`Narayanan should have called Sonia to form the Government in 1999 without going into numbers'

I had invited Chandra Shekhar to form the Government to allow tempers in the country triggered off by the Mandal and the Masjid to cool off before elections were held

Ramaswami Venkataraman will turn 90 on Monday. He has worked with most Prime Ministers of independent India in one capacity or another. His presidency witnessed the beginning of coalition politics at the Centre and his term spanned four Prime Ministers -- Rajiv Gandhi, V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar and P V Narasimha Rao. Alert, agile, looking elegant and relaxed, two days before his birthday RV chatted with Neerja Chowdhury, throwing light on some of the controversial decisions he took, commenting on actions of Presidents and Prime Ministers.

How does it feel to be ninety?
Nothing special. You know when I turned 60, I was a member of the Planning Commission. Rajaji told me, `You should celebrate your 80th birthday, sixty is too young.' When I became 80, I was the Finance Minister. I really did not want anyone to go around collecting money to celebrate my birthday.

You were not very keen to become Vice-President in 1984?
I became Vice President in the last days of Indira Gandhi. She told me, `You take this up now, and if you don't like it, you can resign and come back.' I would have come back to the Government had she not died shortly thereafter. I wasn't very keen on it.

The Rajiv Gandhi era was full of controversies...
Even while I was vice president, bitterness had developed between Rajiv Gandhi and the President on small and petty matters. I don't know why but suddenly Rajiv Gandhi stopped calling on Zail Singh, not extending him the the usual courtesies due to the President. Naturally Zail Singh was hurt.There are always busybodies around and they told Zail Singh that he could dismiss Rajiv Gandhi on the Bofors scandal.

Who were these people?
I am not going into the names. But once the mutual understanding went, everything appeared to Zail Singh to be an insult. When Indira Gandhi was assassinated and Zail Singh, who was abroad at the time, returned, he asked me what he should do. He used often to ask for my views. I told him, everyone is suggesting that Rajiv Gandhi should be sworn in, you should do it and not wait for niceties, like a meeting of the parliamentary party. Already there had been no government for 8 hours. At moments like this the President calls somebody to takeover immediately, like Gulzarilal Nanda was asked several times, and later the party can choose someone and that person can take over.

That is why the Constitution says clearly that the President will appoint the Prime Minister. He has to appoint someone capable of commanding the confidence of the House. This is clear in a situation where a party commands a majority in the Lok Sabha. But when the situation is not so clear, the President exercises his judgement. In my view he should invite the leader of single largest party first and if it cannot form the government, then he should invite the leader of the second largest party.

By that logic Sonia Gandhi should have been invited to form the Government in 1999 after Atal Behari Vajpayee lost the majority in Parliament.

Quite right, Sonia Gandhi should have been invited as the leader of the Opposition. That is the convention in Britain -- the LOP (Leader of Opposition) is called after the Government is defeated. After Vajpayee's fall, the President could have called Sonia Gandhi as the leader of the second largest party, on that principle, without going into the numbers.

This is the principle I followed when I invited V P Singh to form the Government. The Congress was the single largest party in 1989. The Congress Working Committee had announced that the party would not stake its claim. I then called the second largest party of V P Singh. Jyoti Basu came running to me, and they brought letters. I did not insist on letters. I was going on the second largest party principle, and he had to prove his majority on the floor of the house.

Technically speaking, in 1999, it was Sharad Pawar who was the LOP at the time. So according to the convention you are talking about, he should have been invited?
I am told the party had met and expressed itself in favour of Sonia Gandhi, who was the chairperson of the CPP. If I had been the President, I would have said I don't take note of the party, and gone by the rule book, invited the LOP, whoever it was. In this instance, I would have called the LOP (Sharad Pawar), and if he had said that my party has designated Sonia Gandhi, I'd have called her.

When Morarji Government was defeated, Sanjiva Reddy first invited Y B Chavan, who was then the LOP. He declined. Chavan went a step further and said that if Charan Singh was called, his party would support him. That was mere informational input.

How then did you decide to invite Chandra Shekhar who had only 57 members with him?
I did not call Chandra Shekhar. (After the fall of the V P Singh government) I immediately invited the BJP. They declined. Then I called the CPM. They too declined. By this time Chandra Shekhar had staked his claim to form the Government. I called him for a discussion, I did not invite him to form the Government. I asked him how he proposed to form the Government. He said the Congress would support him. I told him the Congress would have to inform me. Rajiv Gandhi came to see me and said the Congress would support Chandra Shekhar. I asked him to give it to me in writing. He then gave me the letter that the Congress would support Chandra Shekhar unconditionally.

I believe you stipulated a minimum time frame for which the Congress should support Chandra Shekhar?
I asked Rajiv, `Will you at least support him for one year?' I had invited Chandra Shekhar to allow the tempers in the country triggered off by Mandal and Mandir to cool down for elections to be held. Rajiv said, `Why one year, it could be for a whole term. We'll give him unconditional support.' He wrote this in his letter.

Did you not try to hold him to his promise?
Rajiv had come to see me. He had become very bitter. I don't know what had transpired behind the scenes. When he left, I was sure he would not support Chandra Shekhar. Chandra Shekhar had told me(earlier that day) that if he found that the Congress did not participate in the debate (on the Motion of Thanks to the Presidential address), he would tell the Speaker that he was resigning. I had warned PV (Narasimha Rao) earlier that day that Chandra Shekhar would resign if the Congress boycotted the debate.

There was criticism of President K R Narayanan on his decision to ask Vajpayee to seek a vote of confidence. What's your view?
I don't think it was proper. The Budget session was on, and the Government, if it had lost its majority would have fallen on any financial bill. The Prime Minister can be removed by the House and not by a letter containing the withdrawal of support.

Lending support to a government from the outside has been the bane of coalition politics. What is your view on this?
After the bitter experience of the past, outside support should not be taken into account.

You have called yourself a copybook President. Narayanan describes himself as a Working President. Rajendra Prasada's diaries reveal that he was a pro-active President. How do you see the President's role in relation to the PM?
There is no rule to regulate what a President should say. But it was said that the President is to be seen not heard, and these Presidents (you mention) broke that rule. I never made a controversial, or for that matter an extempore, speech in my five years as President. Radhakrishnan seldom spoke on subjects outside of philosophy or culture.

The President is not the executive of the country, the PM is. The responsibility of administration, good or bad, rests with the PM. The President is not a supervisory or an appellate authority over the PM. He can advise, guide, warn but nothing more. The decision of the cabinet is final if it is reaffirmed on reconsideration. Further, the advising, warning and guiding must be on important matters of the State and not on day to day affairs, and it must be made in private. The President must not disclose it to the press. He can only express his unhappiness to the PM. He cannot go public. Each authority functions within the powers of the Constitution.

You were sounded out by the Prime Minister to head the Commission to review the Constitution, and then what happened?
I was asked if I would be prepared to head it and then I heard nothing. I don't want to say anything more.

Copyright © 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.