While the former vice president was not a perfect holder of the coveted post, he still deserved at least a humble goodbye from RS, the House he presided over
First, a disclosure.
I am no admirer of former vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar. His conduct as the governor of West Bengal was, on many occasions, way out of line. The vice president of India should seldom intervene in public contentions. He did so almost all the time, especially regarding the judiciary and its past decisions.
A vice president’s public counsel should be balanced: Dhankhar’s never was. As the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, a vice president should impartially conduct his proceedings. He never stayed in the middle. Indeed, he wore his leanings on his sleeve. It is only after the Opposition moved a motion of no-confidence against him that he began to, it is believed, reach out to it.
Courtesy and civility are India’s civilisational values. They are not the attributes of the elites. The current political class should take a cue from the way the people conduct themselves.
It is also suspected that his slightly changed position earned him the ire of the ruling dispensation. That is what finally led to his resignation.
Dhankhar deserved a send-off
As the holder of the country’s second-highest constitutional office, Dhankhar, at least, deserved an appropriate farewell, in a timely manner, from the chamber he presided over. After all, he did not go as a result of an impeachment but ostensibly on account of his health. The farewell need not have been exuberant or enthusiastic.
Also read: Congress demands ‘dignified farewell’ for Dhankhar; Centre stays mum
It could have been only a statement of good words read out by the deputy chairman on behalf of the Rajya Sabha. That even this has not been done shows that basic courtesy and civility have vanished from our public culture. This raises a fundamental query regarding the kind of public culture that will prevail in this 'Amrit Kaal'.
Courtesy and civility are India’s civilisational values. They are not the attributes of the elites—westernised or otherwise. Indeed, they are most manifest among the common folk all over the country and are often—yes, not always—seen in the way the elderly are treated in public places.
Perhaps India’s present political class should take a cue from the way the people conduct themselves.
Also read: Opposition unites to challenge Modi govt on Dhankhar's exit; can it pull it off?
It is natural that the conventions that guided Indian public life would change over the years. These conventions were inherited from the practices of British public life. Some of the conventions on how holders of constitutional offices should conduct themselves were derived from how holders of high political offices did so in Britain.
In some instances, they became part of governance systems and patterns.
Impartiality, buzzword of constitutional offices
A cardinal feature which guided holders of constitutional offices was this: Irrespective of the manner and by whom they were appointed, they would conduct themselves impartially and independently. The same was expected of the judiciary and the civil service.
Also read: Dhankhar's resignation linked to stand on farmers' issue, suggests Ashok Gehlot
Over the decades, this has changed. Only a few in India now believe that those appointed to constitutional offices, including commissions mandated by the Constitution, will conduct themselves in an apolitical and unbiased manner. This is especially when they have to make decisions that impact the politics of the country.
That is why one of the principal commissions where the appointment system of members has not been sought to be changed is the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). This is because it does not influence the country’s politics as its remit relates only to the country’s bureaucracy and technocracy. It is a different matter that ideological orientations are now behind, is believed, some appointments to the UPSC.
As it is now expected that the political executive will appoint persons to constitutional positions who will be sympathetic to it, it has been sought to curtail its power to make these appointments. This situation did not arise suddenly.
Also read: PM Modi’s curt farewell note to Dhankhar sparks talk over timing and tone
In the early decades after Independence, though, questions relating to the powers of the executive to make appointments to such offices were not questioned because the appointees generally manifested neutrality in their conduct.
Thus, even the persons who had held ministerial office or had been in politics were appointed to the Supreme Court and the high courts. One of them was the legendary Supreme Court Judge, VR Krishna Iyer.
Rot started in the 1970s
Changes in public perceptions about the authorities making these appointments and the appointees can be traced to the 1970s, when the then political executive began to talk about the need for a committed bureaucracy and judiciary. This poison, then introduced in the polity, has only spread. It has eroded confidence in the basic tenet and convention that persons appointed to public offices will act according to the law and the Constitution and conduct themselves independently without bias.
Now, it is assumed that the appointees will be biased towards those who have appointed them. That has been demonstrated on a number of occasions under different governments.
What is tragic is that the rot seems to have now reached the senior constitutional offices, including that of the vice president of India. It has been shown that any deviation will not be tolerated from the present practice, that those appointed or even elected, need to show a political preference for those who have appointed them.
Etiquette, civility forgotten customs
Indeed, so demonstratively will any deviation be suppressed that norms of civility and courtesy will be given a go by. This is becoming, if it has not already become so, a part of India’s political culture.
The Indian political class as a whole must think deeply about whether this is what they would like India’s political culture and traditions to be. This is particularly because it is contrary to India’s civilisational norms and practices.
This will also be a terrible legacy for future generations because basic norms of etiquette and civility should be the warp and weft of any decent society and polity. It should also guide the political parties and leaders towards their political adversaries.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
