Likewise, the chief minister’s secretariat is now supreme in most states, and the formally constituted machinery has been by-passed in many cases (for example, that police station officers’ transfers were done through a computer in the CM’s office has been well-known for many years; I recently understood that even the postings and transfers of constables are increasingly being done through this route). To complicate matters further, we also have traces of the Moghul way of functioning creeping into the system — the trusted henchman is allowed to do whatever he wants, so long he shows loyalty and pays a tribute.

All the above may not be true everywhere; there may be a trace of exaggeration here and there; but these are unmistakable trends in our governance pattern. Bagehot is perfectly entitled to get confused about the system of governance that has evolved in India over the years.

In a democracy, the parliament is the supreme authority, and is the repository of the nation’s sovereignty. That the legal dispensation has existed to provide for international treaties to be concluded by the executive without parliamentary approval in India is also a fact. However, this is merely a technicality; every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance, without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.

In the case of the nuclear agreement, without my commenting on its merits and implications, it was incumbent on the government to tacitly or overtly get Parliament’s assent. Probably if this had been attempted well on time, a good deal of the present opposition may have been pre-empted. It is perhaps understandable that the prime minister had missed this point, in his political naiveté. But it is inexcusable for the Congress, with its political experience, not to have sought the correct path.

... contd.