Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Timely

The article “Putting the executive in its place” (March 6) was most timely in the context of the pressure tactics being subtly adopted by the United States to finalise the civilian nuclear deal with India at the earliest. That the Constitution provides for the executive to enter into treaties with foreign powers is no excuse for it to go ahead with the 123 agreement.

Y. Jagannatham,

Vijayawada

There are many Indians who feel that the nuclear deal should not be signed. The author has articulated very well the weakness in our system wherein the executive asserts its supremacy over Parliament.

Sami Krishnan,

Karaikudi

Why is the UPA government so keen on signing a deal without Parliament’s approval, when there is so much of confusion over the Hyde Act? Why not say in the 123 agreement that the Act will not be binding on it?

Nisha Bansal, Gwalior Nobody questions Parliament’s rights; but how, when and where are they best exercised? “Oversight” cannot be over day-to-day functioning. Where would you draw the line? Why limit it to the executive; what about the judiciary, which has itself limited limiting Parliament’s powers, for example, regarding constitutional amendments? True, the judiciary has an objective guidepost: the law. But Parliament can change laws; should the courts decide according to what they hear said in Parliament in anticipation of changed laws? Is a debate binding? If Parliament is so convinced, why not pass a resolution or no-confidence motion? Why disapprove of Parliament repudiating the executive — is it good democratic practice?

The article greatly stresses conventions. If Parliament has refrained for 60 years from exercising its right regarding treaties (debatably attributed to it), doesn’t it amount to a convention? The indisputable convention — of all major parliamentary systems — is that the executive decides and the legislature approves or disapproves afterwards. Any democratic executive must be guided by its sense of acceptability; sign an agreement national opinion will not honour, it means misjudgement of capabilities and the will of the people, and the agreement becomes a dead letter. But that does not take away the government’s right to enter into the agreement WITHOUT Parliament’s approval. The government would have made a political blunder, not a constitutional wrong. Surely, we suffered enough when supposed parliamentary opinion boxed in Nehru into worsening our handling of the China issue .

Shankar Bajpai,

New Delhi

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Congress piles up losses
Skilled workers in short supply
The Democratic Party’s red phone fortnight
One nation, indivisible
Oh! What a lovely waiver
It boils down to voter turnout in Spain
Unnecessary
On jihad
Timely

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu