Shashi Tharoor defies Congress policy

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor (Photo: PTI/File)

  Congress MP Shashi Tharoor is turning out to an ambitious man. A second-term Lok Sabha MP representing Kerala's Thiruvananthapuram constituency, Tharoor has sought to underplay a signature  campaign initiated from his home state Kerala, lobbying for his projection as prime ministerial candidate in 2019 polls. But Tharoor has a penchant to go against the official Congress line. A beleaguered Rahul Gandhi will be better off taking note of it. The latest controversy by Tharoor is his unqualified support to replace the Westminster style of parliamentary democracy as practised in India with the US style of Presidential form of Government. Tharoor is also backing the BJP's demand for simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly polls and batting for “stable Government.” This runs contrary to the Congress's stand. The Congress is not prepared to discuss, debate or make any sacrifice that may pave way for the American system of presidential form of Government. The question that is doing rounds is whether Tharoor is positioning himself against Rahul within the party. What if he decides to contest against Rahul in party polls just as Sharad Pawar and Rajesh Pilot had thrown a leadership challenge to Sitaram Kesari (1997) and Jitendra Prasada had unsuccessfully tried to stop Sonia Gandhi’s appointment as AICC president in 1999? In a recent article for Project Syndicate, Tharoor advocated a rethink of parliamentary system, claiming how frequent State level elections put pressure on the Prime Minister to “frequently leave aside their role as leader of the country to act as leader of their party” and face many “plebiscites.” The Congress MP goes on to say, “With a more expansive and predictable election cycle, India’s leaders would be able to move beyond the unpleasant business of political contention, and settle down to governance. In that shift in focus lies a presidential system’s ultimate vindication.” The Congress's official line has been different. President Pranab Mukherjee, a former Congress ideologue, spoke in Mumbai on March 17, 2017, opposing the presidential form of Government. He told a gathering in Mumbai, “It would be wise for succeeding generations of leadership in India to learn from Mrs Gandhi’s strengths as well as her mistakes,” Mukherjee said adding, “It is my belief that a country as complex and diverse as India can be administered only through delegation of authority.” The resistance to Tharoor’s advocacy of the presidential form and simultaneous polls is evident at all levels of Congress hierarchy. Ashish Dua, Congress national media coordinator, thinks these measures to be impractical. “One nation does have one election, which is for the Lok Sabha. So clearly to force all elections to be held at the same time seems an impractical step, given the ground situation. Also, this would move the country towards becoming a unitary state, as opposed to a federal state as envisaged by the founding fathers in the Constitution,” argues Dua. Dua raises citizens’ issues to counter Tharoor’s line of thinking. “ As a citizen I have different priorities. I know the issues of my panchayat/municipal corporation, state and country. I may like to vote differently on the three tiers of voting available to me by judging their performance...” If Tharoor cares to read Congress history and debates, he would find that except for R Vekataraman, Vasant Sathe and A.R. Antulay, nobody advocated switch from parliamentary to presidential form of government. It is pertinent to note that Antulay’s 1975 move was aimed at declaring Indira Gandhi “life-long” President of India!  A Congress committee headed by Sardar Swaran Singh had rejected proposal to shift to presidential form of government. Justice Venkatachaliah who had headed a constitution review panel on the request of the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had, after careful scrutiny,  strongly recommended that parliamentary framework should not be disturbed. A section of Congressmen who do not wish to be named, want Tharoor to read Acharya J.B. Kirpalani’s article (available online in Swarajya archives) written in 1972 whether stable governments are essential for democracy. Kiraplani had demolished the argument. He started off by saying, “It is true that there must be stability in a government for some time to give it a chance to fulfil its pledges made to the electorate at the election time. But a stable government, that threatens to perpetuate itself by any means that it can command, would certainly, in course of time, destroy democracy. It may result in the dictatorship of a party; but ultimately this becomes also the dictatorship of an individual. When such an individual commands a charismatic personality, the process towards dictatorship is complete. We see the signs of this clearly today.” (That was 1972 when Indira was yet to impose emergency!) Kirpalani goes on to write, “If the present pattern of stable governments both at the Centre and in the States is allowed to last, we would not be in the process of getting a dictatorial party and the dictator at its head but we have already got them. This is stability with a vengeance! Democracy, as we have said earlier, can prosper only where there is a possibility of change. It is wrong to think that periodical changes in the government, whether in favour of a single party or a coalition of parties, is undesirable in a democracy.” Tharoor, sticks to his stand in Project Syndicate piece and says, “If there ever were need for yet another clinching argument for a presidential system in India, it is the spectacle of the head of government abandoning the responsibilities of that office every few months to go on the stump for their party. The parliamentary system has not merely outlived any good it could do India; it was never well suited to Indian conditions. In fact, it is responsible for many of our principal political ills,” Tharoor wrote. (The author is an Associate Editor with The Telegraph, Calcutta) Rasheed Kidwai tweets @rasheedkidwai Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.