The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Speculation over the shape of things to come

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Apr 25, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Speculation over the shape of things to come

By K.K. Katyal

It may be a case of counting the chickens before they are hatched but, with pollsters predicting the possibility of a hung Lok Sabha, it is natural for the thoughts of the people to turn to the mechanics of government-formation next month. Especially to the crucial role of the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

Opinions may differ on the reliability of the polls — some may question the wisdom of projecting the composition of the entire Lok Sabha on the basis of the exit poll results for 140 constituencies (of the first phase), others may point to the vast variations in the findings of different agencies — but there is no dampening of the zest for speculating on the shape of things next month. The chatter in the next three or four weeks may get livelier.

The President has no material role in the choice or appointment of Prime Minister in case of a single party majority. But when no party crosses the halfway mark and conflicting claims are made by rival camps, the Presidential discretion becomes pivotal.

As the former President, R. Venkataraman, remarked, "the office of President is like an emergency light. It comes on automatically where there is crisis and goes off automatically when the crisis passes."

What are the types of issues that had arisen in the past as regards the appointment of Prime Minister in cases of unclear political line-up in the Lok Sabha?

Not one but several, involving fine constitutional, legal points and considerations of political propriety. Who is to be given the first invitation to form or explore the possibility of forming a new government? The leader of the single largest group or of an alliance? Has a distinction to be made between the alliances formed before or after the polls? Who to choose between the leader of a combine, formed after the polling, and of the one formed before, if the former claims a bigger support? How to assess the comparative strength of rival claimants, when their supporters keep on changing loyalties? Or when the claims are not supported by the objective reality?

Past precedents here and in the U.K., recommendations of experts and commissions, matters of ethics and propriety and considerations of stability are examined at length.

It may not be possible for the President, in any given situation, to steer clear of subjective factors. New knots my be added when he gets conflicting opinions from constitutional experts he may chose to consult.

At times, the head of state was misunderstood or his actions evoked sharp criticism, and, in most cases, were not justified.

There were at least three such instances in the past. One, the case of Sanjiva Reddy in 1979 when he, in the wake of a split in the ruling Janata Party, invited Charan Singh, the leader of the faction, separating from the parent organisation, and not the rival claimant, Jagjivan Ram.

Two, Shankar Dayal Sharma who, in 1996, appointed Atal Bihari Vajpayee, leader of the single largest party, the BJP, as the Prime Minister. That Mr. Vajpayee's Government lasted just 13 days, because of his failure to win additional support, was another question.

And in 1999, K.R. Narayanan who required Mr. Vajpayee to test his strength in the House after the withdrawal of a major constituent, AIADMK, from the ruling alliance. (This was not a case of appointment of a Prime Minister after an election but of his continuation in office in the wake of a serious crisis.) His critics in the ruling combine would have liked the test of strength to be in the form of a no-confidence motion by the Opposition and not through a motion of confidence (which Mr. Vajpayee lost by one vote).

There was not sufficient appreciation of the problems faced by the Presidents in trying to sort out complex political situations.

The aggrieved sections were quick to allege partisanship or to level other serious charges. Come to think of it, the first-ever Prime Minister from the BJP (as distinct from the NDA), was appointed by a President who, in the earlier political incarnation, was the head of the Congress.

The non-BJP parties were furious and, as their leaders remarked, "we gave a bit of our mind to the President."

It was during Mr. Narayanan's tenure that a fellow Nehruvian, Inder Kumar Gujaral, quit as Prime Minister (of course, due to depletion of support and the consequent loss of majority), and a BJP-led coalition was installed not once but twice.

Mr. Venkataraman, who had contested for Presidency as the nominee of the Congress (under the stewardship of Rajiv Gandhi) invited a leader, V.P. Singh a Congress rebel, to form the Government. Sanjiva Reddy's action in denying Jagjivan Ram the opportunity to try his hand at government-formation was seen linked to the developments at the time of the Congress split in 1969.

Jagjivan Ram was then in the forefront in the campaign against Sanjiva Reddy (and for V.V. Giri) in the contest for the Presidential election.

Such issues and a lot more may set political tongues wagging in case the poll verdict is not decisive.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

How deep shall we dig?

Speculation over the shape of things to come

Remedy worse than the disease