So Prasad was duly elected president and the first clash between him and Nehru came even before his swearing-in. He objected to the day — January 26 — fixed for the republic’s inauguration “on astrological grounds”. Nehru’s reply was stinging: “I am afraid, I have no faith in astrology and certainly I should not like to fix up national programmes according to the dictates of astrologers.” (Incidentally, the date was chosen because it was the 20th anniversary of the day the Indian National Congress had vowed to achieve full independence.)

Shortly thereafter, the president’s insistence on inaugurating the rebuilt Somnath temple, against the advice his prime minister, added to the friction between the two. Nehru believed the Somnath project to be “contrary to the concept of secularism” but he did not want to veto the president’s visit there either. His compromise therefore was that Prasad should go in his personal capacity, not on behalf of the government. This meant that Prasad must pay for the journey, which he did.

Though the two were always courteous to each other, the strain in their relations was sometimes visible. On one occasion when the prime minister was going on a long foreign visit, the president decided to set aside protocol and see him off. On receipt of this message, Nehru, already at Palam, delayed his flight. But when much time elapsed and there was no sign of Prasad, the prime minister asked the president’s military secretary, “Is he walking?”

It was the Hindu Code Bill, a legislation to reform the Hindu personal law, to which Nehru was totally committed, that Prasad used as the most potent weapon against the prime minister, just as Tandon had done. The number of Congress party members opposed to measure was also large though they preferred not to be vocal. Consequently, the story of how the Hindu Code Bill was first stalled and then passed piecemeal only after the election of the first Lok Sabha in 1952 is so long and complex and involves so many characters, including the towering B.R. Ambedkar, that it has to be told separately.

... contd.