Vishal Arora/Sify
 
New Delhi, Jul 5: The BJP leadership knows that the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has the numerical strength in the Electoral College and, therefore, its candidate is set to win the July 19 presidential election. However, the cause of concern for the BJP is not the perceived victory of a rival’s candidate, but that the candidate is Pratibha Patil.

The BJP is opposing Pratibha’s candidature under the pretext of the allegations against her. It is alleged that a cooperative bank headed by her indulged in financial misconduct and that she is protecting her brother in a murder case. Whether these allegations are true or false, the BJP cannot be expected to care two hoots about them, given that there is no dearth of politicians with criminal backgrounds in the party itself. Race for Rashtrapati Bhavan
 
For example, take the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election held earlier this year. Close to 30 per cent of the candidates with criminal charges were from the BJP. Even otherwise, it is common knowledge that induction of criminals is generic to the political parties of our country, with virtually no party being an exception.

The BJP cannot even be concerned about Pratibha’s loyalty to the Nehru-Gandhi family, and also to UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, though her nomination is being perceived by many as a reward for her faithfulness. After all, if the BJP was actually for a politically neutral President, it would not have nominated Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, a former party leader known as one of the oldest anti-Congress leaders alive today.

It seems BJP’s main problem with Pratibha is that she has proven secular credentials and is known for being a daring personality. According to media reports, the UPA was earlier thinking of nominating Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil who was reportedly dropped after the Left, which is supporting the UPA government from outside, rejected him allegedly for his soft stand against communalism. But, not so with Pratibha, who as the then Governor of Rajasthan returned the anti-conversion bill passed by the BJP state government in that state in April 2006, saying it was unconstitutional. And when the BJP resent the bill to her later in May 2006, she sat on it until she referred it to the President on June 20 this year, a day before she resigned as the Governor to contest the presidential election. In other words, Pratibha was ultimately chosen for her commitment to secularism. 

The leaders of the BJP know that a person like Pratibha can prove to be nothing less than dangerous for a party that is mandated by its parent organisation - the RSS - to implement the Hindutva agenda in the states ruled by it and at the national level if and when it comes back to power. In fact, ever since the BJP’s coalition NDA lost the general election in 2004, the RSS has seemingly tightened its grip over the party attributing the defeat to its lack of commitment to Hindutva. This is why BJP president Rajnath Singh in May 2006 led the passing of four amendments in his party’s constitution to give overwhelming powers to RSS functionaries on deputation to the party as state organising secretaries. According to the amendment, only the national party president, not even state heads, could overrule the decision of a state organising secretary. This can be linked to the BJP enacting anti-conversion laws in new states and amending the existing laws. It amended the anti-conversion law in Gujarat on September 19, 2006. In Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, it passed amendment bills to make existing laws stricter on August 3 and July 25 respectively.

Although the President’s role in India is largely ceremonial, we must not forget that the Constitution gives several powers to the ‘Head of State,’ including the power to declare emergency at the national level or in a state in case of failure of constitutional machinery; the responsibility to appoint key officials such as the Chief Justice of India, judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, the Attorney General, the Chief Election Commissioner and so on and the power to return a bill to Parliament for reconsideration.

There is no denying that a ruling Central Government can render the President helpless, as he or she has to exercise powers in consultation with the incumbent prime minister and council of ministers. This happened during the infamous post-Godhra carnage in Gujarat in 2002, in which more than 2,000 Muslims were believed to be killed by mobs led by communal forces. Then President K R Narayanan had failed to compel the BJP government to contain the carnage despite allegedly asking then Prime Minister A B Vajpayee to take all measures to protect members of the Muslim community.

However, with the cooperation of the ruling government, the President can oppose communalism and promote religious harmony. Given that it is the Congress-ruled UPA that is in power at the Centre till 2009 - if it is able to endure the full term, the BJP now may have to slow down in implementing the Hindutva agenda in the states ruled by it, which is exactly what the Hindu nationalist party seems to fear the most.

(The views expressed in the article are the author's and not of Sify.com. )