Presidential Perspectives

The office of the President of the Republic of India is the highest in the country. The person occupying the Rashtrapati Bhavan is the head of state while the prime minister is the head of  the executive wing of the government. The president is expected to be above politics and should not be involved in party politics. He is the final authority to make decisions about whom to invite to form the government whenever there is a split verdict in the parliamentary elections or a political crisis arises due to subsequent splits and/or realignments during the five-year term. He deserves our highest respect and the presidential election process should be conducted with the highest decorum.

I do not wish to say that the best of persons have always occupied the chair. But whatever may be our opinion of the person, the personal view should not cloud our respect for the highest office. In case the person falls from grace or does  something unworthy of his constitutional status, there is an elaborate process of impeachment by the parliament, which has never been required to be used so far.

The presidential elections have always been interesting in our country even though the citizens have no voting right, the electoral college being limited only to members of parliament and state legislatures. The debate in the media has traditionally  been of high standards to enlighten the citizenry rather than to determine results. Even this year, various views were expressed as to what type of president we should have, whether he should be a person from the political field or an eminent apolitical personality. Intellectuals, political leaders, opinion leaders in the media, and many others expressed their opinions in a healthy way. A number of good names were suggested for the presidency, some excellent. The atmosphere became a little vitiated only after the ruling and opposition parties declared their respective candidates.

It may be useful to go through some unsavory aspects in the public discourse in the current election rather than sweep the same under the carpet. The first breach of confidentiality happened when Mamata Banerjee, after meeting Sonia Gandhi, declared to the world the names of the presidential candidates that the latter had told her in a confidential exercise to ascertain views and build up consensus for the candidate that the UPA would have to put up. There was no decorum in this, and it became worse when Banerjee  met Mulayam Singh Yadav, and the two of them rushed to the press to declare their presidential candidates in a preferential order. Sonia Gandhi had to cut short her confidential exercise, and the UPA had to declare their candidate Pranab Mukherjee almost a week in advance.

P A Sangma had  been advocating his own cause for quite some time. Being an important member of the NCP, he was perhaps trying his luck at being the candidate of UPA, the ruling combination of which NCP is a part and in which his daughter Agatha Sangma is a minister. When his party, the NCP, made it clear that he did not have its backing, he persisted in his ambition seeking the support of other parties.  Having secured the support of AIDMK in Tamil Nadu and BJD in Odisha, he walked straight into the opposition camp seeking support of the NDA through the BJP. Since the latter did not have a candidate after former president Abdul Kalam declined to contest, Sangma was successful in obtaining the backing of the NDA sans JD(U) of Bihar and Shiv Sena of Maharashtra, both offering their support to Mukherjee.

Sangma  first said it will require a miracle for him to win the elections but now he says the miracle will take place. He has failed in getting Mukherjee disqualified by the returning officer on grounds of still holding an office of profit. Having failed in this attempt, his campaign managers and the BJP now accuse Mukherjee of having resigned from the office of profit with a forged signature. Does that mean forging one’s own signature? When in Mumbai for his campaign, Sangma  is reported to have said that the Rashtrapati Bhavan was being used as a “dumping ground for the failed Finance Minister”.  He is also reported to have commented on Salman Khurshid’s remarks regarding his own party, the Congress. Should a presidential candidate pass comments about internal matters of other political parties? Was he not, till a month back, the member of a party which is in alliance with the Congress? I don’t like many things about the UPA but I appreciate their tolerance. Sangma’s daughter continues to be a minister in the UPA.

I like the way Pranab Mukherjee has conducted himself as a presidential candidate. As Yeshwant Sinha of the BJP  has said in a signed article in a national paper, no one had anything bad to say about Mukherjee as long as he was the Finance Minister, but after his resignation he is being blamed for the economic situation of the country.  Sinha has said that the Prime Minister can not absolve himself from the policies of the finance ministry as he is privy to the same. I shall not delve further into this except to say that Mukherjee has not fallen prey to this or any other criticism, but maintained his equanimity.  

I hope the pettiness generated during the polls will be a matter of the past, and that we will have a great President whom we can all look up to.




Published in The Navhind Times, Panorama 15.07.2012