As the new building of the Parliament gets inaugurated on May 28 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian National Congress (INC) has decided to boycott this ceremony. One of the excuses given for this controversial step is that the Modi government is undermining the authority of the President of India.
Actions speak louder than words! So let us take a look at how Congress has dealt with the institution of the President of India.
Nehru vs Prasad
It is a well-known fact that Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru never wanted Dr Rajendra Prasad to be the President of India. The correspondence between Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Prasad gives ample proof of Nehru’s reservations. Nehru was probably reluctant because Prasad was quite independent-minded and was not expected to toe Nehru’s line of thought. The correspondence between Nehru and Prasad on the Hindu Code Bill issue shows how Nehru was trying to undermine the President’s authority. Nehru tried to stop Prasad from attending the inaugural ceremony of Somnath Temple also.
Indira vs Reddy
Indira Gandhi dragged the institution of President of India into Congress’ internal politics in 1969 Presidential elections. To defeat her opponents within the Congress Party known as ‘Syndicate’ she ensured defeat of Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and victory of her candidate VV Giri. This was the first time when the institution of the President was dragged to settle the scores within the Congress party. The fall-out of this tug of war led by Indira Gandhi was a split in the Congress Party on 12 November 1969. The faction led by Indira came to be known as Congress (I) and the faction led by syndicate came to be known as Congress (O). Indira Gandhi.
Rajiv Gandhi vs Giani Zail Singh
The tussle between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Giani Zail Singh had spilled over the power corridors and made headlines all over the media. Senior Congress leaders like Arjun Singh were deployed to record conversations of the staff of Giani Zail Singh on the pretext of knowing his mind. These conversations were then leaked to the media to embarrass the President of India. KC Singh, a former diplomat, who was deputy secretary to the President of India (1983-87) has given a first-hand account of the stormy relationship between Rajiv and Zail Singh in The Indian President: An insider account of the Zail Singh years.
“The fact that Rajiv Gandhi had been keeping the president unbriefed was also a poorly kept secret. The prime minister, by asserting to the contrary in the Parliament, had blatantly and contemptuously taken a public position on an issue that was being talked about openly. The President had been ignored, slighted and treated with ill-concealed contempt. He was beginning to redefine the boundaries that must be observed in relations between the prime minister and president.’
Singh adds, “The Nehru-Gandhi family had imbibed lessons from the presidency of Rajendra Prasad. Pandit Nehru sometimes grated his teeth in private, even occasionally disagreed in public, as in the case of Hindu Personal Law reform, but never breached the etiquette of public engagement. President Prasad also questioned and probed without intruding blatantly into the prime ministerial privilege of policy-making.”
He further observed, “Nehru tried to depoliticise the presidency by strongly backing Dr Radhakrishnan to succeed Prasad. He failed to deny the incumbent a second term. Mrs Gandhi, with her ingrained sense of security, slowly reduced the occupants to the level of compliant family retainers. The decline was graphically captured in a cartoon showing President Ahmed singing the 1975 emergency order while reclining in a bathtub. President Singh’s induction into office was partly due to troubles in Punjab but largely due to his other qualification of being a trusted retainer.”
“Rajiv Gandhi perhaps did not realise that even family retainers have self-respect. They can be expected to comply with the demands of the overlord so long as appearances of public respect are maintained. Even slaves have known to rebel.”
Opposing a tribal candidature
In 2022, the candidature of Draupadi Murmu was announced by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) for the post of President. It was a watershed moment for the Indian polity. A tribal leader was all set to become the head of the nation for the first time. More significantly, this was a tribal woman who had come from a very humble background. The Congress could have supported her candidature if it was truly committed to the cause of the tribals. Instead of supporting her candidature, the Congress backed Yashwant Sinha and opposed Murmu tooth and nail. This despite the fact that Congress knew it had no chance to defeat Murmu. In fact, top Congress leadership including Rahul Gandhi, accompanied Yashwant Sinha when he went to file his nomination. Its leaders went all out to campaign against Murmu and in support of Sinha across the country. Sinha was defeated badly. But Congress had lost a golden opportunity to strengthen the democratic ethos by supporting a tribal woman leader for the top post of the country.
Conclusion
Given the past track record of Congress, its latest attempts to become a self-styled champion of the rights of the President of India and boycott the opening of the new parliament building on these grounds, demonstrate the highest level of hypocrisy. The Congress seems to be overwhelmed by this false impression that people of India have a short memory and they have forgotten how the party leadership has consistently undermined the institution of the President of India.
The writer, an author and columnist has written several books. He tweets @ArunAnandLive. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Comments
0 comment