my own boswell

The Dialectics of Presidential Elections

Prakash Karat, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), is a special political leader.  Oxford-educated, suave, and soft-spoken, he is more an academic than the quintessential politician whom we all are accustomed to.  Karat would do honour to any reputed University or thinktank by his intellectual insights and scholarship.  His erudition sits lightly on his broad shoulders; he is one of our most unassuming leaders as well.

This gentleman politician, who plays a decisive role in shaping the future of the country by virtue of his party's support to the present government at the Centre, is known for his courage of conviction.  The `historical blunder', which prevented Jyoti Basu from becoming the Prime Minister of the country some years back, has been squarely blamed on Karat's stand that the Communist Party should not hold the reins of power, heading an amorphous rainbow coalition.  More recently, the Capital's grapevines say that Karat was also instrumental in denying a chance to a communist leader to become the President of India, for the very same reasons!

It is another matter that in the process, however, Karat and his left colleagues have, wittingly or otherwise, enabled a lady to rise to the top!

When the presidential parleys were on, Prakash Karat did some plain speaking, insisting that the Rashtrapati should be from a political background.  May be, he went by Aristotle's assertion that `man, by nature, is a political animal'. Yes, Karat did not say that the new President should be a politician, but, one with a political background, familiar with the dynamics of Indian politics, sound knowledge of constitutional imperatives, and a feel of the pulse of the nation and its people.  And this is as it should be: without these attributes, a President will be found wanting in discharging his onerous duties effectively and efficaciously.  It is a different matter whether Karat thinks that Pratibha Devi Singh Patil Shekhawat encompasses in her personality the above laudable attributes!

Then came the bombshell from Karat!  The Vice-President need not have a political background, he declared; for effect, Karat added that he or she could be someone who has enriched our national life by specific contributions!  While no one will contest the second part of his statement, there is definitely a problem with the first argument.  And Karat should know, unless he wants himself to be clubbed alongside the run-of-the-mill politician.

According to Article 65 of the Constitution, the Vice-President shall act as President or discharge his functions during casual vacancies in the office (by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise) or during the absence of the President or his illness or other cause.  Beyond this, Article 65(3) expressly provides that "The Vice-President shall, during, and in respect of, the period while he is so acting as, or discharging the functions of, President, have all the powers and immunities of the President. …"

Thus, the Constitution envisages the Vice-President to discharge all functions of the President in the latter's absence and makes it amply clear that while doing so, the incumbent will have all the powers and privileges of the President.  Prakash Karat's argument that the President should be a political person but the Vice-President need not be, perhaps fails to fathom this constitutional mandate. 

If we go by our constitutional history, we will notice that most Vice-Presidents were not merely renowned in some specified field, but national leaders of eminence.  Dr. S. Radhakrishnan and Dr. Zakir Hussain were stalwarts of the freedom struggle, besides being renowned educationists.  V.V. Giri, Dr. B.D. Jatti, R. Venkataraman, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, K.R. Narayanan, Krishan Kant and Bhairon Singh Shekhawat were in public life for long, holding several constitutional positions, before assuming the office of the Vice-President.  G.S. Pathak and M. Hidayatullah became Vice-Presidents after distinguishing themselves as the Chief Justices of India.

Incidentally, except for Jatti, Pathak and Hidayatullah, and more recently Krishan Kant (and now, may be, Shekhawat), all Vice-Presidents had gone on to become the President of the Republic.

The constitutional safeguard of the Vice-President acting as President has also been resorted to in the past when Giri and Jatti both held office as Acting Presidents, the latter for nearly six months in one of the most turbulent periods of our history ' from the last days of the Emergency, through the momentous March 1977 General Elections and the defeat of Indira Gandhi, to the formation of the first non-Congress Government at the Centre.

Prakash Karat would also know the constitutional mandate that if the Vice-President himself is absent to perform the duties of the President, then the responsibility is entrusted to none other than the Chief Justice of India ' himself one of the highest constitutional functionaries.  In fact, Chief Justice M. Hidayatullah did 'act' as the President in July-August 1969 when both incumbents were not in office.

Equally important is the fact that the Vice-President of India functions as the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.  In this role, he has the very challenging task of maintaining orderly conduct of the business of the Upper House of Indian Parliament that has political representation from many different parties.  In this era of coalition Governments, and Governments which are propped up in power with external support by some parties ' the best example being that of Karat's own party ' is it not imperative that the Vice-President should have a political background while not necessary being a politician? After all, as they say, when politics decides our future, should we not decide what our politics should be?

The renowned American TV anchor late Johnny Carson once said: "Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President, and anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice-President!". Certainly, Karat wouldn't subscribe to this `imperialist' take on democracy!

Prakash Karat is a fine gentleman, a learned one at that.  Yet, I am afraid his argument in favour of a political background for the President and against that for the Vice-President doesn't stand scrutiny.  May be, the dialectics of Presidential politics would have warranted such a fallacious proposition.  All the same, by coming out with this specious argument, Karat has done a great disservice to the two highest offices of the land, and also to his own reputation as a perceptive leader.

Many critics of Karat would tend to agree with his leader Karl Marx, though: "Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form". Probably, that is where the dialectics lies