Dear Mr President,
I must respectfully differ from you about the need to review the Constitution. I haveno choice. Much before the NDA government was conceived, I had authored an Agenda For NewIndia. Among other things, it recommended a review of the Constitution.
You discourage such a review. You suggest that the Constitution didn't fail us, wefailed the Constitution. You favour the parliamentary system over the presidential system.You fear that the country might slip into authoritarian rule. You highlight responsibilityand accountability as being central to the parliamentary system.
Mr President, it is precisely because we exercised neither responsibility noraccountability that we distorted our Constitution. Allow me to refresh your memory.
In 1975, Indira Gandhi declared Emergency. She acted with mala fide intent. FakhrudinAli Ahmed served her like a rubber stamp. Meanwhile, a legally-debarred prime minister wasallowed to continue in office through legislation with retrospective effect. Thislegislation was endorsed by the court. It was pure farce.
The imposition of Emergency was an act of treason. After the Emergency, legal expertsruled out treason, citing limitations of law. The experts erred. Treason need not be onlyseizure of power through unconstitutional means. It can also be the retention of powerthrough unconstitutional means. No wonder E.M.S. Namboodiripad wanted Parliament to beconverted into the highest tribunal. He wanted Indira Gandhi to be tried for treason.
In the light of the Emergency, Parliament enacted the 42nd and 44th amendments toArticle 74 of the Constitution. These amendments were perverse. Emergency dictatorship wasintroduced by a prime minister refusing to quit office. In response, Parliament curbed thepresident's powers! Earlier, Pandit Nehru had mistakenly overruled President RajendraPrasad, whom you fondly quoted in your speech, when the two differed in interpreting thepresident's powers.
Mr President, how does the question of a presidential system replacing a parliamentarysystem arise? Nobody contemplates change in the basic structure of the Constitution. Butmust a parliamentary system condemn the president to a ceremonial role when he enjoys alarger mandate than the prime minister?
Is it democratic for non-MPs to become prime ministers while elected presidents areviewed as rubber stamps? Is it democratic for the cabinet to decide whether its ownministers can be prosecuted?
Such distortions can be multiplied. That is why the Constitution should be reviewed.That is why you should welcome its review.
When law is an ass
And leaders full of gas,
Democracy ails
And the system fails.
