I am not addressing here the issues relating to the merits of the deal or the political aspects thereof. My point is that the concept of collective cabinet responsibility has been thrown to the winds. The cabinet is a sacred institution in a democracy; there is room for debate in the cabinet before a decision is taken. However, every cabinet member is jointly and severally part of the decision, and cannot, even by implication, dissociate himself from the decision of which he was a part. This goes against the grain of past practice and is indirectly a show of no-confidence. It does not show the coalition partners in a good light.

Minutes of cabinet meetings are always terse and incorporate only the action points. In situations where some debate or disagreement surfaces, minutes may mention ‘after discussion’. In case the disagreement was strong, minutes may refer to ‘after a detailed discussion’. But in all cases all decisions are deemed to be unanimous. Once a decision is taken in the cabinet, no hint of lack of solidarity should be expected in a properly functioning system.

Walter Bagehot, if alive, would surely have raised an eyebrow. Right now he would be turning inside his coffin. Or maybe not. Because Bagehot would have had great difficulty defining India’s current governing structure, as it has evolved over the past few decades.

Nominally, we are a parliamentary democracy. However, in practice, many features of a presidential system have surfaced, and got integrated with our governance mechanism. For instance, the rise of the prime minister’s office in terms of power, prestige, and intervention capability has been palpably in evidence since the 1980s. The office of the special assistant ruling the roost in ministries, cutting into the legitimate domain of the secretary while acting at the behest of the minister, is a case in point. Indeed, it is a bizarre fact that real presidential powers in the country vest not with the chief executive but with a party functionary!

... contd.