PMO - an extra-constitutional power?

By K.K. Katyal

NEW DELHI, MARCH 19. It is too conspicuous to be missed - the convergence of the offensives against the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, by the Congress and others in the Opposition, on the one hand, and by the RSS, on the other, in the wake of the tehelka exposes. For different objectives though. The Opposition seeks to dent the credibility and the moral authority of Mr. Vajpayee and, thus, deprive the ruling National Democratic Alliance of its biggest asset to make it defenceless against a major strike. The RSS, however, would not like Mr. Vajpayee to be disturbed from the top post but, nonetheless, is keen to contain him.

That also explains the differing lines of attack in the two cases. The Opposition has mounted a frontal onslaught on the Prime Minister and the Government, headed by him. It is a no- holds-barred assault - the Bangalore Congress plenary, for instance, was used by the party president, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, for the severest yet indictment of Mr. Vajpayee. She charged him with continuing to protect the guilty, made fun of his television address last week-end, calling it a ``betrayal of the country (for which) the people will never forgive them''.

The RSS directed its attack on the Prime Minister's Office, in particular against the Principal Secretary, Mr. Brajesh Mishra, and Mr. Vajpayee's foster son-in-law, Mr. Ranjan Bhattacharya. The RSS chief, Mr. K.S. Sudarshan, spoke of the importance of appointing only competent officers in the Prime Minister's office, adding in so many words that Mr. Mishra did not fill the bill. The RSS chief carried his charge right inside the Prime Minister's household when he disapproved, again in so many words, of Mr. Bhattacharya's emergence as an extra- constitutional authority - a charge levelled against the PMO as well.

Mr. Sudarshan had not made any secret of his unhappiness with the policies of the Government and those who, in his opinion, were the real architects of major decisions - the Prime Minister and his Principal Secretary - right from the time he became the head of the RSS. The Tehelka exposures came handy to him in renewing his attack. The tapes showed the BJP president, Mr. Bangaru Laxman, accepting wads of currency notes from the ``representatives'' of arms dealers, while Mr. Mishra figured in oblique references to his clout in the administration and his role in key decisions. But Mr. Laxman was let off with mild disapproval, the harshest epithet against him being ``the failed swayamsevak'', while the PMO and its officers were directly censured.

A firm message to RSS

There was no ambiguity about Mr. Vajpayee's response - to the extent it was made public till yesterday - though there was a difference, not so subtle, in the way he dealt with the Opposition offensive and the RSS criticism. In the first case, he countered the call for his resignation with a challenge to his detractors to bring a vote of no-confidence against him in the Lok Sabha. The response to Mr. Sudarshan came in the form of the decision to give the charge of Defence to the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh. Mr. Singh, it was an open secret, was not quite a darling of the Sangh Parivar but enjoyed the confidence and trust of the Prime Minister. By giving him the additional charge of defence and demonstrating continued faith in him, the Prime Minister conveyed a firm message to the RSS. Mr. Vajpayee let it be known that, in the exercise of his prerogatives and authority, he would not be guided by the likes and dislikes of the RSS.

In the recent past, many stories were doing the rounds on the role and undue interest of Mr. Bhattacharya in decision-making processes, especially in the finalisation of important deals. Mr. Vajpayee did not realise the potential for damage of this talk and did not take remedial steps. Apart from the Opposition which would not let go any opportunity to damn the Prime Minister, his critics in the Sangh Parivar felt vindicated in regard to Mr. Bhattacharya in the wake of the tehelka expose.

As regards the PMO, there was a tendency to mix up two aspects - the rights and wrongs of establishing such a set- up and the conduct of those manning it. The PMO, or the Prime Minister's Secretariat as it was first called, was established by Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri. Realising that he lacked the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, he felt the need for this arrangement. Later - especially during Indira Gandhi's tenure, it was often described as a super-cabinet. To the extent, it represented a departure from the hierarchy of the past, with the Cabinet Secretary as its head, it was seen as a new centre of authority - in the eyes of some now, an extra-constitutional authority. The real question to be examined is whether or not there was a need for such a body.

If the need is recognised, it is for the Prime Minister to choose his top aides. In this case, Mr. Vajpayee appointed Mr. Mishra, who had occupied senior positions in the external affairs set-up and, after retirement, was the head of the foreign policy cell of the BJP. Mr. Vajpayee's right could not be questioned. Once in the past, the Prime Minister of the day was criticised by his opponents for appointing a friend in the PMO: He turned round to rebut the charge with a query: ``Does one appoint one's enemies?'' The question of the powers and the authority of the PMO could, however, be examined to ensure against imbalances in the apex administration. But that was a different matter.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : I was not isolated: Rao
Next     : Lok Morcha will become a powerful force soon:
           Surjeet