Bhopinder Singh | Beyond ‘Blue Book’ Rules and Protocol: How Statesmen Can Uphold Constitution

The recent controversy over the visit of President Droupadi Murmu to West Bengal, and the way she was allegedly treated by the state government, has replayed the simmering issues of federal dissonance, especially in states which are currently being governed by Opposition parties -- such as Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Karnataka, Kerala and, of course, West Bengal. In all such states, the Centre-state clashes are usually fronted by the “First Citizen” of the state or Union territory in question, by the supposedly apolitical office of the governor or lieutenant-governor. While subliminal tensions owing to Centre-appointed constitutional appointees have always existed in Opposition-ruled states since Independence -- the levels of diatribe, personalised aspersions, and ascribed partisanship, has now hit new lows. It is part and parcel of what some call the diminishment of the constitutional institutions of checks and balances, which ought to serve constitutional propriety over petty partisan discourse. At the level of the highest office of the land, this surrender did historically manifest in “rubber stamp” acquiescence, as was pathetically personified by the proclamation of “Emergency” on June 25, 1975.

But there have been notable Rashtrapatis who have majestically and creatively upheld their constitutional vows of neutrality, even though they have had to act “on the aid and the advice of the council of ministers led by the Prime Minister”. From the likes of Dr Rajendra Prasad (who questioned the limits of presidential power), Zail Singh (who used the “pocket veto” by refusing to sign a bill indefinitely), AP.J. Abdul Kalam (who returned a bill for “reconsideration”) to Pranab Mukherjee (who asked tough questions before approving bills) -- such appointees rose above the regrettable portents of “rubber stamp”, and did not feel beholden to the ideological/partisan anchorages, to which they may have once belonged, before assuming the presidency.

Perhaps the most assertive and enlightened constitutionalist in Rashtrapati Bhavan was the intellectually erudite and upright, K.R. Narayanan. Not one to remain confined to political symbolism of tags like the “First Dalit” President -- he took his proactive role as the principal guardian constitutionalist towards what he simply called a “Working President”. His reiterative invocation of “constitutional morality” lent itself to substantive constitutional action and questioning, often to the discomfiture of the executive who would have naturally preferred a pliant “rubber stamp”. But thankfully, his tenure was marked predominantly by the Atal Behari Vajpayee era, who though from the opposite ideological fount to that of K.R. Narayanan, was a thoroughly dignified and committed constitutionalist, himself.

K.R. Narayanan showed how the largely ceremonial office could still be freighted with immense responsibilities by acting “within the four walls of the Constitution”, without indulging in partisan tilts or theatrical optics. This nuance reassured the respect for parliamentary democracy and its executive, whilst still retaining the powerful lever of moral mirror, without fear or favour. From returning the Cabinet’s recommendation to impose President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh, to returning bills for “reconsideration”, to even infusing his public addresses with his own insistences (beyond the handout of the government) -- the executive knew that there was a questioning moral force in the Rashtrapati, albeit one, who could never be faulted for his questioning spirit to any partisan agenda. There was never even a oblique suggestion that K.R. Narayanan’s assertions was ever due to his furthering the cause of his erstwhile political party. Therefore, his act of writing direct letters to the Prime Minister on his concerns in the handling of the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat was not a matter of partisan one-upmanship at that time.

History is instructive that K.R. Narayanan’s suggestion that the Centre’s inaction or inertia following the riots would undermine public confidence was not met with a prime ministerial rebuff, but with Atal Behari Vajpayee sagely and publicly positing the concept of “Raj Dharma” (duty of the ruler) onto the-then chief minister of Gujarat.

K.R. Narayanan disallowed personal identity to be the centrepiece of his presidency, and hence no condescending allusions to his “Dalit” identity was allowed to represent him or politicise his actions. He was to famously state: “I am the President of India, not the President of any community”. Therefore, constitutional principles assumed far more emphasis than social identity politics. Unsurprisingly, the man of letters would personally draft (or embellish) many of his speeches with subtle suggestions that had an introspective, corrective, and even persuasive bent that forced the executive to act within the contours and spirit of the Constitution. K.R. Narayanan’s activism was never timed with any electoral considerations, but with the topical necessities of the times that were.

Today, the incident in West Bengal was a definite violation of the “Blue Book” protocols that mandate the arrangements for the visit of a President of India. While the inelegant combativeness between New Delhi and Kolkata is an old hat, there are also counter-allegations of the politically loaded remarks and criticism made at an electorally sensitive time by the President, that possibly sullied the moment. Both sides partook to avoidable recourse. While it is expected for career politicians of all hues to resort to vile partisanship and wild accusations, the constitutional appointees are expected to show statesmanship and a certain largeness-of-spirit that elevates them from the unrestrained barbs of politicians -- but today, that difference in the two offices is largely compromised and a tit-for-tat exchange is often seen between a Raj Bhavan and the CM’s office.

But then, we no longer live in the times of President K.R. Narayanan and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who though from the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum knew that constitutionality must always triumph over petty partisanship.

The writer is a retired lieutenant-general and a former lieutenant-governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry