Most of the Ambedkarites believe that the RSS and BJP are going to change the Indian Constitution as and when they have a majority in both houses of parliament. It is widely believed that RSS is against the parliamentary democracy and they want the Presidential form of government. Some of the Congressmen among the OBC/SC/ST are spreading the propaganda that only Congress can save the country’s constitution. Many Ambedkarites are falling prey to this conspiracy of Congress to heighten insecurity among OBC/SC/STs to garner their votes. Some SC retired IAS officers have joined Congress and are justifying that they have done so to strengthen Congress, which only is capable to fight against BJP and RSS and save Indian Constitution. But is this really true? Is the hidden agenda of Congress really different from the open agenda of RSS/BJP?

Congressmen who have been in favour of the presidential system

Many Congressmen have been in favour of the presidential system. Vallabhbhai Patel fought with Nehru to have directly elected Executives – President as well as Governors – in India’s Constitution. In 1963, a Congress stalwart and member of the Constituent Assembly, KM Munshi wrote that “if I had to make a choice again I would vote for the presidential system.” R. Venkataraman, the former President, wrote in 1965, “The presidential system offers the best solution.” Vasant Sathe was after Indira Gandhi for years to adopt that system. Babubhai Patel, Chimanbhai Mehta, and BK Nehru are some other Congressmen who were proponents of the Presidential form of government.

Attempts to overthrow the parliamentary form of government by Congress during Emergency

During Emergency in 1976, Sanjay Gandhi wanted the Parliament to be replaced by a constituent assembly that would switch to a presidential form of government. His followers in the state legislatures of Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh had passed resolutions to that effect. An ardent Sanjay-ite, Bansi Lal, then defence minister, told Mrs Gandhi’s cousin B.K. Nehru, “Get rid of all this election nonsense… Just make our sister president for life and there’s no need to do anything else.”

In 1976, when India was groaning under the impact of Indira Gandhi’s dictatorship, the Congress appointed a Committee headed by Swaran Singh to review the Constitution. The Committee worked at great speed, consulted party MPs, party chief ministers and Pradesh Congress chiefs and came up with a horrendous list of amendments to cripple the judiciary, destroy the federal character of the Constitution and to give Parliament untrammelled power to alter this document.

The Swaran Singh report set the tone for the infamous 42nd Amendment that destroyed the very soul of the Constitution. While all this was on, citizens were barred from holding meetings to discuss the proposed amendments and the media were prohibited from criticising the proposals.
A major recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee was that “the constituent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution as provided in Article 368 should not be open to question or challenge”. In order to achieve this, the Committee said Article 368 should be amended to categorically prohibit judicial review. Further, the high courts should be barred from entertaining writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of a Central law “and any rule, regulation and bye-law made thereunder.”

In short, the Swaran Singh Committee was hitting at the very foundations of the Constitution by suggesting measures to weaken the judiciary and to alter the federal features in the Constitution.
Taken together, these amendments robbed the Constitution of its soul and turned India into a dictatorship. This Amendment knocked out the principle of equality before law enshrined in Article 14. The basic features of the Constitution were subjected to much greater bombardment in the 42nd Amendment that was passed by Parliament in November 1976, after the Lok Sabha had extended its life. This Amendment, which mutilated the Constitution, was done after the Swaran Singh Committee conducted a spurious constitutional review. It introduced a new article to deal with “anti-national activity” (a euphemism for political opponents), put constitutional amendments beyond judicial review, stripped the high courts of their powers and bolstered the emergency powers of the executive. But the most obnoxious clause was the one which empowered the President to amend the Constitution when necessary.

Shashi Tharoor, Congress MP is a proponent of the Presidential form of government

For more than two decades, Dr Shashi Tharoor, Congress MP from Thiruvananthapuram, has been a proponent of the presidential form of government for modern day India. He has argued in many writings and speeches (see link below) that the parliamentary system adopted by the country at Independence 70 years ago was never suitable for Indian conditions and has outlived its utility.

“The parliamentary system has not merely outlived any good it could do; it was from the start unsuited to Indian conditions and is primarily responsible for many of our principal political ills”. – Tharoor

“Parliamentary form of government limits executive posts to those who are electable rather than to those who are able. The prime minister cannot appoint a Cabinet of his choice; he has to cater to the wishes of the political leaders of several parties. Yes, he can bring some members in through the Rajya Sabha, but our Upper House too has been largely the preserve of full-time politicians, so the talent pool has not been significantly widened”-Tharoor

Babasaheb’s thoughts on why only the parliamentary form of government is needed

Stability versus Responsibility

‘The Presidential system of America is based upon the separation of the Executive and the Legislature- so that the President and his Secretaries cannot be members of the Congress. The Draft Constitution does not recognise this doctrine. The Ministers of the Indian Union are members of Parliament. Only members of Parliament can become Ministers. Ministers have the same rights as other members of Parliament, namely, that they can sit in Parliament, take part in debates and vote in its proceedings.
Both systems of Government are of course democratic and the choice between the two is not very easy.

A democratic executive must satisfy two conditions (1) It must be a stable executive and (2) it must be a responsible executive. Unfortunately, it has not been possible so far to devise a system, which can ensure both in equal degree. You can have a system which can give you more stability but less responsibility or you can have a system, which gives you more responsibility, but less stability.

The American and the Swiss systems give more stability but less responsibility. The British system, on the other hand, gives you more responsibility but less stability. The reason for this is obvious.
The American Executive is a non-Parliamentary Executive, which means that it is not dependent for its existence upon a majority in the Congress, while the British system is a Parliamentary Executive, which means that it is dependent upon a majority in Parliament.

Being a non-Parliamentary Executive, the Congress of the United States cannot dismiss the Executive. A Parliamentary Government must resign the moment it loses the confidence of a majority of the members of Parliament. Looking at it from the point of view of responsibility, a non-Parliamentary Executive being independent of parliament tends to be less responsible to the Legislature, while a Parliamentary Executive being more dependent upon a majority in Parliament become more responsible. The Parliamentary system differs from a non-Parliamentary system in as much as the former is more responsible than the latter but they also differ as to the time and agency for assessment of their responsibility.

Under the non-Parliamentary system, such as the one that exists in the US, the assessment of the responsibility of the Executive is periodic. It is done by the Electorate.

In England, where the Parliamentary system prevails, the assessment of responsibility of the Executive is both daily and periodic. The daily assessment is done by members of Parliament, through questions, Resolutions, No-confidence motions, Adjournment motions and Debates on Addresses. Periodic assessment is done by the Electorate at the time of the election which may take place every five years or earlier.

The daily assessment of responsibility, which is not available under the American system, is felt to be far more effective than the periodic assessment and far more necessary in a country like India. The Draft Constitution in recommending the Parliamentary system of Executive has preferred ‘more responsibility to more stability.’

Conclusion

Not just the BJP, but both Congress and BJP intend to change the Indian Constitution and bring in the constitution which will perpetuate the rule of 15% minority Savarna Hindus in India. Presidential form of government can help them easily achieve that. The OBC/SC/ST-Bahujan Samaj have to fight their own battle to save the Indian Constitution. Relying on Congress to do this for them is going to be a suicidal move on part of the Bahujan Samaj.

Author – Jayant Pathri

[irp]