Right for Narayanan, wrong for Kalam
Right for Narayanan, wrong for Kalam
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
In India, everyone knows, the president is a non-executive constitutional officer. That, however, does not mean that he is a rubber stamp. Former President K R Narayanan also believed this. Indeed he said so as well. Mr Narayanan did not approve of the BJP. So he got himself interviewed by The Hindu. The interviewer was its current editor. The paper used to proudly post this on its website until recently.
The interview was published a day before his address to the nation on August 14, 1998 . That speech is prepared by the government and the president has little say in it. Mr Narayanan wanted to distance himself from it, whence the device of the interview (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/nic/narayanankr.pdf )
This is what the paper wrote when Mr Narayan died last November: "Narayanan inherited the presidential office at a time the Head of State was firmly imprinted in the public perception as a "rubber stamp" figure. The occupant of the Rashtrapati Bhavan unfailingly acted on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, rarely if at all went public with his opinion. It was unthinkable that the first citizen could admit to a political vision that was at variance with that of the government of the day. President Narayanan defied the stereotype, pushing the envelope in areas that were previously unexplored but without ever becoming activist in a way that would have undermined his constitutional role. In his own words, he was "not an executive President but a working President, and working within four corners of the Constitution." (Italics mine)
But see what the same paper is writing now because President Abdul Kalam has returned the office of profit bill for reconsideration. "…Indian presidency… must not be allowed to be activist and set the terms for substantive policy-making, let alone be permitted to intrude into the parliamentary domain or, for that matter, into the executive sphere where the Cabinet is all powerful." How hypocritical and sanctimonious can you get?
The Hindu goes on, laying into the Election Commission as well. "This is a time of overreach of roles by constitutional authorities, the Election Commission in particular. President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam`s action of returning the Office of Profit Bill, duly passed by Parliament in the recent Budget session, for reconsideration by both Houses suggests he has now caught the contagion."
But then since facts, those damned inconvenient things, intrude, it conceded that "technically, he is within his rights, since Article 111 allows the President to return a non-money Bill once — but only once — to Parliament. But substantively and contextually, his action amounts to throwing a spanner in the politics of the country."
What bloody bollocks is this? But wait, there is more.
"The real objection to President Kalam`s activism in returning the Bill to Parliament for reconsideration must be that, in the Indian constitutional scheme, it is decidedly not the business of the head of state to judge the constitutional-philosophical merit of legislation or to `guide` Parliament in its legislative business — whether it be the Hindu Code Bill of 1951 or the Office of Profit Bill of 2006."
Then the smear: "However high-minded the action might seem, through his ill-advised overreach President Kalam seems to have played into the hands of the main opposition party."
Here is my offer: those who guess why the paper has done this volte face on this important issue will earn a seat to the Rajya Sabha.
All the other papers endorsed the President`s action. The exception was the Hindustan Times which said nothing at all. Better that silence, if you ask me, than the tail-wagging of The Hindu.
Subscribe To The Newsletter