Turning Points (15 page)
The idea of a musical garden came up on a Sunday when I was in discussion with Dr Brahma Singh and my friend Dr Y.S. Rajan in the Immortal Hut. We felt the necessity for a musical garden against the backdrop of the banyan grove, the biodiversity park and the herbal garden. A musical fountain arrangement was commissioned in 2006. This project involved an exciting integration of multiple technologies such as digital electronics, electromagnetism, hydrodynamics, hydrostatics and human creativity. The fountains offer a spectacular show in which scintillating lights illuminate cascading jets of water in perfect synchronization with classical tunes, which can be either pre-recorded or live. On a full moon night, the twin fountains can be seen standing majestically in the garden radiating purity, perfection and glory, with the dome of the Rashtrapati Bhavan in the backdrop, the symbol of the pride and self-esteem of our country.
The musical garden had its finest moment one full moon night when Pandit Shiv Kumar Sharma played the santoor there to an audience of 500 people.
The biodiversity park was developed over the years by adding several avian and animal species, a waterfall, rockery, fish pond, rabbit house, duck house, a sick animal corner and habitats for birds. The park not only created a sense of caring and love towards nature, it became a source of attaining peace and calm. During my morning walk one day, I observed an abandoned fawn. My companion, Dr Sudhir,
and I saw that she could not get up because two of her legs had been damaged during birth. Dr Sudhir treated her legs and we tried our best to reunite the mother and the fawn, but did not succeed. Every day, I fed the fawn with a milk bottle. In a week’s time, she got up and started walking; as soon as she saw me, she would run to me for milk. After a few weeks, the deer herd accepted the fawn. I felt deeply touched.
I am full of nostalgia for my days in Rashtrapati Bhavan and the pleasure that the Mughal Garden and other gardens on the estate gave me. It was a pleasure that I tried to share with others – the musical performances which featured many notable artistes used to be held in the garden, for instance. I bow to the Almighty for his kindness at having given me this opportunity to enjoy nature.
Conscience is the light of the soul
I
t is hard to separate my thinking and actions done as president from those before the presidency or after. After all, the person is the same, and an individual’s experiences form one continuum. There are three situations that deeply engaged my personal feelings, although the actions taken were based on logic and reason. The first one is to do with the dissolution of the Bihar assembly. I have discussed the issue many times but I will go over it once again.
A lot of advances in the IT sector took place during my tenure. Rashtrapati Bhavan became fully connected electronically. Wherever I was, in whichever part of the globe, I could access the database in real time from the files, and I could hold discussions. Emails allowed for instant communication. Thus when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called me and said that the Cabinet had decided to recommend the dissolution of the Bihar assembly based on the governor’s concern at the dynamics of the legislature what surprised me was that the assembly had been in suspended animation for over six months. Hence, I asked the prime minister, how come this sudden development had taken place. The PM said he would call back. The second call came at 1 a.m. Moscow time. I discussed the issues and raised the questions with the PM and I was convinced that even if I returned the Cabinet decision, it would not matter because the decision would be somehow taken. Hence, I decided to approve the dissolution.
As the court put it, in more technical parlance, ‘the Governor of Bihar made two reports to the President of India, one dated 27 April 2005 and the other dated 21 May 2005. On consideration of these reports, Notification dated 23 May 2005 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 174 of the Constitution, read with clause (a) of the Notification G.S.R. 162(E) dated 7 March 2005 issued under Article 356 of the Constitution and the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bihar was dissolved with immediate effect …’ Now the Supreme Court started debating the issue and many views emerged in the course of the discussion.
The Supreme Court in its judgement pointed out that the notification dated 23 May 2005 presented a unique case. ‘Earlier cases that came up before this court were those where the dissolutions of Assemblies were ordered on the ground that the parties in power had lost the confidence of the House. The present case is of its own kind where before even the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly, its dissolution has been ordered on the ground that attempts are being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state and if these attempts continue, it would amount to tampering with constitutional provisions.’
The Court put four questions:
1) Is it permissible to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution without its first meeting taking place?
2) Whether the proclamation dated 23 May 2005 dissolving the Assembly of Bihar is illegal and unconstitutional?
3) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, is it necessary to direct status quo ante as on 7 March 2005 or 4 March 2005?
4) What is the scope of Article 361 granting immunity to the Governor?
When the Supreme Court started debating the issue many views emerged. I told the PM that the process by which I took the decision had not been presented properly in the court. I told him this once on the telephone and the second time personally. He mentioned that he would brief the
lawyers to present the president’s action supported by the facts and sequence of events in Moscow and the number of times we had discussions before I finally approved the dissolution. Ultimately I was convinced that the lawyers did not put forth my side of the actions as expected. The Supreme Court verdict was with dissension. Of course, the judges were supreme and they were placing the responsibility on the governor and to some extent on the government. After all the Cabinet is mine and I have to take the responsibility.
As soon as the verdict was known, I wrote a letter of resignation, signed it and kept it ready to be sent to the vice president, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, who was a seasoned politician. I wanted to talk to the vice president and hand it over. The vice president was away. Meanwhile the PM wanted to see me for some other discussion. We met in my office in the afternoon. After finishing the discussion, I said that I have decided to resign from the post of president and showed him the letter. I am waiting for the vice president to come. The prime minister was startled.
The scene was touching and I do not want to describe it. The prime minister pleaded that I should not do it at this difficult time. He said that as a result of the furore that would be created, even the government might fall. I had only one person to consult, and that was none other than my conscience. Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our heart. That night I did not sleep. I was asking myself whether my conscience is important or the nation is more important. The next day, I did my early morning namaz as usual. Then I took the
decision to withdraw my decision to resign and not disturb the government. This action would have taken place irrespective of which party was in power.
Very few people in the country are using e-governance, which I consider a tool for a borderless world. It is a facility I use liberally in India and abroad. For those who move only physical files, it is very difficult to understand the power of e-governance. In dissolving the Bihar assembly (which was in suspended animation) I did what my conscience said was appropriate, regardless of where I was.
Manu warns every individual against accepting gifts. It places the acceptor under an obligation, he says, and leads a person into wrongdoing.
Broadly, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act 1959, stipulates that certain offices of profit under the government shall not disqualify the holders thereof for being chosen as, or for being, members of Parliament.
During mid 2006, I received a number of complaints from MPs about certain fellow members holding office of profit. I had to deal with these complaints. I sent these to the chief election commissioner to study and conduct an inquiry wherever considered essential. When the complaints came in respect of two other members, namely Mrs Jaya Bachchan and Mrs Sonia Gandhi, a lot of members asked me why had the president initiated such an inquiry? Meanwhile I received the Office of Profit Bill from the Parliament for approval.
I studied the Bill and found that it had many anomalies. In the proposed Office of Profit Bill, I did not find a systematic approach towards deciding the question of what constituted an office of profit. Instead exemption was given to only the existing offices which were occupied by MPs. I also discussed the anomalies and my concerns with three former chief justices of the Supreme Court. I prepared a letter in consultation with my team and the three CJIs. I suggested that the Bill should clearly mention the criteria for exempting a particular office from the provisions of the Office of Profit Bill which should be ‘fair and reasonable’ and applicable in ‘clear and transparent’ manner across the states and union territories. Another point which I raised was in relation to the posts sought to be exempted by the new law. They said my concern was genuine and proper guidelines were required for determining whether a particular office comes within the purview of the Office of Profit Bill or not.
Then the question came up whether my letter pertaining to the Office of Profit Bill should go to the Cabinet or to Parliament. After going through the Constitution, I found that vide Article 111 it had to be referred back to Parliament for reconsideration. The Office of Profit Bill was not sent by the Cabinet for my approval but by Parliament. Hence, I returned the Bill to the secretary-general of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha for reconsideration by both the Houses of Parliament. This was the first time in the history of Parliament or Rashtrapati Bhavan that a president returned a Bill for reconsideration. Of course the next day, my letter returning the Bill to Parliament became a lead story in the
electronic and print media. It became a subject of very intensive discussion. There was tremendous pressure on me irrespective of party lines to simply sign the Bill.
I only understood the meaning of profit or gift as stated in
Manu Smriti
: ‘By accepting gifts, the divine light in the person gets extinguished.’ A Hadith says, ‘When the Almighty appoints a person to a position, He takes care of his provision. If a person takes anything beyond that, it is an illegal gain.’
That was my concern and reason for returning the Office of Profit Bill. The Bill was reconsidered and sent back for my approval. The prime minister met me and he was surprised, as I normally send the approved Bill the next day. Why were weeks rolling by with no action taken? he wondered. I said some action is needed from Parliament and I have not heard anything about it. The prime minister said the Parliament has already decided on the constitution of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for going into all aspects of the Office of Profit Bill as per my suggestions. Meanwhile, criticism mounted for the delay. Of course I was clear that the minimum requirement must be met before I approved the Bill.
Many delegations from many parties came to see me on this issue. I was on tour to the North-East and I was flying from Kohima to Guwahati on my way to Delhi. During my journey, I received a message that the formation of a JPC on the Office of Profit Bill had been approved by Parliament. Once I got the confirmation about the action by Parliament, I immediately signed the Office of Profit Bill.
After a few months, Parliament approved the JPC report
which was not complete and did not address the problem which I had suggested. Parliament has to deal with such issues with care, otherwise it would be construed that the highest body of the nation is promoting wrong practices which may set a national trend in different echelons of the government.