WHAT IT COSTS TO KEEP A PRESIDENT
INits 70th year of Independence, the government has chosen a Dalit candidate for its highest office of the head of the state for the second time. Ram Nath Kovind, former governor of Bihar, is the second Scheduled Caste presidential candidate after K.R. Narayanan became the country’s 10th, and the first Dalit, president in 1997. As democratic politics is first and foremost a symbolic contest for representation, the choice of a Dalit candidate was a move that was widely described as another “masterstroke” by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. So formidable was the first-mover advantage the NDA gained by selecting a Dalit candidate for the presidency that the Congress’s Meira Kumar, also a Dalit, became an obvious choice as candidate for the 17-party mahagathbandhan. However, paradoxically, while choosing candidates from Dalit backgrounds, the leadership across political parties has been silent on the enormous costs the country’s taxpayers bear to house and maintain the office of the Presidency.
Consider the costs. For the next five years, Ram Nath Kovind, presidentelect, along with his family, will be occupying two floors of a wing of the 340-roomed presidential palace, spread over 330 acres, on Raisina Hill. Larger than the Palace of Versailles in France, the grounds of the Rashtrapati Bhavan alone are worth an estimated Rs 16,000 crore. Formerly the Viceroy’s House, it has four wings, two each in the north and south, 37 fountains, 227 towering columns, an 18-hole golf course, tennis and squash courts, swimming pools, stables for the horses and camels of the bodyguards, a hospital and even a petrol pump.
The Central Durbar Hall, around which all official functions are held, features an exquisite two-tonne chandelier. The Banquet Hall, the walls of which sport portraits of former presidents, can comfortably host 104 guests. The Ashoka Hall, the ceiling of which is painted in the Persian style, is shaped like a gigantic jewel box 32 x 20 metres. The palace dome was inspired by the Pantheon of Rome, the world’s largest unreinforced concrete dome. Designed by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, the entire structure used 700 million bricks and 3 million cubic feet of stone, and took 20 years to build during which time Lutyens made 20 trips to India from England.
Besides, there are the magnificent presidential retreats in Mashobra (300 acres of forest), Shimla, and the 90-acre Rashtrapati Nilayam in Bolarum, Hyderabad, both annual vacation homes for the president. According to a June 2015 RTI, the Rashtrapati Bhavan has 754 employees, including nine private secretaries, eight telephone operators, 27 vehicle drivers and 64 multi-tasking staff, a majority of whom stay on the sprawling campus. About Rs 1.52 crore was spent on salaries alone for the month of May 2015. The telephone bills for March and April 2015 were Rs 4.25 lakh and Rs 5.06 lakh, respectively.
A whopping Rs 66 crore will be spent on the staff, household and allowances of the president, according to budget estimates for 2017-18. This does not include the cost of security provided by the Delhi police and the army, and the presidential foreign jaunts.
WHITE HOUSE VERSUS THE RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN
Even the White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the official residence and office of the US President, pales in comparison to the presidential palace on Raisina Hill. The White House has only 132 rooms, six of them underground (mainly for security reasons), across six storeys, compared to the 340 tastefully decorated rooms in the Rashtrapati Bhavan, besides hundreds of sundry outhouses for additional staff. The Rashtrapati Bhavan has a built-up area of 200,000 sq. ft, the White House, at 55,000 sq. ft, has only a fourth of the built-up area. Further, the White House is built on just 18 acres of land compared to the Bhavan’s 330. The magnificent Mughal Gardens at the presidential palace is spread over 13 acres, besides hundreds of acres of jungle, orchards, cultivated fields and open ground. The Rose Garden at the White House is a modest 7,500 sq. ft in comparison.
A senior official at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, however, scoffs at any comparison. “The expenses of the American president are much more than the Indian president, if one includes the massive costs of operating Air Force One, the Blair House and US presidential retreats in Camp David and vacations in Martha’s Vineyard,” he says. But, as additional secretary to the President, Thomas Mathew, argues in his book, Abode Under the Dome, the Rashtrapati Bhavan has functioned as an official guesthouse for almost 700 visiting heads of states.
Comparing the two presidencies is also akin to comparing apples and oranges. While the US president is the most powerful executive of the world’s leading superpower, his Indian counterpart is just a constitutional figurehead, a role circumscribed in Article 74 of the Indian Constitution: ‘There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice’ (the emphasised text was added by the 42nd amendment). Post the 42nd amendment, the president is legally bound by the council of ministers in the exercise of his functions, thereby
Larger than the Palace of Versailles, the Rashtrapati Bhavan grounds alone are worth an estimated Rs 16,000 crore
curtailing his discretionary powers. Mathew disagrees yet again, saying the Indian president is no rubber stamp. “The president’s opinion is hugely respected. He can summon the PM and cabinet ministers for a meeting anytime.”
Given the titular role and the price of the presidency, should one hypothetically consider replacing the post with, say, the Supreme Court? “No, not really, the President protects the Constitution while the Supreme Court interprets it,” says constitutional expert, lawyer and MP, K.T.S. Tulsi. The Indian president serves a vital function, he adds, “He calms down the terribly competitive nerves of parliamentary democracy.” Tulsi points out how PM Modi referred to outgoing president Pranab Mukherjee as “playing the role of my father”. Mathew agrees. “The president is the last hope for the Opposition on ticklish issues,” he says.
POLITICAL LOYALIST VERSUS NON-POLITICAL PRESIDENT
Why did Prime Minister Modi choose Ram Nath Kovind, a party loyalist and a man of enormous political experience while, in sharp contrast, former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee chose A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a scientist
and a non-political president? “One reason could be that Vajpayee headed a coalition government, whereas Modi commands an overwhelming majority in Parliament,” says BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra.
Tulsi counters Patra’s reasoning. “Modi, a more strong-willed leader,” he claims, “is sceptical about any dissent or debate. He prefers a rubber-stamp president exactly like the Congress-led UPA selected Pratibha Patil.”
Former additional solicitor-general Indira Jaising says, “Kovind was selected by the NDA with the 2019 Lok Sabha polls in mind. Since there is no predictability of voter behaviour, a loyalist president can favourably handle any political uncertainty in 2019 with his discretionary powers.”
What are the challenges presidentelect Ram Nath Kovind is likely to face in the next five years? He has two choices: either to be a rubberstamp president like Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who signed the proclamation of Emergency in 1975 even before the cabinet had discussed it, or else use his discretionary position to carve out an independent image for himself.
LESSONS FROM NARAYANAN
Since Kovind is the second Dalit presidential candidate after K.R. Narayanan, he could use the exemplary role the latter played as a template. Until 2019, Kovind has an easy role cut out for him, given the electoral hegemony of the BJP in each and every constitutional office. But should the 2019 Lok Sabha throw up an unexpected result, Kovind will be faced with his first big challenge.
The President’s role may be largely ceremonial in a Westminster style parliamentary system as in India but as the custodian of the Constitution, the incumbent has played an important role in times of uncertainty, such as a hung Parliament, says Satya Narayana Sahu, officer on special duty to Narayanan.
While the president is obliged to act under the aid and advice of the council
of ministers, the office of the “head of state is one of great influence, as distinct from power”, says Sahu. He provides two instances when Narayanan declined to approve a recommendation made to him; once, in 1997, when the I.K. Gujral-led United Front government proposed President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh against the Kalyan Singh-led BJP government. The BJP, then in Opposition, hailed Narayanan as “a saviour of democracy”.
Narayanan, however, revealed himself to be non-partisan a year later, in 1998, when the BJP was in office and sent a recommendation to him for President’s rule in Bihar. The then Bihar governor, S.S. Bhan- dari, had reported “a slide into chaos of Bihar”, then ruled by Rashtriya Janata Dal’s Rabri Devi government. In a memorable minute, Narayanan said a slide was a slow process and observed: “A pertinent point arises, viz., that over the period of the slide, remedial action in terms of constitutional obligation ought to have been taken to arrest the decline.”
Some incumbents, such as outgoing Pranab Mukherjee, have tried to act as conscience-keepers, using their constitutional authority and their public pronouncements to defend India’s founding principles as a secular, diverse democracy. Kovind, therefore, will have stellar examples to follow.
STATESMAN OR RUBBER STAMP
India’s first president Rajendra Prasad had many constitutional run-ins with the country’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, particularly on the Hindu Code Bill. The clash between the two began even before the bill was formally introduced in Parliament. Taking cognisance of press reports, Prasad wrote to the prime minister on September 15, 1951: “My right to examine it (the bill) on its merits, when it is passed by the Parliament, before giving assent to it, is there. But if any action of mine at a later stage is likely to cause embarrassment to the Government, I may take such appropriate actions as I may be called upon to avoid such embarrassment consistently with the dictates of my own conscience.” Nehru disagreed with Prasad but was persuaded by the President’s insistence.
President S. Radhakrishnan even succeeded in getting defence minister Krishna Menon sacked after India’s debacle at the hands of the Chinese. This, in the face of Nehru being disinclined to take any action despite criticism of Menon in Parliament. Radhakrishnan, biographer Sarvepalli Gopal says, even blamed the government for the defeat, terming it “a matter of sorrow, a shame and humiliation because of two blunders in policy—credulity and negligence on the government’s part”.
Kovind will have an easy time till 2019. His challenge will begin if the Lok Sabha polls throw up an adverse result
V.V. Giri, a vocal trade unionist, elected as president with the help of Indira Gandhi as she battled the powerful syndicate within the Congress, often expressed his reservations over anti-labour legislation. He objected when the Indira-led Congress wanted to dismiss striking railway employees.
Acting president B.D. Jatti, who succeeded Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, proved more assertive. When the Janata Party requested him to sign an ordinance dissolving nine assemblies in Congress (I)-ruled states, he pleaded that the federal government had no powers to dissolve duly elected assemblies without proper reason. The then prime minister Morarji Desai was forced to defer to his observations.
The President-PM conflicts continued even after the Janata Party installed N. Sanjiva Reddy as president. Reddy and Morarji clashed and the latter prevented him from going abroad on ceremonial visits. A peeved Reddy created constitutional history when he invited Charan Singh to form government after Morarji lost majority in the Lok Sabha, ignoring claims of Dalit leader Jagjivan Ram who was numerically ahead of Singh. Reddy set yet another precedent when he dissolved the Lok Sabha on Singh’s advice, who ultimately couldn’t prove his majority.
Of course, there is an alternative narrative of presidents who acted as mere rubber stamps. Zail Singh publicly claimed he would sweep the floor if Indira Gandhi asked him to do so. The same Zail Singh, however, asserted himself when Rajiv became PM and pushed the idea that the president can dismiss the PM.
Which of these presidents will Kovind resemble? Will he follow the exemplary tradition set by Rajendra Prasad, Radhakrishnan and Narayanan or be a rubber stamp like Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed et al? Prasad had even decided to take only half his salary. Radhakrishnan voluntarily donated and converted the Viceroy’s Lodge in Shimla to the Advanced Institute for Higher Education. Men with feet of clay lead public institutions towards decline and decay while visionary leaders set exemplary traditions by creating dynamic institutional benchmarks. Kovind, according to Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, had been exemplary as governor of the state. Should he do the same at Rashtrapati Bhavan, he will go down in history as a visionary president.