“THE constitution can provide only the organs of the state such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The factors on which the working of these organs of the state depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics.”

The diminished stature of India’s cabinet bears out the truth of the remarks by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the prime architect of India’s constitution. The letter of the constitution on the council of ministers has remained the same. But the council of ministers of 2014 is vastly different from what it was under Jawaharlal Nehru.

No sooner had he assumed office as prime minister on May 26, Narendra Modi issued one fiat after another whose impact was to reduce the ministers’ status to that of servitors. They were denied any role in the making of policy on matters under their charge. A direct link with the prime minister was established, over their heads, with the civil servants who work under the ministers every day.

The Indian PM has reduced his ministers’ status to that of servitors.

This accentuates the personality cult he first fostered in Gujarat as chief minister and has replicated at the centre. In this, a fawning media as well as big business aided him. With the reduction of the ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, virtually to his praetorian guard, the picture becomes complete.

To be sure, the fate of the cabinet as well as the political party was not much different under Indira Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi was not much different either. But neither dared to issue explicitly humiliating directives in writing to show ministers their place.

The very next day after taking the oath of office, Modi brought all “policymaking in the PMO” (Prime Minister’s Office). On May 31, the Group of Ministers, a traditional tool for policymaking by selected cabinet ministers, was abolished. On June 4, secretaries in the ministries were told they could directly approach the prime minister if they had any problem with the ministers.

Nehru had powerful ministers in his cabinet. In 1960, they aborted his moves to settle the boundary dispute with China when prime minister Zhou Enlai visited New Delhi in April 1960. Nehru’s stature suffered as a result of the war with China in 1962. But he struck back in 1963. A plan was devised, named after the chief minister of Madras, K. Kamraj. Some ministers and chief ministers were made to resign and work for the Congress party. Powerful ministers like Morarji Desai quit.

As prime minister (1977-79) Morarji Desai had no choice but to remain primus inter pares or first among equals. His party, the Janata Party, was a four-party coalition drummed up to defeat Indira Gandhi at the polls.

Prime ministers who later presided over ramshackle coalitions fared no better. V.P. Singh 1989-90; Chandrasekhar 1990-91; Atal Behari Vajpayee 1996-97; Inder Kumar Gujaral 1997-98; Atal Behari Vajpayee 1998-2004 and Manmohan Singh (2004-2014).

P.V. Narasimha Rao became prime minister in 1991 after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination at the head of a minority government. Before long he acquired a majority by corrupt means but never possessed the authority to dominate his ministers.

During this entire period, from 1950 to 2014, the letter of the constitution remained the same: “A council of ministers with the prime minister at the head”. The president appoints the ministers on the prime minister’s advice and can sack them at will. But there are clear provisions which negate the idea of prime ministerial dictatorship. The council of ministers is “collectively” responsible to the Lok Sabha. The president can ask the council as such to reconsider a decision and, indeed, to consider any matter “on which a decision has been taken by a minister but which has not been considered by the council”. The reference to “a minister” includes, on a plain reading, the prime minister also.

The president’s reference will help only if the prime minister is none too powerful and had exceeded his limits; but a politically powerful prime minister will have no difficulty in getting the council to do his bidding.

There are three features of the modern cabinet. First, the prime minister has become a repository of power independently of the cabinet.

Secondly, since cabinets expanded in numbers and became unwieldy, most of its work is done in committees whose composition is determined by the prime minister.

Lastly, even a powerful prime minister will be brought down by the ministers if his policies rob him of his ability to win at the polls. Margaret Thatcher discovered that belatedly.

The prime minister cannot dominate if he has some colleagues with political clout. Like much else in a constitution, the cabinet system is shaped more by politics than by the constitution.

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, September 13th, 2014