Rumble at Raisina Hill....

The office of the President of the Republic of India is seldom seen as one which should cause much consternation amongst candidates or political parties. It is an acknowledged fact that the President reigns but does not rule. His powers are in only in name, but are exercised in right by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers. Even if every agreement or document issued by the Government of India or the State Governments bears the name of either the President or his representative Governor concerned, it is understood that neither person ever has had any say in the contents of the document itself.

After the cataclysmic Presidential elections of 1969 which would cause the split in the Congress Party, no Presidential election has ever been fought so keenly or in such an inane manner. Never before has a Presidential candidate been termed as a joke on the nation, nor has a candidate offered to step down if the incumbent President be acceptable to everyone.

And in the midst of it all, we have forgotten why the office of the President exists in the first place. The President was meant to supplant the icon of the King or Queen of the British Raj, and was supposed to serve as a unifying figure about which the nation could rally in times of crisis. The Prime Minister may be the Head of the Government, but the President, by virtue of being the Head of the State, was supposed to be an impartial figure that took no sides, but adjudicated in a manner becoming of his office.

It would therefore seem appropriate that the President be a unanimous choice, rather than be seen as a nominee of disparate groups. That in the Republic’s fifty years the President has rarely been a non-partisan figure, with the notable exceptions of Dr. Radhakrishnan and Dr. Zakir Hussain, and the incumbent Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, may speak poorly of the institution per se, but it no ways serves to indicate what is expected of the Presidency by the Constitution.

Mrs. Patil and Mr. Shekhawat are both seen as excellent contenders for Raisina Hill, both having their own supporters and their own detractors. Mrs. Patil’s detractors would have us believe that she would serve as a rubberstamp of the Congress Party and that Mr. Shekhawat is a more independent soul. Mr. Shekhawat, for all his geniality and his popularity across party lines, is termed a communal figure, a divisive individual. I don’t know which is worse. If Mrs. Patil were such a rubberstamp person of the Congress, then she wouldn’t have had a very nice time in Rajasthan where the BJP rules the roost. If Mr. Shekhawat were such a divisive figure, then I fail to comprehend as to why the angst in his case was not exhibited when he was serving as Vice-President.

The Left never did fancy Kalam, a fact that was exhibited in its token opposition in the form of Captain Lakshmi Sehgal’s candidature in 2002. It, being in the prominent position of dictating the course of the UPA government, seems to have effectively scuttled the chances of a man reckoned by many to have done a fine job. And yet, their demand for a women candidate has effectively ended all further discussion on the matter, ending a drama long drawn out. And perhaps rightly so as the thought of a woman as Head of State is an idea whose time has come.

The real issue is that political alliances today, as perhaps always, are about symbolism. Alliances cannot be seen to have lost ground on any front, no matter how insignificant it may seem, to the opposition. They cannot be seen to champion the cause of someone who is perceived as a representative of the opposite camp. And they cannot be perceived to give the throne to someone who might conceivably play into the hands of the ‘enemy’.

Whatever will be the outcome of the election, a new President (or perhaps an old one, given Mr. Kalam's recent statement) may sit in Raisina Hill in July for sure. It is my hope and prayer that he/she be able to deal with the demands of the office in a dignified manner, becoming of the stature of the post.