Statement of the CGPI — On the Presidential Elections 2002
On July 25, Abdul Kalam, the architect of Indian nuclear technology, is expected to assume charge at Rashtrapathi Bhavan as the 11th President of India. While this has become a foregone conclusion, with both the BJP and the Congress Party supporting his candidature, an electoral contest has become necessary because the communists in Parliament, led by the CPI(M), have fielded their own candidate, Ms. Lakshmi Sehgal, as a person best suited to safeguard the "secular and democratic" foundations of the Indian state . Even though the voters in the Presidential Election consist only of an "electoral college" of Members of Parliament and Members of the State Assemblies, a mighty propaganda blitz has been unleashed by CPI(M) and its allies, activating themselves as never before to take this matter "to the people".
These developments raise two important questions. First, what do the hectic negotiations among the main parliamentary parties, finally concluding in the selection of Kalam as the consensus candidate of both BJP and the Congress Party, show? Second, who benefits from the line being advocated by the CPI(M) and its allies on this issue? In order to address these questions, there is a need to first understand the significance of the office of the President in the political system in India today.
Article 74 of the Constitution of India
Role and powers of the President
Under the parliamentary form of governance that exists in India today, copied from the British Westminster model, the President is the formal "Head of State". However, the power of decision making in all matters of state policy is vested solely in the office of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The Constitution gives the President virtually no powers that he or she can exercise without or against the "advice" of the council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
The President cannot stop the disastrous anti-people anti-national economic program of the big bourgeoisie. He or she cannot oppose the open war mongering and aggressive course being pursued by the Indian ruling class. Why then has the question of who should be the 11th President become such a major issue in the Indian political scene today?
There are two reasons why the choice of President can become an important issue. First, the image of the President is of importance to the ruling class. In the early years of the Indian Republic, the choice of President was usually one with a reputation of being a "freedom fighter" or as a scholar who is "above politics". In the early 1980s, when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, Giani Zail Singh was selected as the President prior to launching "Operation Bluestar" or assault by the central armed forces against the Golden Temple of the Sikh faith. This was designed to create the impression that the Central Government is not communal but only against terrorism.
The second reason is that while being largely symbolic, the role of the President assumes special significance when votes are divided and there is what is called a "hung Parliament". Under such circumstances, the President has been vested with discretionary powers to invite the party that has to form the government. His or her role is that of the guardian of the central state when no elected government is in place. This is a source of potential conflict and contention between rival parties in Parliament, each trying to push for "their man".
From January 26, 1950 to May 1967, every President of India was elected unopposed, reflecting the absolute majority that the Congress Party commanded in those days. However, the mid 1960s saw the deepening of class contradictions in India, with mass protests among the workers peasants and youth leading to the intensification of internal contradictions in the ruling bourgeoisie. This was reflected in acute infighting within the Congress Party, leading to its first major split. The death of the serving President, Zakir Husain, in May 1969 led to a bitter struggle within the Congress Party over the choice of his successor. Indira Gandhi used the Presidential Election as the main instrument for establishing her supremacy over her rivals.
Thus, while the role of the President is mainly symbolic and his or her powers extremely limited, history shows that in periods of political crisis, when the ruling class is caught up in deep internal contradictions within its ranks, the election for the post of President can become a contentious issue and serve as a test of political strength.
Election of the Eleventh President
Today, when coalition governments have become the norm and there are frequent governmental crises at the centre and in the states, an acute struggle was to be expected over the choice for the eleventh President. One political journalist has observed that "This is the first time the country is electing its President when the ruling combination and the forces opposed to it are roughly balanced, with the NDA having a slight edge in the Electoral College". (Inder Malhotra, The Hindu Magazine, June 30, 2002).
As soon as the search for a suitable candidate began, divisions were visible within the BJP. While Prime Minister Vajpayee conveyed to the Congress(I) that Vice President Krishna Kant could be a "consensus" candidate, his opponents within the BJP forced him to withdraw this proposal and instead pushed for their man, P. C. Alexander, inviting a contest with the Congress Party, which they were confident of winning. However, when the NDA ally Chandrababu Naidu conveyed his opposition to this idea, this proposal too had to be dropped.
Meanwhile, Harkishen Singh Surjeet of CPI(M) was actively trying to reach an understanding with the Congress(I) and other opposition parties in Parliament to use the occasion of the Presidential elections to mount a united struggle against the BJP and its allies. Their choice for an opposition sponsored candidate was the incumbent K. R. Narayanan.
In the midst of the confusion, contention and behind the scenes maneuvering, the name of Abdul Kalam propped up, reportedly neither from the ranks of the BJP nor the Congress(I), but from the Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav. With the BJP announcing Kalam's candidature and the Congress(I) supporting the same, the attempts of the CPI(M) leaders to come up with a common opposition candidate fell apart.
In Abdul Kalam, the Indian big bourgeoisie has found the ideal symbolic Head of State who will lend credibility to its warmongering and aggressive plans in the name of fighting Islamic terrorism.
Following the recent state-organised communal violence in Gujarat, the ruling BJP became extremely discredited by its openly communal stance. This had repercussions both within India and internationally. The Confederation of Indian Industry made it a point to invite the leader of the opposition, Sonia Gandhi, to its annual meeting in March, to send the signal to the ruling BJP that it had better rectify its image or face the prospect of being replaced by the Congress(I). In this context, the choice of Kalam as President serves the purpose of emphasizing that the NDA Government is not against Muslims in general, but only against "Islamic terrorism".
The choice of Kalam for President is also a signal that the Indian big bourgeoisie remains committed to its ambition of becoming an imperial power in its own right, a source of terror for the peoples of this region, a power that cannot be ignored by the US and other big powers of the world. It is a confirmation of the direction that the Indian rulers are embarking on. Open warmongering and aggression abroad, in collusion and contention with other imperialist powers, naked fascistic repression and communal violence at home as adjuncts of its drive towards the globalisation of capital and production through "second generation reforms" -- this is what the big bourgeoisie has in store.
The consensus achieved between the BJP and the Congress Party on this choice shows that in spite of their acute rivalry, these two parties stand for the same program and course for India. Their rivalry is over which of them is best suited to champion this dangerous course set by the big bourgeoisie.
Communist Response
The unveiling of the dangerous course of the big bourgeoisie calls on all Indian communists to redouble their energies to build the broadest possible political unity of the working class and all the oppressed, around an alternative course and program for the renewal of India.
Instead of exposing the plans of the ruling class and mobilising the masses of people against this plan and around a revolutionary alternative, the CPI(M) and its allies claim that the main danger comes from the communal fascist forces of BJP and the 'sangh parivaar'. They claim that the "most important task of the hour is to safeguard the office of the President from the clutches of such forces".
This line of thinking and action advocated by the CPI(M) and its allies to the working class and people serves to keep them chained to the concept that the Indian state is a 'trustee' of the people, their protector, with the President being the ultimate guardian of this popular institution. This theory of trusteeship is what the British colonialists used to justify their conquest and rule of India by brute force.
At a time when the political system and state inherited from colonial times, and the theory of trusteeship on which it is based, are facing an acute crisis of credibility, the CPI(M) is glorifying this colonial legacy. Such glorification of the state and its President as guardians of the people serves the interest of the ruling class to hide the reality that the Indian state is nothing but an instrument and arrangement for the rule of an exploiting minority over the vast majority. The line of the CPI(M) serves to hide this basic fact and fundamental conclusion of Marxism on the State.
At a time when things and phenomena are revealing the common class content of what BJP and the Congress Party stand for, the CPI(M) has chosen to highlight only their difference and absolutise this difference. Instead of campaigning for a radical alternative to the course of globalisation of capital, of fascisation and reactionary war, the leadership of CPI(M) have chosen to confine their campaign to merely opposing the BJP and its allies, showing that they are not opposed to the rule of the big bourgeoisie but only to one of the parties or factions of the bourgeoisie.
While the question of who should be President, the symbolic head of the Indian state, is an issue for the big bourgeois class, the line of CPI(M) is creating the false impression that this is a matter of life and death for the working class and people. This serves to depoliticise the working class and people, making them place their faith in the state of the exploiters.
The line advocated by the CPI(M) and its allies does not serve to build the fighting unity of the working class and all the oppressed against the big bourgeoisie and its dangerous plans. On the contrary, it serves to tone down the class struggle by fostering harmful illusions about the bourgeois state as the guarantor of the people's interests. This line constitutes the main roadblock today to building the unity of Indian communists, and the broad political unity of the working class, peasantry and all the oppressed against the anti-social offensive of the bourgeoisie and around the alternative program for the democratic renewal of India.
Disclaimer: The opinions presented on this website's event and discussion forums are those of readers from around the world and do not necessarily represent the views of CGPI, its members or any affiliated organisations.
Home | About | Statements & Speeches | Documents | People's Voice | Donate | Act Now! | Download
Search powered by