The Bharatiya Janata Party on August 17 named another party loyalist, C.P. Radhakrishnan, currently governor of Maharashtra, as its candidate for the post of vice-president of India – his election a foregone conclusion, even as the reasons for his predecessor’s abrupt sacking remain anything but conclusive.A plethora of interpretations was offered when Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned as vice-president on July 21, but the main reason cited was that he had accepted the Opposition’s motion for the removal of high court judge Yashwant Varma.Inspired leaks by anonymous sources say the Modi-Shah team wanted Dhankhar to delay the Opposition’s impeachment motion and allow the government to take credit for the initiative.Their plan was to build greater consensus and use the Varma debate to highlight the debilities of the collegium system and generate public opinion in favour of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Introduced by the Narendra Modi government in 2014, it gave the executive and civil society a final say in the appointment of judges. The NJAC was struck down in 2015 by the Supreme Court, which restored the collegium system.Dhankhar’s action scuttled the plans.Going by the official leaks, two ministers had directed the Rajya Sabha chairman not to accept the Opposition motion. They had told him the Prime Minister disapproved of his move. But Dhankhar responded that he was acting according to House rules.Another inspired leak said despite Dhankhar’s adamant position, the ruling party believed he would see reason. But he did not. The BJP bosses suspected that Dhankhar was leaning towards the opposition, and at this juncture the party began preparing for a motion to remove him as chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The government side began mobilising MPs in groups of 10 and asked them to sign a motion to be kept ready in advance. This forced him to resign.Among other reasons mentioned for the resignation was that Dhankhar was peeved at the breach of protocol during the visit of US vice-president J.D. Vance, when he was not allowed to be present to welcome his counterpart. He was also refused sanction for foreign tours.The official leaks, as narrated above, sidestep the most crucial question: should political bosses micromanage the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament and give instructions to the presiding officers? The main charge against Dhankhar has been that he flouted instructions not to accept the Opposition motion. This clearly amounts to meddling and undermines the presiding officers’ independence and constitutional authority.At the peak of the controversy in the Rajya Sabha, senior minister J.P. Nadda put it loud and clear. While Dhankhar was in the chair, Nadda brazenly declared that his words alone counted, no one else’s. This was a clear affront to the chairman’s authority. Let us recount the media reports: ‘Intervening during opposition leader Mallikarjun Kharge’s speech, leader of the House J.P. Nadda said: “Only what I say will go on record.”’This writer had covered Rajya Sabha proceedings from 1978, when veterans like Kamalapati Tripathi addressed the Chair as ‘mananiya adhyakshji’ and members as ‘mananiya sadasyaji’. Never by names. Everyone respected conventions.Remote control of House proceedings began some time after Modi returned to power in 2019 with a bigger majority. It was in full display during the 2023 winter session, when 146 opposition MPs were suspended from the two Houses. No bill was sent to the select committee.The 17th Lok Sabha under Modi held only 11 short-duration discussions – the figure for Atal Bihari Vajpayee was as high as 59. The 17th Lok Sabha was also the shortest with only 272 sittings, as against 356 sittings when the much-maligned Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister. Modi himself was present in the Lok Sabha for just four hours during 2021. The present government clearly sees Parliament only as an instrument to pass its priority bills.Dhankhar’s ouster is a warning to all others in responsible positions in the ruling party and government to always abide by the instructions from the top and never cross the Lakshman Rekha. The Rajya Sabha chairman’s exit will have a fallout on future appointments and promotions, and is likely to prompt the Modi-Shah duo to go back to the RSS for senior recruitments. Starting with Bhupendra Patel in Gujarat, all chief ministers have been chosen from the RSS stable.Dhankhar’s appointment was an exception. As a special case, he was rewarded with the Vice-President’s post for his performance as governor of Bengal, where he constantly put hurdles in the way of chief minister Mamata Banerjee. Since then, he has been a role model for other governors like C.V. Ananda Bose, R.N. Ravi and Arif Muhammad Khan, who have been at odds with their respective chief ministers.Dhankhar goes down in history as India’s most activist Rajya Sabha chairman. In his anxiety to keep his political bosses in good humour, he went on assailing the opposition within the House and outside. He never even pretended to be an impartial and fair chairman. Faced with counterattack, he once walked out of the House in protest. He had also angrily walked out of the business advisory committee meeting. Such things had never happened in the Rajya Sabha before.Though Dhankhar revelled in the role of Modi’s hatchet man, he was never an insider. He went on attacking the Opposition, judiciary and even the basic structure of the Constitution at every available opportunity, assuming this would endear him to the ruling duo. All the while, he dreamed of the high domes on the Raisina Hill without realising that the 21st century’s spin dictators go by their own play book while deciding on such positions as the President.To come back to Dhankar’s reported complaint of being ignored during the visit of J.D. Vance, official leaks to the media say he had questioned the government’s violation of protocol. As India’s vice-president, Dhankhar should have been present to welcome his counterpart from the US. Instead, the Prime Minister and other dignitaries dominated the occasion while Dhankhar was kept out. This was an affront that again points to the present regime’s disdain for institutional procedures and disrespect of the established system.The preferred method of institutional capture appears to be to appoint favourites to top posts and micromanage the institutions through them. It began with enforcement agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, income tax department, Narcotics Control Bureau and the National Investigating Agency. Soon it extended to institutions like the Central Information Commission, Central Vigilance Commission, National Statistical Organisation, University Grants Commission, Reserve Bank of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General and bodies like the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.Simultaneously, governors in opposition-ruled states were turned into the Union government’s storm troopers against the local government. They blocked bills passed by state legislatures, and the Supreme Court had to intervene to set timelines for the President to clear bills reserved by the governors. Governors also clashed with state governments on appointments to universities, leading to a paralysis in their working. There have also been allegations of Raj Bhavans becoming RSS platforms.Look at the Election Commission, once a truly independent institution that had earned high respect and public trust. Openness was its inherent strength. Now, in its new role as what Mamata Banerjee calls the BJP’s ‘bonded labour’, it is in the forefront of regular attacks on opposition leaders, challenging and threatening them with action. And the chief election commissioner gets open support from the home minister and other BJP leaders.P. Raman is a veteran journalist and political commentator.