Indian democracy is both rumbustious and fractious. Yet there are moments when contested democracy gives way to broad agreement and the camaraderie of the political class. The election to the posts of President and Vice President is one such occasion.
On July 25, the newly elected President of India Ram Nath Kovind was sworn in at the Central Hall of Parliament . The function was attended by Members of Parliament cutting across party lines and Chief Ministers who represented different political persuasions. Earlier, last Sunday, a cross-section of MPs attended a touching farewell to outgoing President Pranab Mukherjee, a man associated with Indian parliamentary democracy since 1969.
Not all those who attended both functions had voted for either President Kovind or President Mukherjee. Apart from one occasion, no choice of President has been unanimous. Though the election of 1969 involving V.V. Giri and Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy was by far the most bitterly contested, most other contests have been symbolic. Unsuccessful candidates have included C.D. Deshmukh, H.R. Khanna, K. Subba Rao, Tridib Chaudhuri, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and P.A. Sangma — all distinguished individuals who would have made copybook occupants of Rashtrapati Bhavan. However, the mere fact that the presidency was contested didn’t either diminish the office or ensure unending controversy over the person of the Head of State. Regardless of the pre-history of the person who becomes the Rashtrapati, the respect and dignity of that office has always been maintained by all shades of political opinion. Apart from Giani Zail Singh, no President has ever been caught in the cross-currents of partisan politics.
The reason is obvious. The holder of a constitutional office such as the President or Vice President is not expected to be another battering ram on behalf of the Prime Minister and the ruling dispensation. The Head of State is, above all, expected to adhere to the letter of the Constitution. The only occasion the President can somewhat exercise his discretion is in selecting the Prime Minister in the event of a fractured election verdict.
As for Vice President, his principal role is that of Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and, by implication, overseeing the function of Rajya Sabha TV. His discretionary powers are limited to showing a little extra indulgence towards some of the more voluble MPs and, perhaps, giving the Treasury benches a little elbow room.
A misplaced debate
In view of the defined roles for the President and Vice President, Peter Ronald deSouza’s spirited intervention (‘The Vice President’s Mien’, The Hindu, July 24 ) comes as a surprise. He argues that the forthcoming election for Vice President is, in effect, a “battle between two ideas of what India aspired to be during its struggle for freedom and what India should be.” He backs this up with the assertion that the values imbibed by individuals in a shakha of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are totally at variance with the tradition of ethics and dharma that underpinned the Gandhian traditions of the national movement, and projects the contest as a rerun of the contest between Mahatma Gandhi and V.D. Savarkar, between an individual nurtured in the shakha that “debilitate(s) the mind” and the “grandson of both Rajaji and Gandhiji.”
Prof. deSouza’s projection is a more erudite elaboration of former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar’s claim of her contest with Mr. Kovind being a battle of ideologies. No doubt, he has grave misgivings of the larger political orientation of the Narendra Modi government. However, regardless of our individual characterisation of the government, I am baffled by Prof. deSouza’s claim that this has a bearing on who the MPs choose as the Vice President of India.
The role of the President and Vice President has been rigidly defined by the Constitution. Fortunately, this role does not extend to articulating a national philosophy of India. If it did, the implications would be quite fearful. If, as Prof. deSouza contends, the battle is between noble and ignoble visions of what India stands for, does it imply that the latter would get short shrift under the Vice President of his choice? Given that the Modi government has a popular mandate until 2019, would the (unlikely) election of a Vice President blessed with both pedigree and dharma be the signal for a breakdown in relations between the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the government?
The debate that Prof. deSouza has sought to trigger has a place. However, that place is at the hustings of a general election. By injecting this debate into the election of a constitutional post, he is advocating a complete subversion of the democratic political system. A President or Vice President with an agenda of waging a righteous civil war against an elected government belongs in the realms of putschist politics, not democracy.
The writer is a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament
