http://sify.
com/news/ fullstory. php?id=14485869
The BJP leadership knows that the Congress-led
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has the numerical
strength in the Electoral College and, therefore,
its candidate is set to win the July 19 presidential
election. However, the cause of concern for
the BJP is not the perceived victory of a rival's
candidate, but that the candidate is Pratibha
Patil.
The BJP is opposing Pratibha's candidature
under the pretext of the allegations against
her. It is alleged that a cooperative bank headed
by her indulged in financial misconduct and
that she is protecting her brother in a murder
case. Whether these allegations are true or
false, the BJP cannot be expected to care two
hoots about them, given that there is no dearth
of politicians with criminal backgrounds in
the party itself. Race for Rashtrapati Bhavan
For example, take the Uttar Pradesh Assembly
election held earlier this year. Close to 30
per cent of the candidates with criminal charges
were from the BJP. Even otherwise, it is common
knowledge that induction of criminals is generic
to the political parties of our country, with
virtually no party being an exception.
The BJP cannot even be concerned about Pratibha's
loyalty to the Nehru-Gandhi family, and also
to UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, though her
nomination is being perceived by many as a reward
for her faithfulness. After all, if the BJP
was actually for a politically neutral President,
it would not have nominated Bhairon Singh Shekhawat,
a former party leader known as one of the oldest
anti- Congress leaders alive today.
It seems BJP's main problem with Pratibha is
that she has proven secular credentials and
is known for being a daring personality. According
to media reports, the UPA was earlier thinking
of nominating Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil
who was reportedly dropped after the Left, which
is supporting the UPA government from outside,
rejected him allegedly for his soft stand against
communalism. But, not so with Pratibha, who
as the then Governor of Rajasthan returned the
anti-conversion bill passed by the BJP state
government in that state in April 2006, saying
it was unconstitutional. And when the BJP resent
the bill to her later in May 2006, she sat on
it until she referred it to the President on
June 20 this year, a day before she resigned
as the Governor to contest the presidential
election. In other words, Pratibha was ultimately
chosen for her commitment to secularism.
The leaders of the BJP know that a person like
Pratibha can prove to be nothing less than dangerous
for a party that is mandated by its parent organisation
- the RSS - to implement the Hindutva agenda
in the states ruled by it and at the national
level if and when it comes back to power. In
fact, ever since the BJP's coalition NDA lost
the general election in 2004, the RSS has seemingly
tightened its grip over the party attributing
the defeat to its lack of commitment to Hindutva.
This is why BJP president Rajnath Singh in May
2006 led the passing of four amendments in his
party's constitution to give overwhelming powers
to RSS functionaries on deputation to the party
as state organising secretaries. According to
the amendment, only the national party president,
not even state heads, could overrule the decision
of a state organising secretary. This can be
linked to the BJP enacting anti-conversion laws
in new states and amending the existing laws.
It amended the anti-conversion law in Gujarat
on September 19, 2006. In Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh, it passed amendment bills to make existing
laws stricter on August 3 and July 25 respectively.
Although the President's role in India is largely
ceremonial, we must not forget that the Constitution
gives several powers to the `Head of State,'
including the power to declare emergency at
the national level or in a state in case of
failure of constitutional machinery; the responsibility
to appoint key officials such as the Chief Justice
of India, judges of the Supreme Court and high
courts, the Attorney General, the Chief Election
Commissioner and so on and the power to return
a bill to Parliament for reconsideration.
There is no denying that a ruling Central Government
can render the President helpless, as he or
she has to exercise powers in consultation with
the incumbent prime minister and council of
ministers. This happened during the infamous
post-Godhra carnage in Gujarat in 2002, in which
more than 2,000 Muslims were believed to be
killed by mobs led by communal forces. Then
President K R Narayanan had failed to compel
the BJP government to contain the carnage despite
allegedly asking then Prime Minister A B Vajpayee
to take all measures to protect members of the
Muslim community.
However, with the cooperation of the ruling
government, the President can oppose communalism
and promote religious harmony. Given that it
is the Congress-ruled UPA that is in power at
the Centre till 2009 - if it is able to endure
the full term, the BJP now may have to slow
down in implementing the Hindutva agenda in
the states ruled by it, which is exactly what
the Hindu nationalist party seems to fear the
most.
