 |
|
The absence of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar from the arrival ceremony of US Vice President J.D. Vance in India has ignited a flurry of speculation within Delhi's political circles. This unexpected absence, coupled with the fact that Dhankhar did not host the customary state dinner in honor of his American counterpart, has led many to question whether the Narendra Modi government is expressing its displeasure with Dhankhar's recent public criticisms of the Indian judiciary, particularly a Supreme Court directive. The timing of Dhankhar's absence is particularly noteworthy, as it coincides with a period of heightened scrutiny regarding the relationship between the executive and judicial branches of the Indian government. Dhankhar's strong remarks against the Supreme Court's role and authority have already stirred considerable debate, and his conspicuous absence from welcoming Vance only amplifies the perception of a potential rift or disagreement within the ruling establishment. The fact that Dhankhar was simultaneously on a flight to Jaipur, where he was received by a relatively junior minister in the Rajasthan government, further underscores the unusual nature of the situation. Protocol dictates that the Vice President should ideally receive a visiting Vice President, and the decision to have a lower-ranking official stand in raises questions about the underlying motivations. This incident unfolds against a backdrop of increasing tension between the government and the judiciary, with several instances of disagreement and differing interpretations of constitutional powers. Dhankhar's outspoken critique of the Supreme Court, especially his description of Article 142 as a 'nuclear missile against democratic forces,' has been interpreted by some as a direct challenge to the judiciary's independence and authority. His remarks have also drawn criticism from legal experts and opposition parties, who argue that they undermine the principle of separation of powers and the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. The controversy surrounding Dhankhar's comments has further intensified due to the subsequent remarks made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who went so far as to suggest that Parliament should be shut down if the Supreme Court were to make laws. While BJP President J.P. Nadda quickly distanced the party from Dubey's stance, the incident has nonetheless fueled concerns about the government's overall attitude towards the judiciary. The fact that Nadda felt compelled to publicly disavow Dubey's remarks suggests that there may be internal disagreements within the BJP regarding the appropriate level of criticism directed at the judiciary. It also indicates that the party leadership is aware of the potential for such comments to damage the government's reputation and undermine public trust in the institutions of democracy. A senior BJP leader attempted to downplay the significance of Dhankhar's absence, arguing that his statements and Dubey's remarks were made in different contexts and that not much should be read into his being away from Delhi during Vance's visit. However, this attempt at damage control has not entirely quelled the speculation, and many observers remain convinced that Dhankhar's absence was a deliberate signal of some kind. The Telegraph Online's attempts to obtain comments from Vice President Dhankhar's office were unsuccessful, with officials either unavailable or unreachable. This lack of official explanation has further contributed to the ambiguity surrounding the situation and allowed rumors and speculation to proliferate. The Ministry of External Affairs, however, sought to dispel the notion of any protocol breach, asserting that the minister-in-waiting is always assigned to receive dignitaries and that there is no established protocol requiring a Vice President to receive a visiting Vice President. While this explanation may address the technical aspects of protocol, it does not fully address the underlying political dynamics and the potential implications of Dhankhar's absence. The situation remains fluid, and it is unclear whether Dhankhar's absence will have any lasting impact on the relationship between the government and the judiciary. However, the incident serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a healthy balance of power between the different branches of government and of upholding the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
The core of the issue revolves around Vice President Dhankhar's recent pronouncements regarding the Supreme Court's authority, specifically its directives to the President concerning the assent to state bills. Dhankhar's strong disagreement with what he perceives as judicial overreach has ignited a debate about the boundaries of judicial power and the separation of powers within the Indian political system. His assertion that the Supreme Court is acting as a 'super Parliament' reflects a deep-seated concern about the judiciary encroaching upon the legislative domain. This concern is not unique to Dhankhar; it is a sentiment that has been expressed by various individuals and groups who believe that the judiciary has become increasingly activist in recent years. The specific Supreme Court directive that Dhankhar is referring to likely involves a case where the court has instructed the President to act within a specific timeframe when considering state bills. Dhankhar's objection is rooted in the belief that the President, as the head of state, should not be subjected to such directives from the judiciary. He argues that this undermines the President's independence and the constitutional framework that governs the relationship between the executive and judicial branches. His reference to Article 142 of the Constitution as a 'nuclear missile against democratic forces' highlights his apprehension about the judiciary's ability to exercise extraordinary powers to ensure justice. Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to issue any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Dhankhar's concern is that this provision could be used to bypass established legal procedures and undermine the principles of due process. The reactions to Dhankhar's comments have been varied. Some legal experts and opposition parties have criticized him for undermining the judiciary and violating the principle of separation of powers. They argue that the judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding the Constitution and protecting the rights of citizens, and that Dhankhar's attacks on the Supreme Court are dangerous and irresponsible. On the other hand, some individuals and groups have supported Dhankhar's stance, arguing that he is simply raising legitimate concerns about judicial overreach. They believe that the judiciary has become too powerful and that it is necessary to rein in its authority to protect the balance of power within the government. The controversy surrounding Dhankhar's comments underscores the ongoing debate about the role of the judiciary in Indian democracy. It raises fundamental questions about the interpretation of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the relationship between the different branches of government. This debate is likely to continue in the coming months and years, and it will have a significant impact on the future of Indian democracy.
The absence of Vice President Dhankhar from the reception of his US counterpart adds another layer of complexity to the already sensitive situation. While the Ministry of External Affairs has attempted to downplay the significance of his absence by citing protocol, the timing and context of the event make it difficult to ignore the political implications. The fact that Dhankhar was simultaneously on a flight to Jaipur, where he was received by a relatively junior minister, suggests that his absence was not merely a matter of scheduling conflicts or logistical difficulties. It is more likely that his absence was a deliberate decision, intended to send a message of some kind. The question is: what message was he trying to send? One possibility is that Dhankhar was seeking to express his displeasure with the Modi government's handling of the situation surrounding his comments about the Supreme Court. If he felt that the government was not adequately defending him against criticism, he may have decided to use his absence from the Vance reception as a form of protest. Another possibility is that the Modi government itself orchestrated Dhankhar's absence as a way of distancing itself from his controversial remarks. By not having Dhankhar participate in the reception, the government could signal its disapproval of his comments and reassure the international community that it remains committed to upholding the independence of the judiciary. A third possibility is that Dhankhar's absence was simply a coincidence, and that there was no underlying political motivation. However, given the sensitivity of the situation and the timing of the event, this explanation seems unlikely. Regardless of the underlying motivation, Dhankhar's absence has undoubtedly fueled speculation and raised questions about the relationship between the Vice President and the Modi government. It has also highlighted the ongoing tensions between the executive and judicial branches of the Indian government and the challenges of maintaining a healthy balance of power in a democracy. The lack of official explanation from Dhankhar's office has only exacerbated the situation, allowing rumors and speculation to proliferate. In the absence of clear communication, it is difficult to know for sure what motivated Dhankhar's absence and what implications it may have for the future of Indian politics. However, the incident serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in government and the need for open dialogue about sensitive issues. The Indian public deserves to know the truth about what happened and what it means for the future of their country.
Source: Dhankhar absence at Vance arrival sparks sideline buzz after remarks against judiciary