Dear Mr President,
Once earlier, I used this space to write an open letter to you. I questioned yourdecision to oppose a review of the Constitution. Your speech in the banquet hosted forPresident Clinton impels me to write to you again.
According to newspaper reports, your speech reflected your own views over and abovesuggestions to you by the ministry of external affairs. Your predecessor vettedpresidential speeches to introduce only stylistic changes in keeping with his preferences.The President speaks for the cabinet. He must take care, therefore, to avoid alteringtone, nuance or emphasis in the official draft. The tone of your speech at the banquetdiffered from that of the government.
This invited media speculation, both in India and abroad. You will agree that suchcontroversies are unfortunate. They lower the dignity of your august office. One canappreciate the views that you expressed. Indeed, several opposition leaders appreciatedthem. The government maintained an embarrassed silence. Did such expression conform topropriety?
One is brought back to the question about reviewing the Constitution. You know,doubtless, my own views on the subject, Mr President. I laid them down in Agenda for NewIndia, which I presented to you several governments ago. You were gracious enough to grantme an audience. I offered suggestions on the precise lines along which we might introducechanges without impinging on the basic structure of the Constitution. In particular, Isuggested a role for the President commensurate with his mandate, which would not weakenbut strengthen the parliamentary system of governance.
You seem, however, to resist any review of the Constitution. One might show preferencefor a wider forum than a government-appointed panel, such as Parliament, to carry out areview. But outright opposition to a review places you in an awkward situation, MrPresident. According to the Constitution, as it is currently interpreted, the propriety ofyour banquet speech is questionable.
So, you've to choose. Either you may revise your opinion about the need to reviewthe Constitution, or you may accept the status quo by which the President simply reflectsthe cabinet's opinion. You can't hold both views simultaneously. It would betragic, you'll agree, if impression gains ground that there's any effort tosubvert the Constitution.
Any president
Invites intervention,
If by accident
He ignores convention
