Punchamda turns 68 today!
I have been a colossal fan of R. D. Burman since eternity as I grew up listening to his enchanting music! It was an inherited talent. Music was a gift bequeathed to Rahul Dev Burman, by his father, Sachin Dev Burman.
According to stories, Rahul Dev Burman was nicknamed Pancham because, as a child, whenever he cried, it sounded in the fifth note (Pa) of the Indian musical scale! Pancham was born in Calcutta.
After coming to Mumbai, he learnt sarod from Ustad Ali Akbar Khan. When he was nine years old, he composed his first song, Aye meri topi palat ke aa, which his father used in the film Funtoosh (1956). The tune of the song Sar jo tera chakraaye was composed by him as a child. His father loved the tune and included it in the soundtrack of Guru Dutt's Pyaasa. As a child, Pancham also played the mouth organ in the famous song Hai apna dil to aawara (from film Solva saal - 1958, starring Dev Anand). Pancham began his music career as an assistant to his father. His first film as a music director was Chhote nawaab. He started independent music composing in 1961 with Chhote Nawaab and did 331 Films and 4 Non-Film Albums. Before coming onto his own, he assisted his father S.D. Burman for long. Out of his 331 released movies 292 were in Hindi, 31 in Bangla, 3 in Telugu, 2 each in Tamil & Oriya and 1 in Marathi. RD also composed for 5 TV Serials in Hindi and Marathi. He also scored a large number of non-film songs in Bangla (also known as Pooja songs or modern songs), which are available in different albums. He did a song for a small documentary film called Maa Ki Pukaar too, in 1975.
Pancham was magical. He got the “Groove” and “Soul” in Hindi Film Music. There is not a spatula of doubt that he was monstrously influenced by western music, but he brought rhythm in Indian music in its true sense. Pancham was comfortable with all types of music, be it the romantic Raat kali from Buddha mil gaya (1971), the sexy cabaret Piya tu ab to aaja from Caravan (1971), the ultimate hippie anthem Dum Maro Dum from Hare Krishna Hare Rama (1972) or the classical Raina beeti jaaye. It is said that Dev Anand did not include the complete version of Dum Maro Dum in Hare Rama Hare Krishna, as he was worried the song would overshadow the film. At times, R D doubled up as a singer too. His most famous song as a singer was Mehbooba from Sholay. This song is a copy of the song "Say You Love Me" by Demis Rusos.
With Love Story (1981), R.D. became the first choice for teenage love stories like Betaab (1983) which owe a great deal of their success to his music.Towards the mid-1980s however R.D. began going through a rough patch as his films started collapsing at the box-office. Bhappi Lahiri and the Disco age had overtaken him and R.D's producers just disappeared. Even a fine score like Saagar (1985) and a brilliant one like Ijaazat (1987) could not stem the flow of R.D.'s decline.
The music of Ijaazat reiterated that at his best, R.D. was simply matchless. Each of the four songs was a masterpiece - Choti si Kahani Hai, Khaali Haath Shyam Aayi Hai, Katra Katra and the icing on the cake Mera Kuch Samaan which won Asha Bhosle the National Award.
Parinda (1989) had its moments with songs like Tumse Milke but perhaps his last score to stand out was 1942 - A Love Story (1993). Compositions like Ek Ladki ko Dekha, Kuch na Kaho, Pyaar Hua Chupke Se, Rhimjhim Rhimjhim prove that R.D. still had enough brilliant music left in him given the chance.
Pancham was a very creative musician. His percussion included a spoon against a glass (Chura liya hai from Yaadon Ki baraat), desks (Masterji ki aa gayee chitthee from Kitaab) a bamboo whistle with a balloon (Abdullah) and bottles filled with water at different levels (O maajhi re from Khushboo). Pancham also adapted folk music from eastern Europe in some of his tunes, such as the songe in movie Satte Pe Satta. There have been discussions regarding the influence of the communist block of the eastern Europe on Pancham's music. The solos and duets that R.D. Burman sang in the '70s asserted his growing reputation as a rock-`n'-roll renegade. Somehow the serious songs sung by Pancham (such as the manjhi number in Aar Paar) never got their due. The hits that Pancham sang were almost invariably gimmicky. Even today, contemporary hindi film musicians are consciously or unconsciously influenced by Pancham's music!
And how can we forget the immortal pair of Panchamda and Gulzar! The duo created immortal compositions and although sometimes Panchamda used to get annoyed by Gulzar’s novel lyrics (Like Mera Kuchh Samaan!) the twosome were awesome! Recalls Gulzar, "Pancham was an excellent singer. He knew the nuances of classical singing. For my films, he sang only a couple of songs. But he lent his voice even so often. For instance, in Jabbar Patel's Musafir, the boatman's voice-over, is Pancham! As a singer, he would perfect a tune by singing it repeatedly. In the album that I did with him in 1994, listen to how well he has sang the numbers Raah pe rahte hain and Koi diya jale kahin (later rendered by Kishore Kumar and Asha Bhosle, respectively).
Panchamda now belongs to ages! His revolutionary music will remain with us till the music endures its existence.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Race for the New President!
So the Presidential Election is around the corner …Initially,lots of contenders (quite distinguished ones to be precise!) were emerging as “Serious Contenders”. Over a month, I have been coming across lots of speculations and different permutations and combinations. Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, Bahairav Singh Shekhavat, Narain Murthy, Pranab Mukherji, Shushil Kumar Shinde, Somnath Chaterjee, Dr. Karan Singh and yes….how can we forget ‘Dr’. Amitabh Bachchan! But finally the whole speculation is centered on three names viz Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, Shri Bahairav Singh Shekhavat and the most surprisingly, the front runner Mrs. Pratibha Patil Shekhavat of the UPA-Left Coalition. But, my concerns are not with respect to the absurd Political Theatre of Presidential elections, which is already being done with great panache by our media. My intention is to evaluate the Constitutional role of the President of India.
It will be pertinent to know about the history of President of India. On 15th August, 1947, India became an Independent State. However, the country remained a Commonwealth Realm, and continued in a personal union relationship with the other countries who each regarded the same person as their monarch and Head of State. In case of India, the Monarch was represented by the Governor-General of India, now appointed by the King of the United Kingdom upon the advice of the Prime Minister of India, instead of the British government.
This was a temporary measure, however, as the continued existence of a shared monarch in the Indian political system was not considered appropriate for a truly sovereign nation. The first Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, was also the last British Viceroy of India before independence. He soon handed power over to C. Rajagopalachari, who became the first (and only) ethnically Indian governor general. In the meantime, the Constituent Assembly led by B. R. Ambedkar worked on drafting independent India's Constitution. The drafting was finished on November 26, 1949, and the Constitution was formally adopted on January 26, 1950—a date of symbolic importance as it was on January 26, 1930, that the Congress Party had first issued the call for complete independence from Britain. When the constitution took effect, the Governor General and King were replaced by an elected president, with Rajendra Prasad serving as the first President of India.
The move ended India's status as a Commonwealth Realm, but the republic remained in the Commonwealth of Nations. Nehru argued that a nation should be allowed to stay in the Commonwealth simply by observing the British monarch as "Head of the Commonwealth" but not necessarily head of state. This was a ground-breaking decision that would set a precedent in the second half of the twentieth century for many other former British colonies to remain in the Commonwealth after becoming newly-independent republics. (Courtesy: Wikipedia)
Article 53 of Constitution of India has unambiguously enshrined that the President shall be the executive Head of the state. The President is also has the supreme command of the Defense forces of India. Article 53 in verbatim is as follows.
Article 53: - Executive power of the Union.
(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defense Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.
(3) Nothing in this article shall-
(a) Be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority; or
(b) Prevent Parliament from conferring by law functions on authorities other than the President.
It will be pertinent to peruse Article74, which in verbatim is as follows.
Article 74: - Council of Ministers to aid and advise President.
1[(1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice:]
2[Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.]
(2) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.
1. Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 13, for cl.(1)(w.e.f.3-1-1977).
2. Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 11 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).
Thus, in is quite clear from Article 74 that although the President is the Executive Head of the state, the President's role is largely ceremonial, with real executive authority vested in the Council of Ministers, lead by the Prime Minister.
What does it really take to become the President of India? The Qualification for election as the President is enshrined in Article 58, which in verbatim is as follows.
Article 58 : -Qualifications for election as President.
(1) No person shall be eligible for election as President unless he-
(a)Is a citizen of India?
(b) Has completed the age of thirty-five years, and
(c) Is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People.
(2) A person shall not be eligible for election as President if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State or under any local or other authority subject to the control of any of the said Governments.
Explanation: - For the purposes of this article, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice-President of the Union or the Governor 1[***] of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for any State.
1. The words "or Rajpramukh or Uparajpramukh" omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 29 and Sch.
Election of the President is the paramount provision, enshrined in Article 55 of Constitution of India. The President of India is elected, whenever the office becomes vacant, by an electoral college consisting of the elected members of both houses of the Parliament and the elected members of the State Legislative Assemblies (Vidhan Sabha). The election uses the Single Transferable Vote method of proportional representation. Voting takes place by ballot. Each elector casts a different number of votes. The general principle is that the total number of votes cast by Members of Parliament equals the total number of votes cast by State Legislators. Also, legislators from larger states cast more votes than those from smaller states (That is why Kumari Mayawati is the key player with massive 58,000 votes to decide the new President!!). Finally, the number of legislators in a state matters; if a state has a few legislators, then each legislator has relatively more votes; if a state has many legislators, then each legislator has fewer votes. The actual calculation for votes cast by a particular state is calculated by dividing the state's population by 1000, which is divided again by the number of legislators from the State voting in the Electoral College. This number is the number of votes per legislator in a given state. For votes cast by those in Parliament, the total number of votes cast by all state legislators is divided by the number of members of both Houses of Parliament. This is the number of votes per member of either house of Parliament.
The election procedure is little complicated as can be seen in Article 55, which is reproduced in verbatim as follows.
Article 55: - Manner of election of President.
(1) As far as practicable, there shall be uniformity in the scale of representation of the different States at the election of the President.
(2) For the purpose of securing such uniformity among the States interest as well as parity between the States as a whole and the Union, the number of votes which each elected member of Parliament and of the Legislative Assembly of each State is entitled to cast at such election shall be determined in the following manner: -
(a) Every elected member of the Legislative Assembly of a State shall have as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the State by the total number of the elected members of the Assembly;
(b) If, after taking the said multiples of one thousand, the remainder is not less than five hundred, then the vote of each member referred to in sub-clause (a) shall be further increased by one;
(c) Each elected member of either House of Parliament shall have such number of votes as may be obtained by dividing the total number of votes assigned to the members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States under sub-clauses (a) and (b) by the total number of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament, fractions exceeding one-half being counted as one and other fractions being disregarded.
(3) The election of the President shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and the voting at such election shall be by secret ballot.
1[Explanation. In this article, the expression "population" means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published:
Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2[2026] have been published, be construed as a reference to the 1971 census.]
1) Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 12, for the Explanation (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).
2) Subs. by the Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001, sec. 2, for "2000" (w.e.f. 21-2-2002).
Article 57: - Eligibility for re-election.
A person who holds, or who has held, office as President shall, subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, be eligible for re-election to that office.
(This article should interest “People President” Dr. Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and this nation at large, who according to me fully deserves another term.)
Article 60: -Oath or affirmation by the President.
Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court available, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say-
"I, A.B., do (swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India.".
Article 60 above clearly defines the Constitutional Role of the President of India. The powers of the President are intended to be similar to those of the British Crown, in that he would 'reign and not rule'.
Powers and functions
The President of India enjoys the following powers:
Executive powers
Being the Executive Head of the Union of India, the Constitution vests in the President of India all the executive powers of the Central Government. As per Article 74 and Article 75, he appoints the Prime Minister who is the leader of majority in the Lok Sabha. The President also appoints the other members of the Council of Ministers and distributes portfolios to them on the advice of the Prime Minister.
As per Article 75(2), the Council of Ministers remains in power during the 'pleasure' of the President. In practice, however, the Council of Ministers must retain the support of the Lok Sabha. As long as the majority in the Lok Sabha supports the government, the Council of Ministers cannot be dismissed.
Making a wide variety of appointments is the paramount executive power of the President enshrined in the Constitution. These include:
• Governors of States [Article 155(1)]
• The Chief Justice (Article 124)
• Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts (Article 124)
• The Attorney General [Article 76(1)]
• The Comptroller and Auditor General [Article 148(1)]
• The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners [Article 324(2)]
• The Chairman and other Members of the Union Public Service Commission [Article 316(1)]
• Ambassadors and High Commissioners to other countries
The President also receives the credentials of Ambassadors and High Commissioners from other countries.
According to Article 53(2), the supreme command of the Defense Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President.
The President of India can remove the Prime Minister or other Union ministers from office, although this is never done in practice unless the Prime Minister loses majority support in the Lok Sabha. The decisions involving pardoning and other rights are taken by the president himself. He doesn’t need to consult anyone.
Judicial powers
The president appoints the Chief Justice of the Union Judiciary and other judges on the advice of the Chief Justice. Theses judges are actually selected by the Union cabinet. The President dismisses the judges if and only if the two Houses of the Parliament pass resolutions to that effect by two-thirds majority of the members present.
If he considers that a question of law or a matter of public importance has arisen, he can ask for the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court. He may or may not accept that opinion.
As enshrined in the Article 72, the President of India can grant pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in all the cases involving punishment of death. Article 72 in verbatim is as follows.
Article 72. Power of President to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.
(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence-
(a) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;
(b) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
(c) In all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the power conferred by law on any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court Martial.
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor 1[***] of a State under any law for the time being in force.
1. The words "or Rajpramukh" omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 29 and Sch.
• The effect of a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court (and of some High Court) is as follow: -
a) The exercise of the power by the President under Article 72 is primarily a matter for his discretion and the courts would not interfere with his actual decision on the merit.
b) But the courts exercise a very limited power of judicial review, to ensure that the President considers all relevant materials before coming to his own decision.
c) The President can, in the exercise of this power, examine the evidence afresh. In doing so, he is not sitting as a court of appeal. His power is independent of the judiciary. He can, therefore, afford relief not only from a sentence which he regards as unduly harsh, but also from an evident mistake.
d) The President is not bound to hear a petitioner for mercy before he rejects the petition.
The following decisions support the above propositions:-
i. Nanavati V. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 122
ii. Ramanajah V. Superintendent, Central Jail, AIR 1974 SC 31
iii. Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600
iv. Sarat v. Khagendra, AIR 1962 SC 334
Legislative powers
The President summons both houses of the Parliament and prorogues them. He can even dissolve the Lok Sabha. These powers are formal and the President while using these powers must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
He inaugurates the Parliament by addressing it after the general elections and also at the beginning of the first session each year. His address on these occasions is generally meant to outline the new policies of the government. This address is essentially identical in nature to a Speech from the Throne.
A bill that the Parliament has passed, can become a law only after the President gives his assent to it. He can return a bill to the Parliament, if it is not a money bill, for reconsideration. However, if the Parliament sends it back to him for the second time, he is obliged to assent to it.
When the Parliament is not in session and the government considers it necessary to have a law, then the President can promulgate ordinances. These ordinances are submitted to the Parliament at its next session. They remain valid for no more than six weeks from the date the Parliament is convened unless approved by it earlier.
Emergency powers
The President can declare three types of emergencies:
• National emergency
• State emergency
• Financial emergency
National emergency
National emergency is caused by war, external aggression or armed rebellion in the whole of India or a part of its territory. Such an emergency was declared in India in 1962 (Indo-China war), 1965 (Indo - Pakistan war), 1971 and 1975 (declared by Indira Gandhi on account of 'internal disturbance').
The President can declare such an emergency only on the basis of a written request by the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. Such a proclamation must be approved by the Parliament within one month. Such an emergency can be imposed for six months. It can be extended by six months by repeated parliamentary approval.
In such an emergency, Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens can be suspended. The six freedoms under Right to Freedom are automatically suspended. However, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty cannot be suspended.
The Parliament can make laws on the 66 subjects of the State List (which contains subjects on which the state governments can make laws). Also, all money bills are referred to the Parliament for its approval. The term of the Lok Sabha can be extended by a period of up to one year, but not so as to extend the term of Parliament beyond six months after the end of the declared emergency.
State emergency
State emergency is declared due to failure of constitutional machinery in a state. Almost all states have undergone this type of an emergency. This emergency is also known as President's rule.
If the President is satisfied, on the basis of the report of the Governor of the concerned state or from other sources that the governance in a state cannot be carried out according to the provisions in the Constitution, he can declare emergency in the state. Such an emergency must be approved by the Parliament within a period of six months.
It is imposed for six months and can last for a maximum period of three years with repeated parliamentary approval every six months. If the emergency needs to be extended for more than three years, this can be achieved by a constitutional amendment, as has happened in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.
During such an emergency, the President can take over the entire work of the executive, and the Governor administers the state in the name of the President. The Legislative Assembly can be dissolved or may remain in suspended animation. The Parliament makes laws on the 66 subjects of the state list (see National emergency for explanation). All money bills have to be referred to the Parliament for approval.
National Emergency comes under Article 352 of the India Constitution.
Financial emergency
If the President is satisfied that there is an economic situation in which the financial stability or credit of India is threatened, he can proclaim financial emergency as per the Constitutional Article 360. Such an emergency must be approved by the Parliament within two months. It has never been declared. On a previous occasion, the financial stability or credit of India has indeed been threatened, but a financial emergency was avoided through the selling off of India's gold reserves.
A state of financial emergency remains in force indefinitely until revoked by the President.
In case of a financial emergency, the President can reduce the salaries of all government officials, including judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. All money bills passed by the State legislatures are submitted to the President for his approval. He can direct the state to observe certain principles (economy measures) relating to financial matters.
Article 61: - Procedure for impeachment of the President.
1) When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution, the charge shall be preferred by either House of Parliament.
(2) No such charge shall be preferred unless-
(a) The proposal to prefer such charge is contained in a resolution which has been moved after at least fourteen days' notice in writing signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of the House has been given of their intention to move the resolution, and
(b) Such resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House.
(3) When a charge has been so preferred by either House of Parliament, the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation.
(4) If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House by which the charge was investigated or caused to be investigated, declaring that the charge preferred against the President has been sustained, such resolution shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date on which the resoultion is so passed.
Article 62: - Time of holding election to fill vacancy in the office of President and the term of office of person elected to fill casual vacancy.
An election to fill a vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of office of President shall be completed before the expiration of the term.
(2) An election to fill a vacancy in the office of President occurring by reason of his death, resignation or removal, or otherwise shall be held as soon as possible after, and in no case later than six months from, the date of occurrence of the vacancy; and the person elected to fill the vacancy shall, subject to the provisions of article 56, be entitled to hold office for the full term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office.
Article 71: - Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President or Vice-President.
1[71. Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President or Vice-President.
(1) All doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final.
(2) If the election of a person as President or Vice-President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, on or before the date of the decision of the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by reason of that declaration.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may by law regulate any matter relating to or connected with the election of a President or Vice-President.
(4) The election of a person as President or Vice-President shall not be called in question on the ground of the existence of any vacancy for whatever reason among the members of the electoral college electing him.]
Art. 71 has been successively subs. by the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, s. 2 (w.e.f. 10-8-1975) and the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s.10, to read as above (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).
The fact remains that power of the president in our Constitution are logically curbed considering that fact that the most of the executive and legislative functions are entrusted with the Prime Minster and the Council of Minister. What really bothers me is that is there a need of politicizing this sovereign and highest post? Is it justified for our political parties to embarrass dignitaries like Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and Shri Bahairav Singh Shekhavat to settle their own scores? In what sense the term “Consensus” is understood in Indian politics or it’s just a jargon floated by contemporary coalition politics?
I hope that this election does turn out to be a recurrence to 1969 Presidential Election between Late Shri V. V. Giri and Late Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy. All I can say is that with all due respect to our luminous Constitution, we want a “Union Head” and not an “Official Seal” of the Ruling Party!
It will be pertinent to know about the history of President of India. On 15th August, 1947, India became an Independent State. However, the country remained a Commonwealth Realm, and continued in a personal union relationship with the other countries who each regarded the same person as their monarch and Head of State. In case of India, the Monarch was represented by the Governor-General of India, now appointed by the King of the United Kingdom upon the advice of the Prime Minister of India, instead of the British government.
This was a temporary measure, however, as the continued existence of a shared monarch in the Indian political system was not considered appropriate for a truly sovereign nation. The first Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, was also the last British Viceroy of India before independence. He soon handed power over to C. Rajagopalachari, who became the first (and only) ethnically Indian governor general. In the meantime, the Constituent Assembly led by B. R. Ambedkar worked on drafting independent India's Constitution. The drafting was finished on November 26, 1949, and the Constitution was formally adopted on January 26, 1950—a date of symbolic importance as it was on January 26, 1930, that the Congress Party had first issued the call for complete independence from Britain. When the constitution took effect, the Governor General and King were replaced by an elected president, with Rajendra Prasad serving as the first President of India.
The move ended India's status as a Commonwealth Realm, but the republic remained in the Commonwealth of Nations. Nehru argued that a nation should be allowed to stay in the Commonwealth simply by observing the British monarch as "Head of the Commonwealth" but not necessarily head of state. This was a ground-breaking decision that would set a precedent in the second half of the twentieth century for many other former British colonies to remain in the Commonwealth after becoming newly-independent republics. (Courtesy: Wikipedia)
Article 53 of Constitution of India has unambiguously enshrined that the President shall be the executive Head of the state. The President is also has the supreme command of the Defense forces of India. Article 53 in verbatim is as follows.
Article 53: - Executive power of the Union.
(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defense Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.
(3) Nothing in this article shall-
(a) Be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority; or
(b) Prevent Parliament from conferring by law functions on authorities other than the President.
It will be pertinent to peruse Article74, which in verbatim is as follows.
Article 74: - Council of Ministers to aid and advise President.
1[(1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice:]
2[Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.]
(2) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.
1. Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 13, for cl.(1)(w.e.f.3-1-1977).
2. Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 11 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).
Thus, in is quite clear from Article 74 that although the President is the Executive Head of the state, the President's role is largely ceremonial, with real executive authority vested in the Council of Ministers, lead by the Prime Minister.
What does it really take to become the President of India? The Qualification for election as the President is enshrined in Article 58, which in verbatim is as follows.
Article 58 : -Qualifications for election as President.
(1) No person shall be eligible for election as President unless he-
(a)Is a citizen of India?
(b) Has completed the age of thirty-five years, and
(c) Is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People.
(2) A person shall not be eligible for election as President if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State or under any local or other authority subject to the control of any of the said Governments.
Explanation: - For the purposes of this article, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice-President of the Union or the Governor 1[***] of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for any State.
1. The words "or Rajpramukh or Uparajpramukh" omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 29 and Sch.
Election of the President is the paramount provision, enshrined in Article 55 of Constitution of India. The President of India is elected, whenever the office becomes vacant, by an electoral college consisting of the elected members of both houses of the Parliament and the elected members of the State Legislative Assemblies (Vidhan Sabha). The election uses the Single Transferable Vote method of proportional representation. Voting takes place by ballot. Each elector casts a different number of votes. The general principle is that the total number of votes cast by Members of Parliament equals the total number of votes cast by State Legislators. Also, legislators from larger states cast more votes than those from smaller states (That is why Kumari Mayawati is the key player with massive 58,000 votes to decide the new President!!). Finally, the number of legislators in a state matters; if a state has a few legislators, then each legislator has relatively more votes; if a state has many legislators, then each legislator has fewer votes. The actual calculation for votes cast by a particular state is calculated by dividing the state's population by 1000, which is divided again by the number of legislators from the State voting in the Electoral College. This number is the number of votes per legislator in a given state. For votes cast by those in Parliament, the total number of votes cast by all state legislators is divided by the number of members of both Houses of Parliament. This is the number of votes per member of either house of Parliament.
The election procedure is little complicated as can be seen in Article 55, which is reproduced in verbatim as follows.
Article 55: - Manner of election of President.
(1) As far as practicable, there shall be uniformity in the scale of representation of the different States at the election of the President.
(2) For the purpose of securing such uniformity among the States interest as well as parity between the States as a whole and the Union, the number of votes which each elected member of Parliament and of the Legislative Assembly of each State is entitled to cast at such election shall be determined in the following manner: -
(a) Every elected member of the Legislative Assembly of a State shall have as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the State by the total number of the elected members of the Assembly;
(b) If, after taking the said multiples of one thousand, the remainder is not less than five hundred, then the vote of each member referred to in sub-clause (a) shall be further increased by one;
(c) Each elected member of either House of Parliament shall have such number of votes as may be obtained by dividing the total number of votes assigned to the members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States under sub-clauses (a) and (b) by the total number of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament, fractions exceeding one-half being counted as one and other fractions being disregarded.
(3) The election of the President shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and the voting at such election shall be by secret ballot.
1[Explanation. In this article, the expression "population" means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published:
Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2[2026] have been published, be construed as a reference to the 1971 census.]
1) Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 12, for the Explanation (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).
2) Subs. by the Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001, sec. 2, for "2000" (w.e.f. 21-2-2002).
Article 57: - Eligibility for re-election.
A person who holds, or who has held, office as President shall, subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, be eligible for re-election to that office.
(This article should interest “People President” Dr. Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and this nation at large, who according to me fully deserves another term.)
Article 60: -Oath or affirmation by the President.
Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court available, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say-
"I, A.B., do (swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India.".
Article 60 above clearly defines the Constitutional Role of the President of India. The powers of the President are intended to be similar to those of the British Crown, in that he would 'reign and not rule'.
Powers and functions
The President of India enjoys the following powers:
Executive powers
Being the Executive Head of the Union of India, the Constitution vests in the President of India all the executive powers of the Central Government. As per Article 74 and Article 75, he appoints the Prime Minister who is the leader of majority in the Lok Sabha. The President also appoints the other members of the Council of Ministers and distributes portfolios to them on the advice of the Prime Minister.
As per Article 75(2), the Council of Ministers remains in power during the 'pleasure' of the President. In practice, however, the Council of Ministers must retain the support of the Lok Sabha. As long as the majority in the Lok Sabha supports the government, the Council of Ministers cannot be dismissed.
Making a wide variety of appointments is the paramount executive power of the President enshrined in the Constitution. These include:
• Governors of States [Article 155(1)]
• The Chief Justice (Article 124)
• Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts (Article 124)
• The Attorney General [Article 76(1)]
• The Comptroller and Auditor General [Article 148(1)]
• The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners [Article 324(2)]
• The Chairman and other Members of the Union Public Service Commission [Article 316(1)]
• Ambassadors and High Commissioners to other countries
The President also receives the credentials of Ambassadors and High Commissioners from other countries.
According to Article 53(2), the supreme command of the Defense Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President.
The President of India can remove the Prime Minister or other Union ministers from office, although this is never done in practice unless the Prime Minister loses majority support in the Lok Sabha. The decisions involving pardoning and other rights are taken by the president himself. He doesn’t need to consult anyone.
Judicial powers
The president appoints the Chief Justice of the Union Judiciary and other judges on the advice of the Chief Justice. Theses judges are actually selected by the Union cabinet. The President dismisses the judges if and only if the two Houses of the Parliament pass resolutions to that effect by two-thirds majority of the members present.
If he considers that a question of law or a matter of public importance has arisen, he can ask for the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court. He may or may not accept that opinion.
As enshrined in the Article 72, the President of India can grant pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in all the cases involving punishment of death. Article 72 in verbatim is as follows.
Article 72. Power of President to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.
(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence-
(a) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;
(b) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
(c) In all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the power conferred by law on any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court Martial.
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor 1[***] of a State under any law for the time being in force.
1. The words "or Rajpramukh" omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 29 and Sch.
• The effect of a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court (and of some High Court) is as follow: -
a) The exercise of the power by the President under Article 72 is primarily a matter for his discretion and the courts would not interfere with his actual decision on the merit.
b) But the courts exercise a very limited power of judicial review, to ensure that the President considers all relevant materials before coming to his own decision.
c) The President can, in the exercise of this power, examine the evidence afresh. In doing so, he is not sitting as a court of appeal. His power is independent of the judiciary. He can, therefore, afford relief not only from a sentence which he regards as unduly harsh, but also from an evident mistake.
d) The President is not bound to hear a petitioner for mercy before he rejects the petition.
The following decisions support the above propositions:-
i. Nanavati V. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 122
ii. Ramanajah V. Superintendent, Central Jail, AIR 1974 SC 31
iii. Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600
iv. Sarat v. Khagendra, AIR 1962 SC 334
Legislative powers
The President summons both houses of the Parliament and prorogues them. He can even dissolve the Lok Sabha. These powers are formal and the President while using these powers must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
He inaugurates the Parliament by addressing it after the general elections and also at the beginning of the first session each year. His address on these occasions is generally meant to outline the new policies of the government. This address is essentially identical in nature to a Speech from the Throne.
A bill that the Parliament has passed, can become a law only after the President gives his assent to it. He can return a bill to the Parliament, if it is not a money bill, for reconsideration. However, if the Parliament sends it back to him for the second time, he is obliged to assent to it.
When the Parliament is not in session and the government considers it necessary to have a law, then the President can promulgate ordinances. These ordinances are submitted to the Parliament at its next session. They remain valid for no more than six weeks from the date the Parliament is convened unless approved by it earlier.
Emergency powers
The President can declare three types of emergencies:
• National emergency
• State emergency
• Financial emergency
National emergency
National emergency is caused by war, external aggression or armed rebellion in the whole of India or a part of its territory. Such an emergency was declared in India in 1962 (Indo-China war), 1965 (Indo - Pakistan war), 1971 and 1975 (declared by Indira Gandhi on account of 'internal disturbance').
The President can declare such an emergency only on the basis of a written request by the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. Such a proclamation must be approved by the Parliament within one month. Such an emergency can be imposed for six months. It can be extended by six months by repeated parliamentary approval.
In such an emergency, Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens can be suspended. The six freedoms under Right to Freedom are automatically suspended. However, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty cannot be suspended.
The Parliament can make laws on the 66 subjects of the State List (which contains subjects on which the state governments can make laws). Also, all money bills are referred to the Parliament for its approval. The term of the Lok Sabha can be extended by a period of up to one year, but not so as to extend the term of Parliament beyond six months after the end of the declared emergency.
State emergency
State emergency is declared due to failure of constitutional machinery in a state. Almost all states have undergone this type of an emergency. This emergency is also known as President's rule.
If the President is satisfied, on the basis of the report of the Governor of the concerned state or from other sources that the governance in a state cannot be carried out according to the provisions in the Constitution, he can declare emergency in the state. Such an emergency must be approved by the Parliament within a period of six months.
It is imposed for six months and can last for a maximum period of three years with repeated parliamentary approval every six months. If the emergency needs to be extended for more than three years, this can be achieved by a constitutional amendment, as has happened in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.
During such an emergency, the President can take over the entire work of the executive, and the Governor administers the state in the name of the President. The Legislative Assembly can be dissolved or may remain in suspended animation. The Parliament makes laws on the 66 subjects of the state list (see National emergency for explanation). All money bills have to be referred to the Parliament for approval.
National Emergency comes under Article 352 of the India Constitution.
Financial emergency
If the President is satisfied that there is an economic situation in which the financial stability or credit of India is threatened, he can proclaim financial emergency as per the Constitutional Article 360. Such an emergency must be approved by the Parliament within two months. It has never been declared. On a previous occasion, the financial stability or credit of India has indeed been threatened, but a financial emergency was avoided through the selling off of India's gold reserves.
A state of financial emergency remains in force indefinitely until revoked by the President.
In case of a financial emergency, the President can reduce the salaries of all government officials, including judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. All money bills passed by the State legislatures are submitted to the President for his approval. He can direct the state to observe certain principles (economy measures) relating to financial matters.
Article 61: - Procedure for impeachment of the President.
1) When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution, the charge shall be preferred by either House of Parliament.
(2) No such charge shall be preferred unless-
(a) The proposal to prefer such charge is contained in a resolution which has been moved after at least fourteen days' notice in writing signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of the House has been given of their intention to move the resolution, and
(b) Such resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House.
(3) When a charge has been so preferred by either House of Parliament, the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation.
(4) If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House by which the charge was investigated or caused to be investigated, declaring that the charge preferred against the President has been sustained, such resolution shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date on which the resoultion is so passed.
Article 62: - Time of holding election to fill vacancy in the office of President and the term of office of person elected to fill casual vacancy.
An election to fill a vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of office of President shall be completed before the expiration of the term.
(2) An election to fill a vacancy in the office of President occurring by reason of his death, resignation or removal, or otherwise shall be held as soon as possible after, and in no case later than six months from, the date of occurrence of the vacancy; and the person elected to fill the vacancy shall, subject to the provisions of article 56, be entitled to hold office for the full term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office.
Article 71: - Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President or Vice-President.
1[71. Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President or Vice-President.
(1) All doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final.
(2) If the election of a person as President or Vice-President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, on or before the date of the decision of the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by reason of that declaration.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may by law regulate any matter relating to or connected with the election of a President or Vice-President.
(4) The election of a person as President or Vice-President shall not be called in question on the ground of the existence of any vacancy for whatever reason among the members of the electoral college electing him.]
Art. 71 has been successively subs. by the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, s. 2 (w.e.f. 10-8-1975) and the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s.10, to read as above (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).
The fact remains that power of the president in our Constitution are logically curbed considering that fact that the most of the executive and legislative functions are entrusted with the Prime Minster and the Council of Minister. What really bothers me is that is there a need of politicizing this sovereign and highest post? Is it justified for our political parties to embarrass dignitaries like Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and Shri Bahairav Singh Shekhavat to settle their own scores? In what sense the term “Consensus” is understood in Indian politics or it’s just a jargon floated by contemporary coalition politics?
I hope that this election does turn out to be a recurrence to 1969 Presidential Election between Late Shri V. V. Giri and Late Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy. All I can say is that with all due respect to our luminous Constitution, we want a “Union Head” and not an “Official Seal” of the Ruling Party!
Friday, June 22, 2007
For systemic change on the democratic path ....By V.R. Krishna Iyer.
Some reflections on the Indian system of elections and possible alternatives.
The Constitution has made India a socialist, secular, democratic Republic geared to a dialectically dynamic infrastructure, on a parliamentary basis modelled on the British pattern. What is a secular democracy? Government, “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” going by Abraham Lincoln’s classic definition. It should be founded on humanist materialism sans caste, theology, and feudalist obscurantism. Government by the people being an imperati ve, it is their franchise that decides who will have title to engineer state power. So it is that Winston Churchill observed: “At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth with a little pencil making a little cross on a little bit of paper — no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.” The fundamental nexus between the little man and grassroots democracy takes practical shape through elections, rooted in universal adult franchise. This is a basic feature of our Republic.
Willing votes, fairly cast with secular ubiquity, is the oxygen of elections.
Everyone has a voice and a vote, and his or her franchise must have free and fearless opportunity for expression. The right to cast votes and to be a candidate are provided for by a non-negotiable basic structure operated by an independent Election Commission with constitutional status. Having regard to the huge population above age 18, our constituencies are large.
Election campaigns are expensive. Very few can find the funds to contest for seats without violating legal and monetary limitations and codes of conduct and publicity proprieties. The initial deposit, as well as the manifesto, canvassing, propaganda and other plural financial commitments are large. The small person with socialist, non-communal convictions stands no chance. Only candidates of wealthy parties or fronts, or rich independents, can dream of it. Gandhiji symbolised the axiom small is beautiful, but bourgeois India with creamy layer class domination has alienated the masses from candidature or chance of success.
We have adopted the party system on the British model. But even the two-party system does not work; multi-party coalitions have a crazy appeal. They have come to stay from panchayat to Parliament. Often the process of getting into the voter’s list with photographs and other formalities is so complicated that many eligible adults are not listed.
Electoral performance hardly represents the will of the people. When parties in the fray are many and independents make for further confusion among largely illiterate electorates, the winner hardly has the support of 15 or 20 per cent of the total voter population. Thus the election becomes a charade. In a situation of plurality of parties, which govern with a majority of seats, the House does not reflect the voice of the entire community. He who gets the majority in the first-past-the-post system and sits in the House has the support of only 30 or 40 per cent of the adult population. We are in reality ruled by a minority. Many of the members have criminal antecedents. This system must change.
But what is the alternative? The proportional representation system with lists of nominees means any system of voting designed to ensure that the representation of voters through each party is in proportion to their numbers. In the list system, the number of candidates on a party’s list who are elected depends on the proportion of ballots they receive. Most European countries (but not the U.K.) have the proportional representation system. The case against it is that it produces unstable coalitions, and breaks the bond between MPs and their constituencies. The government and its policies become slippery.
While better representation for parties that have secured a percentage of the constituency enhances the quality of democracy under the proportional representation system, there are other practical difficulties that go against a stable administration on a sound policy foundation with majority backing. Britain and other Commonwealth countries are used to a single party or front wielding state power with legislative majority. The Cabinet system cannot function on this basis with many parties claiming proportional voting power to run the administration. Therefore, proportional representation may have a certain fascination but a government with manifesto-based collective responsibility necessarily requires the dual party or front or a minority government with the firm and convinced ideological backing of parties from outside the Cabinet, when there is a challenge in Parliament.
Majority in Parliament is the essence of democratic rule. That is why proportional representation is incongruous with a strong government with defined policies. If a presidential system is adopted an element of authoritarian power weakens democracy. True, when Parliament functions with lunatic or fanatic fury, the rule of law withers. But the Cabinet system, with a ceremonial President enjoying supervisory jurisdiction and special constitutional authority, as in our case, is indubitably preferable.
We have a Cabinet system with a President who is the head of the nation with ceremonial powers and advisory authority. He is not a glorified cipher and has an important elder statesman’s role, with the right to get information from government and authority to advise the Cabinet, as has been explained by the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh’s case. In a presidential system the President is powerful. In such contexts, proportional representation has more relevance. But our Constitution is based on the Cabinet system and this basic structure cannot be changed.
Our democracy is conceptually excellent, rendering the noble Preamble, Parts III, IV, and IV A integrally. Even so, although ideologically we have a progressive, people-oriented structure, functionally there are deficiencies, drawbacks, shortcomings, and perversions.
We must focus on these deformities from a dialectical angle. Fifty years have revealed grave flaws and egregious deviances in the executive, legislative, and judicative instrumentalities.
A national discussion and creative as well as imaginative methodology may bring out new viewpoints on this subject. Then, “We, the People of India” will speak, not merely the ruling party.
(Courtesy : The Hindu)
The Constitution has made India a socialist, secular, democratic Republic geared to a dialectically dynamic infrastructure, on a parliamentary basis modelled on the British pattern. What is a secular democracy? Government, “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” going by Abraham Lincoln’s classic definition. It should be founded on humanist materialism sans caste, theology, and feudalist obscurantism. Government by the people being an imperati ve, it is their franchise that decides who will have title to engineer state power. So it is that Winston Churchill observed: “At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth with a little pencil making a little cross on a little bit of paper — no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.” The fundamental nexus between the little man and grassroots democracy takes practical shape through elections, rooted in universal adult franchise. This is a basic feature of our Republic.
Willing votes, fairly cast with secular ubiquity, is the oxygen of elections.
Everyone has a voice and a vote, and his or her franchise must have free and fearless opportunity for expression. The right to cast votes and to be a candidate are provided for by a non-negotiable basic structure operated by an independent Election Commission with constitutional status. Having regard to the huge population above age 18, our constituencies are large.
Election campaigns are expensive. Very few can find the funds to contest for seats without violating legal and monetary limitations and codes of conduct and publicity proprieties. The initial deposit, as well as the manifesto, canvassing, propaganda and other plural financial commitments are large. The small person with socialist, non-communal convictions stands no chance. Only candidates of wealthy parties or fronts, or rich independents, can dream of it. Gandhiji symbolised the axiom small is beautiful, but bourgeois India with creamy layer class domination has alienated the masses from candidature or chance of success.
We have adopted the party system on the British model. But even the two-party system does not work; multi-party coalitions have a crazy appeal. They have come to stay from panchayat to Parliament. Often the process of getting into the voter’s list with photographs and other formalities is so complicated that many eligible adults are not listed.
Electoral performance hardly represents the will of the people. When parties in the fray are many and independents make for further confusion among largely illiterate electorates, the winner hardly has the support of 15 or 20 per cent of the total voter population. Thus the election becomes a charade. In a situation of plurality of parties, which govern with a majority of seats, the House does not reflect the voice of the entire community. He who gets the majority in the first-past-the-post system and sits in the House has the support of only 30 or 40 per cent of the adult population. We are in reality ruled by a minority. Many of the members have criminal antecedents. This system must change.
But what is the alternative? The proportional representation system with lists of nominees means any system of voting designed to ensure that the representation of voters through each party is in proportion to their numbers. In the list system, the number of candidates on a party’s list who are elected depends on the proportion of ballots they receive. Most European countries (but not the U.K.) have the proportional representation system. The case against it is that it produces unstable coalitions, and breaks the bond between MPs and their constituencies. The government and its policies become slippery.
While better representation for parties that have secured a percentage of the constituency enhances the quality of democracy under the proportional representation system, there are other practical difficulties that go against a stable administration on a sound policy foundation with majority backing. Britain and other Commonwealth countries are used to a single party or front wielding state power with legislative majority. The Cabinet system cannot function on this basis with many parties claiming proportional voting power to run the administration. Therefore, proportional representation may have a certain fascination but a government with manifesto-based collective responsibility necessarily requires the dual party or front or a minority government with the firm and convinced ideological backing of parties from outside the Cabinet, when there is a challenge in Parliament.
Majority in Parliament is the essence of democratic rule. That is why proportional representation is incongruous with a strong government with defined policies. If a presidential system is adopted an element of authoritarian power weakens democracy. True, when Parliament functions with lunatic or fanatic fury, the rule of law withers. But the Cabinet system, with a ceremonial President enjoying supervisory jurisdiction and special constitutional authority, as in our case, is indubitably preferable.
We have a Cabinet system with a President who is the head of the nation with ceremonial powers and advisory authority. He is not a glorified cipher and has an important elder statesman’s role, with the right to get information from government and authority to advise the Cabinet, as has been explained by the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh’s case. In a presidential system the President is powerful. In such contexts, proportional representation has more relevance. But our Constitution is based on the Cabinet system and this basic structure cannot be changed.
Our democracy is conceptually excellent, rendering the noble Preamble, Parts III, IV, and IV A integrally. Even so, although ideologically we have a progressive, people-oriented structure, functionally there are deficiencies, drawbacks, shortcomings, and perversions.
We must focus on these deformities from a dialectical angle. Fifty years have revealed grave flaws and egregious deviances in the executive, legislative, and judicative instrumentalities.
A national discussion and creative as well as imaginative methodology may bring out new viewpoints on this subject. Then, “We, the People of India” will speak, not merely the ruling party.
(Courtesy : The Hindu)
will be back soon!!!
The work is tiring and not allowing me to write a new post! The events that occurred in past one month were not best of my life…have been trying to figure out lots of things!
I hope to be back soon and start Posting!
All I want is some time!!!
I hope to be back soon and start Posting!
All I want is some time!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)