When A State Banquet Shrinks the State
S.N. Sahu
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
The decision not to invite Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, leaders of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha respectively, to a state banquet hosted by President of India Droupadi Murmu in honour of Russian President Vladimir Putin raises questions about the respect accorded to the Indian state and the constitution.
As President of India, Murmu is the head of the state, and when she hosts a state banquet in honour of a visiting dignitary, it must reflect enduring ideas about the Indian state. The high table of Rashtrapati Bhavan, where dignitaries are seated and raise a toast, is where friendships between countries must be reaffirmed – not domestic likes or dislikes.
Exclusion diminishes state authority
The definition of the state includes not just the President of India and occupants of high constitutional posts like the Prime Minister and others, but also Leaders of Opposition (LoP) in both houses of parliament. They, too, are creatures of the constitution.
That is why the deliberate exclusion of Kharge and Gandhi constitutes an attempt to dishonour the idea of the Indian state. This is particularly pronounced given that Shashi Tharoor, also a senior leader of the Congress party – the main opposition party in Parliament – was invited to the banquet.
Also read: Politic | Democracy or Ruler's Games? Personal Pique at the Cost of India's Traditions
Previously, Tharoor was unilaterally chosen by the Modi government, without consulting the Congress leadership, to join an all-party delegation travelling overseas. The aim of that delegation was to visit select countries to explain Operation Sindoor, the military operation launched after the tragic killing of tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir.
While the present regime imposes such unilateral decisions on the main opposition party, it simultaneously refuses to share space with its leaders during a state banquet. They are included or excluded from state programmes, seemingly on whims.
According to Article 79 of the constitution, parliament consists of the President of India and the two houses, Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. The exact words of the Article are as follows: "There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People."
The two leaders of opposition in both houses are, therefore, integral to parliament. That is another reason why President Murmu should have included both leaders in the banquet for President Putin.
Also read: When the Political Elite Fails to Honour the Constitution in a Democracy...
Furthermore, the oath the President has taken, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution should adequately reflect in all her actions. Keeping Kharge and Gandhi away from a state programme disregards that oath.
Example set by past presidents
President Murmu’s distinguished predecessors, including the late R. Venkataraman and K.R. Narayanan, exercised their prerogative as presidents regarding the list of invitees sent by the Ministry of External Affairs for such banquets.
As hosts, it was exclusively in their domain to decide whom to include or exclude. However, never before did such a situation arise where the opposition leaders were excluded from such an event. It is with deep anguish that one notes that this raises questions about the president’s decision.
Devalues office of president
If President Murmu decided to not invite the LoPs on the advice of Prime Minister Narendra Modi or the Prime Minister’s Office, her office stands devalued. The office of the President cannot be used as an instrument of the executive to undermine the state and constitution.
No opportunity to meet visiting dignitaries
During the Russian president’s visit, Gandhi noted that, despite long-established practice, he was not allowed to meet the visiting dignitary.
A few months ago, it was reported that Jagdeep Dhankhar, while serving as Vice President of India, was not afforded the opportunity to meet his counterpart, Vice President of the United States, J.D. Vance, during his visit to India.
Undermines constitutional morality
Such treatment of constitutional offices has no parallel in the history of independent India. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar had elaborated on the meaning of constitutional morality. He had said that one key component was to respect the institutions enshrined in the constitution and to interrogate them when power and authority were abused.
Recent events are all the more tragic as India had marked Constitution Day just days earlier, on 26 November.
The constitution is a living document that must be meticulously followed by those wielding power. That objective cannot be achieved when deliberate exclusions are practiced. When those mandated to uphold the Indian state and constitution fail to do so, it undermines the dignity of both.
S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.
This article went live on December eighth, two thousand twenty five, at thirty-eight minutes past nine at night.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.