75th year: Replacing Parl. system with Presidential form - Is it an answer?

New Delhi: The 75th year of Indian independence should be also the right time to do all sorts of introspection.

One major source of angst against all sorts of limitation and failures and some deliberate lapses in the country actually calls for a change in the very 'Indian attitude'. 

The craze to protect status quo and a temperament to create sacrosanct  and 'sacred cows' on few issues is really a major hurdle.

In 1998-99, the Vajpayee government tried re-look at Indian Constitution. But then everyone seemed to play the game 'safe' and essentially declined to discard the status quo.

Even Late P A Sangma's insistence that a person of foreign origin should not be allowed to become Prime Minister of India was rejected by the Commission itself.

Justice M N Rao Venkatachaliah, chairman of the National Commission to review Working of the Constitution and other members simply wasted a national opportunity.

  

Now, let us look at few limitations of the existing parliamentary system.

How much Left and the so-called parliamentary democracy has harmed a 'potentially talented' state like West Bengal is now an open secret.

The first Leftist government in 1967 in West Bengal almost legitimised 'gherao' as a form of labour movement.

The menace persists even this day. The mega episode when the state's Chief Minister and her Law Minister parked themselves at CBI office and in a court with protesters all around, it was only a reflection of 'gherao' culture.

Now turn the table. Installation of either Farooq Abdullah in Jammu and Kashmir in 1980s or Siddharth Shankar Ray in 1972 in Bengal by rigged elections only has contributed to 'destruction' of sense of logic and legitimacy.

In other states, parliamentary democracy has actually legitimised caste politics and Robinhood variety of violence.

A few instant benefit of shifting to Presidential form is that the country's President would be a 'national hero' unlike the 1996 experiment when a mofusil-non performing 'poor farmer' from Karnataka was hired to suit some power brokers' agenda.

There are various issues and positive things. We will not have Pegasus kind of orchestrated row just to sabotage an entire parliament session and waste public money. 

The Presidential form can in fact ensure 'stability' and despite confrontation and political conflicts, the country could be saved from the colossal costs of mid-term elections.

Of course even Late Sangma in 1990s admitted that a presidential form can have an 'executive central administration' which could be more result-oriented.

But it goes without saying that in circa 2021 any suggestion to opt for this option could be seen as an agenda to ensure Narendra Modi's win. 

In India today there is no suitable competitor to him as well. This also reflects a failure of the existing Parliamentary system.

Thus, the votaries of coalition politics - self-righteous communists and a few caste-based and family-centric state parties would never opt for this presidential form model.

The status quo suits them and it also suits Indian bureaucracy, allegedly the root cause of all corruption and 'jugadu politics'.

In the name of Presidential model, if the US system is adopted, the civil service - the powerful IFS, IAS, IPS and state service cadres would lose their grip on governance. There have been good officers certainly but the assurances of permanence in job has also turned a source of menace.

In 1999 too, it came to light at a later stage that Babus also influenced the ultimate decision and made the Vajpayee government's sincere efforts to re-look at the constitution only a cosmetic exercise.

In fact, it may not be wrong to observe that under the given situation in the country, the bureaucracy in India has provided a support structure to corrupt political regimes.

There are number of issues and factors which could be easily enumerated as ailments plaguing our existing parliamentary democracy.

To look for an answer or alternative is people's right and in a democracy it is the people who have to take the final call.

But nevertheless there should be a debate and 75th year of country's indepence is the right time.

Blogger 

Ends