When Presidents Spoke: Dissent By Rashtrapati Bhawan, Then and Now

Bharat ke Rashtrapati, or the President of India, is not just the Head of State. She/he is also the conscience keeper of the Constitution of India (Article 60 defines the Presidential oath of responsibilities). This makes it the most powerful and ultimate means of checks and balances, whenever the spirit of the Constitution is seemingly diminished — either by the dispensation of the day, or by any other individual or organisation beyond the government.For this onerous responsibility and commitment to manifest exceptionally, the Constitution allows for Presidential powers, but with cautionary restraints. While the Rashtrapati effectively acts on the advice of the Cabinet, the highest office of the land does have the moral duty to differ, in case it feels that there is a compromise on the propriety of the constitutional or democratic traditions.Framers of the Constitution have knowingly allowed for gentle and non-disruptive means of expressing Presidential dissent like ‘returning the file for reconsideration’ (that too, only once), ‘simply not signing files’, or having private conversations with the Head of the Executive to express any concern.The idea is to act as the last resort of checks and balances, whilst ensuring that the elected will of the citizenry be as reposed in the Cabinet, usually.From Rairangpur to Raisina: Droupadi Murmu's Journey to Rashtrapati BhavanIn the rambunctious world of Indian politics where both the government and the Opposition openly accuse each other with aspersions and inelegances, the restrained office of the Rashtrapati oversees apolitically, but doesn’t participate in the melee. The Rashtrapati is expected to be abreast of the passionate exchanges but still resist the temptation to jump in and give its own mind, especially if the matters were in the space of individual accusations and not tantamount to endanger the constitutional fabric of the nation or its hallowed essentialities.As the ‘First Citizen’ of the nation, the President traditionally refrained from commenting about himself or herself — even if they were to be personally contexualised in an unbefitting and unbecoming nature. The office on Delhi's Raisina Hill simply had to be the bigger (non-partisan, actually) person, more concerned about the substantial, national, and constitutional issues, and not to clarify insinuations directed at themselves, as that would drag them to the level of partisan politicians. In any case, Indian politicians of all persuasions have the notoriety of practising ‘manufactured outrage’ with spin-doctoring of expressions that can be exaggerated, extrapolated, and twisted to their partisan advantage, therefore always incumbent on the President to ignore political theatrics and baits, even if the shenanigans were sought to be conducted, in their name.Keeping with the same historical expectation, many Presidents, starting with the first, Rajendra Prasad, expressed frequent disagreements on substantial issues with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, including on the usage of government funds for religious functions. For Rajendra Prasad, the telltale signs of the State pandering to religiosity were grave enough to be called out.KR Narayanan: Prez Who Testified, Upheld, Enhanced ‘Idea of India’Later, the likes of Dr Zail Singh, KR Narayanan, or even Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, expressed their own disagreements, albeit, as KR Narayanan put it succinctly, “within the four walls of the Constitution”. Admittedly, some like Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed fell short of their duty by giving assent to the infamous and undemocratic Emergency. Similarly, many others may not have gone that far, but their telling silences (when the onus was on speaking up) were tantamount to compromising that vital duty of differing, especially at a time when most institutions of democratic checks and balances were being virtually silenced without question.Recently, one of the veteran leaders of the Opposition commented on the sitting President’s ostensible reluctance to say anything that could offend the ruling dispensation by saying, “The poor lady, the President, was getting very tired by the end... she could hardly speak, poor thing”. It was clear political sarcasm (even a patronising tone) that was suggestive of the purported control exerted by the ruling dispensation on Presidential conduct.Given the context of the current President's tribal identity, was using an expression like ‘poor thing' suggestive of elitism, imperious entitlement, or social derision?True to the wonts of the day, it was instinctively and collectively conflated to demeaning ‘tribals’, ‘women’, and the ‘Constitution’ in a fashion that has been normalised now.Given that perhaps the fundamental insinuation of Presidential ‘control’ is graver and more substantial, the condescending tone used by the Opposition leader in framing the sentence was inappropriate, unwarranted, and distractive. Expectedly, the word was cherry-picked to suggest “lowering the dignity of the office”.Saffronisation of Tribals Helmed the Way for BJP’s Clean Sweep in Madhya PradeshWhat was surprising, however, was the unusual clarification from the President’s Secretariat, insisting that she “was not tired at any point” and then adding that “speaking up for the marginalised communities, for women and farmers... can never be tiring”. True as that may be, this too sounded equally unnecessary and patronising. The sliver of partisanship was perhaps unmistakable in the caustic addition of the language barrier (a sleight on the Opposition leaders' foreign origins of birth?). “The President’s Office believes that it might be the case that these leaders have not acquainted themselves with the idiom and discourse in Indian languages such as Hindi, and thus, formed a wrong impression”.Such repartee might be in consonance with the loaded discourse that is the norm amongst politicians and their inelegances, but certainly not in line with the historical restraint in Presidential expressions.The issuance of the clarification reflected the intent to react in an unusual manner. The Presidential rebuke closed with insistences that the said sleight was “in poor taste, unfortunate and entirely avoidable”.The sign-off, “entirely avoidable”, was certainly correct. There have, however, been far more substantial threats to the fabric, normalcy, and spirit of constitutional morality in India recently. For instance, when an MP with impunity called another one belonging to a minority community, names like b****a (pimp), katwa (circumcised), Mullah (Islamic preacher), atankwadi (terrorist), and ugrawaadi (militant), on the floor of Lok Sabha.In weighing the sure consequences of dangerous and legitimised polarisation within the ‘temple of democracy’ itself – vis-à-vis an inappropriate comment on the President, personally – the office on Raisina Hill chose to address the latter, not the former.Despite many serious concerns lingering, like the violence in Manipur, agrarian crisis, polarisation, unemployment, or even India's fractured relations with other countries, none has been considered worthy of expressing Presidential concern to the Executive. This is in sharp contrast to the likes of a President KR Narayanan returning ‘files for reconsideration’, chiseling his own scripts to make subtle contrarian points to the government, and writing letters of concern to the then Prime Minister, as he did after the 2002 communal riots.KR Narayanan knew that there were far more substantial issues like societal harmony, international relations, and voicing concerns of the downtrodden. He chose to ignore personal barbs (he faced many including some that alluded to his background), as unnecessary.India and Indian politics were better for constitutional maturity and fearlessness, as expressed by the likes of KR Narayanan or APJ Abdul Kalam.(The author is a Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

BECOME A MEMBER

When Presidents Spoke: Rashtrapati Bhavan's Selective Silences

While the President effectively acts on the advice of the Cabinet, they do have the moral duty to differ!

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: President of India Rashtrapati Bhawan BJP bharatiya janta party