regular feature. Customary call on by a Prime Minister to Rashtrapati Bhavan was certain after the foreign tours, sessions of Parliament and meetings followed by important and crucial developments at the national level.

Of late such things are rare and noticeable especially on the backdrop of long-drawn agitation by the farmers over farming laws and government decision to do away with the Winter Session of Parliament.

Here, the Constitutional experts should have expressed their opinions as holding or cancelling a Parliament session is not the prerogative of the elected government alone but it mandates the involvement of the President and parties in Opposition.

A few observations by Mukherjee on relations with Modi’s personal equations with foreign leaders, surgical strikes, demonetisation and scrapping of the Planning Commission are frank and blunt. Despite all this, no prominent personality has sought a debate on it, neither any convincing clarification has come from the government side. Certainly, it’s not a healthy sign for democracy if such issues are not discussed or debated publicly.

Late Mukherjee has not even spared his political alma mater, the Congress. His bitter observations might have sent some disturbing signals in the party. The defeat of the Congress in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections was because it ‘had failed miserably to fulfil people’s expectations and aspirations’, observes Mukherjee. Avoiding singling out anybody, he says that some senior Congress leaders’ political naiveté and arrogance hurt the fortunes of the party further.

The political crisis in West Bengal in which Mamta Bannerjee defected from the Congress to form her own party and Maharashtra was handled badly, he says bluntly. He says he firmly believes that my presence in active politics would have ensured that the Congress wouldn’t have faced the drubbing it received in the 2014 general elections.

Mukherjee has also drawn a line between Dr Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi on how they assumed top positions in the governments led by them. He comments- while Dr Singh was selected for the post by Sonia Gandhi, Modi, on the other hand, became the PM through popular choice after leading the BJP to a historic victory in 2014. He has earned and achieved the prime ministership.

BJP was quick to use it to enhance its own image, Congress, on the other hand maintained stoic silence. No convincing reply came in from top leadership. Further, the BJP circulated a news item released by Press Trust of India (PTI), in which it was stated how Modi used to keep President Mukherjee in the loop on important issues. It also said the relations among both Modi and Mukherjee were cordial.

At this point Congress was expected to usurp the adverse observations by Mukherjee to corner the PM on undermining the sanctity and importance of Rashtrapati Bhavan. But it has not happened. Neither Congress nor any prominent leader has raised pitch over such an important issue.

BJP and Congress- two prominent political forces in our parliamentary democracy, may have chosen to remain silent as a face-saving measure. But it certainly dents our very democratic structure in the longer run.

The atmosphere of bitterness in few non-BJP states after the political logjam between the Governors and the ruling parties threatens to put the sanctity of the posts in peril. The governments of West Bengal and Puducherry have strongly objected to the behaviour and style of working of the state governors. And in Maharashtra, the role of Bhagat Singh Koshyari has come under severe criticism after he started raising queries and offering suggestions over a few decisions.

The recent example is of a letter written by Koshyari to Mumbai University regarding appointment of a central government agency to supervise development of Kalina campus. Even though the Governor officiates as the Chancellor of the universities, his recommendation for appointment of a Central government agency has led to a stalemate. The senate has decided to ignore the letter only to undermine Raj Bhavan’s authority.

Instead, the Governor could have explained the intention behind writing such a letter. Apart from this the Mumbai Raj Bhavan has become the centre of stand-off between ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) and the Governor, who is former BJP CM of Uttarakhand.

At this point a general debate is necessary over the roles of Governors defined by the Constitution of India, the Union Government and the responsibilities of state governments to maintain sanctity of the democracy. But no political party seems as keen on it.

About the Author: Ravikiran Deshmukh is a senior journalist who has also served as the Media Coordinator to former chief minister Devendra Fadnavis. He can be contacted at ravikiran1001@gmail.com or on Twitter @RavikiranRKD