Feb 1, 1999

The President can have view but his job involves upholding norms.

For one who set out to be a copybook head of state, yet with a difference, President K.R. Narayanan has erred. Notwithstanding Rashtrapati Bhavan's attempts to focus attention on the methodology of a "leak", the recent controversy over judicial appointments centres on a presidential indiscretion. No one questions his right to suggest, either formally or in private, changes in the guidelines for appointing judges. In fact, after India Today revealed the President's communication to the Government, many politicians and organisations have favoured extending affirmative action to the judiciary. Rashtrapati Bhavan has also indicated that this is not the first time the President has suggested such a course. The point, while well taken, skirts the basic issue. President Narayanan didn't stop at suggesting that the judiciary should represent a cross-section of society. He, in effect, admonished senior judges for overlooking "eligible" candidates. The conclusion is obvious: the President was charging the selection college with caste bias.

It is a grave charge and one that is calculated to offend. It is also a transgression of the President's prerogative. While the head of state has a complete right to apply his independent judgement and even refer matters back to the executive for reconsideration, he cannot unilaterally suggest policy changes. If there are to be quotas in judicial appointments, it is for Parliament to decide. Until then, the President must go along with existing norms governing judicial appointments. He cannot be seen to be actively promoting unnamed "eligible" candidates for reasons that lend themselves to unsavoury speculation. Doing so sends all the wrong signals. The President is the head of state for the whole of India. It is a position that is above religion, caste and gender. He cannot promote an agenda that runs the risk of being perceived as sectional. Not unless that is the law of the land.

The Tail-Ender

The taming of Thackeray holds out lessons in coalition management for Vajpayee.

To compliment Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray for his wisdom in calling off his threat to disrupt the cricket series against Pakistan is a bit like thanking an arsonist for alerting the fire brigade. Thackeray's about-turn wasn't the outcome of some inner voice rebuking him for his insanity. The Sena retreated because it was painfully aware that its crazy scheme lacked any support. Not only was the entire country horrified by the desecration of the cricket pitch in Delhi, but Shiv Sainiks ran the real risk of being at the receiving end of public fury after the vandalism at the BCCI offices in Mumbai. Forever a bully, Thackeray finally turned tail when Home Minister L.K. Advani communicated Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's determination to dismiss the Maharashtra Government if the Sena persisted. This meek capitulation should be a clue to the Centre as to how to deal with Sena belligerence in future.

There is another important lesson for the beleaguered Vajpayee administration. For too long it has allowed itself to be held at gun-point by irrational allies and obscurantist friends with sectarian agendas. This has cost the Government its credibility and lost it public support. Ordinary people cannot make the subtle distinction between Sena and BJP, between BJP and RSS and between RSS and Vishwa Hindu Parishad. To them it's all the same, the same parivar (family). The lunacy of one invariably rubs off on the other. If the prime minister is to govern effectively, he must rein in all the allies and all wings of the Sangh Parivar. They cannot be seen to be speaking in different voices and marching to divergent tunes. The people have no love for weak governments. They want clarity, decisiveness and direction. The Government managed to extricate itself from the cricket mess. But it was a close shave. India can do without more nervous palpitations.

© Living Media India Ltd