A sequence of recent news stories demonstrates the degree to which cynicism about the nature of institutions has begun to pervade Indian politics. This is not a new development. But it appears to have reached crisis proportions - and, worse, it is showing signs of acceleration. In order to restore credibility to Indian institutions, their decay must be rolled back - and that begins by India's most powerful people showing some respect for their history and traditions.
Consider, for example, the question of the Delhi government. There are two contradictory voices in the Bharatiya Janata Party, which emerged as the largest single party in the Delhi Assembly in last year's elections, and which is in power at the Centre. The former party president and current home minister, Rajnath Singh, has said that the party will not encourage horse-trading of legislators just to form a government in Delhi. But current party president, Amit Shah, has reportedly told a news television channel that there is nothing wrong in "seeking support" to form a government in Delhi. Unfortunately, in the current context, that statement can only be seen as one of political expediency, and not respect for the people's verdict. If no political party has a simple majority, and no transparent alliance or guarantee of support is forthcoming any longer, why should the President or his nominee the Lieutenant Governor even think of exploring the option of inviting one of the parties to form the government? Under such circumstances, the intent of the Constitution is clear: For President's Rule and the holding of fresh elections. Why should anyone explore a third option, especially one that is ethically, morally and politically questionable?
Similar worries attend to the appointment and choice of governors by the new government in Delhi. It is certainly the case that this government is not the first to choose politically allied governors; but, as former Delhi CM and governor of Kerala Sheila Dikshit has told this newspaper, the time has come for a code to formalise how governors can be removed. Even by the standards of the past, the manner in which governors have been transferred and removed does not speak well of the government at the Centre. Regardless of past precedent, the manner in which gubernatorial appointments have been politicised is unfortunate. And, in addition, their abrupt and politically-inspired removal before the end of their tenure runs counter to the importance afforded by the Constitution to the position of governor.
There is also the question of the appointment of a past Chief Justice, P Sathasivam, as governor of Kerala. Mr Sathasivam, who retired in April 2014 and dealt with more than one politically sensitive case, has accepted the nomination and has defended his choice to do so. Another prominent retired judge, Markandey Katju, has also said the former CJI has done nothing wrong in accepting. The incentives that are set up by a judge, especially a chief justice, accepting a political appointment are not healthy. Just as the chief auditor cannot accept other appointments after retirement, India's chief justice should also be barred, by an amendment to the law if necessary. But considerable damage has already been done by the offer and its acceptance. Altogether, much more respect for India's constitutional traditions is needed.
