NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

The beginnings of      informed citizenship The people vs the      government Justice without      justiciability? The laws, in hindsight An irrelevant fury

The office and the office-holder

Prior to the election of A P J Abdul Kalam as President, the question of most importance centred on the political opportunism of his appointment. Whereas the government insisted on Mr Kalam's suitability to hold the nation's highest office, opposition parties were quite certain that his status was (and is) that of a token Muslim in a largely Hindu-oriented administration. True, there were other issues -- for instance, the aspersions cast upon his role within the space research and missile development arms of government, and even questions as to whether those programmes could be counted as successful. These, however, were largely overshadowed by his Muslim roots, and the implications thereof for the Presidency and the nation.

Such questions, appropriate or not, are understandable; in appointing any individual to such a high position it is necessary that every precaution to determine the greatest suitability be taken. Mr Kalam's relative silence on Gujarat, his nomination by the right-of-centre government, the incredible costs incurred in the indigenisation of military hardware -- these worries are legitimate. That his candidacy survived the probing, and that he obtained a high proportion of the votes cast, are to the President's credit. Consequently, the confidence reposed in him isn't merely that of the ruling parties, but of the larger political class as well.

We should not expect, also, that with the election now behind us such questions will cease. The national interest demands continued watchfulness and repeated reassessment of the original faith that has brought him to office. As President, will he demonstrate true independence, or loyalty to the political games that have put him in power? Brought to office amidst accusations of opportunism, can President Kalam demonstrate that he will place the national interest first and not allow it to be subverted by the unconscionable conduct of the political parties? This is an especially compelling question now -- as Parliament considers legislation that will clearly undermine the courts' directives on electoral reforms.

The first weeks and months of a new Presidency are always appropriate moments to consider what the head of state's role is, and ought to be. Here, on rediff.com, T V R Shenoy provided his analysis of President Narayanan's days in office -- an analysis that unfortunately was short on the substantive consideration of what he did as President, and instead focused more on the politics of his previous years. The assessment was clearly less than flattering to Narayanan, but unfairly not quite on point. Merely interviewing with N Ram, for example, doesn't render the President partisan. After all, Mr Shenoy himself is reputed on these very pages as a spin doctor for the BJP, despite his independent standing. Honest opinion is easily expressed to all audiences.

Narayanan attracted much criticism for the simple reason that he continued with the baggage associated with him [among others, by me] at the onset of his Presidency. Touted for his dalit roots and his socialist past, he was seen as inevitably thrusting towards those traditionally disfranchised in our country, and he spoke out on their behalf. He admonished a culture of self-enhancement, and political choices that were inconsiderate of those left behind. Confronting an India that increasingly celebrated its successes, he asked that we pause to consider the failures. This was especially true of his speech at the golden jubilee of the republic:

Fifty years into our life in the Republic we find that Justice -- social, economic and political -- remains an unrealized dream for millions of our fellow citizens. The benefits of our economic growth are yet to reach them. We have one of the world's largest reservoirs of technical personnel, but also the world's largest number of illiterates; the world's largest middle class, but also the largest number of people below the poverty line, and the largest number of children suffering from malnutrition. Our giant factories rise from out of squalor; our satellites shoot up from the midst of the hovels of the poor.

True, all else aside. It is understandable, then, that the political culture that supports this disparity should feel discomfort at Narayanan's lectures. To dismiss it as uncalled-for 'activism' on the part of the President is to reinforce the deliberate myopia of privilege.

That the BJP found particular dislike for the President is no surprise -- a political party drawn largely from the upper economic sections of the country is most threatened by calls to social consideration and seeks to undermine such voices.

T V R Shenoy's other expectation -- that any occupant of the nation's highest office should profess no particular bent of political mind -- is self-defeating; such a role makes no distinction between ideology and partisanship. A President of India who is unable to muster the courage to speak over the heads of the administration or the opposition isn't much use to the people. The sphinx-like silence sometimes expected of the head of state is a throwback to the English realm -- with its monarch whose privilege is gained as inheritance, not obtained from service and esteem. In our Republic, with its more democratic means of determining the head, expecting a person honourable enough to be the President to silence himself once appointed is to deny the very character that has elevated his thus far.

Let us also remember that if his performance in office exceeded the limits that some see to be defined by the Constitution, then in President Narayanan's defence it must be mentioned that the political parties he is called upon to oversee have brought the nation to a sorry state. The letter of the law alone is inadequate to police them anymore, and any honest Presidency requires the consideration of the spirit of the laws, as well as outspoken defence of the purpose for which they are enacted -- a democratic India. Seen in this light, Narayanan should be judged to have served as well as most others before him.

To return to the matter of President Kalam, and how presidential his early days in office will be -- an excellent opportunity to assess this is imminent. The electoral reforms bill working its way through Parliament can only be described as a shameful attempt by a criminal political class to override the Supreme Court's strictures on electoral malpractice, as well as the Election Commission's attempt to enforce new directives from the court. In short order, this bill will land upon President Kalam's desk.

That this piece of legislation will clear both Houses of Parliament appears certain; although some in the Congress and the communist parties have reservations, there is enough vested interest to ensure its passage. After all, those who stand accused of crookedness must be expected to endorse any legislation that legitimises their conduct. Obtaining the President's assent to such legislation -- a necessary step before the bill becomes law -- is a secondary matter in most cases, but as Abdul Kalam steps into office his response to this clear violation of the public interest will be a significant pointer to his loyalties.

Speaking of his vision of a developed India in his inaugural speech, President Kalam said, "This vision ... needs to be achieved with parliamentary democracy, which is the core of our governance system." An interesting observation amidst the shenanigans of a Parliament clearly out to limit voters' awareness of their elected representatives. The zeal with which Parliament has sought to rewrite the rules of the electoral process is disgraceful. By this action the Parliament that the President so regards is attempting to pass a standard for government that would admit rapists and murderers! Wherefrom the President finds his esteem amidst such depravity, one cannot guess.

Article 111 of the Constitution of India states: When a Bill has been passed by the Houses of Parliament, it shall be presented to the President, and the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill, or that he withholds assent therefrom." That is, Parliament's enacting of legislation isn't final until the President provides his seal of approval. Sure, if he were to deny such assent, then Parliament could override his veto with a second passing of the same (or amended) legislation, at which turn the President's acquiescence is required. He can stall legislation once by his disapproval, not twice. Nonetheless, expressing such disfavour is critical -- if only for the greater attention that is then drawn to the legislation under consideration.

By his occupation of high office, President Kalam must bring to the political process some of the character it clearly needs. To do so, however, he must participate more deeply in the affairs of state, and not remain a mere figurehead as some would prefer. The office of the President epitomizes the aspirations of the Indian people and our hopes for a better tomorrow. The honour that is inherent to the office, however, is distinct from that which its occupant merits. The Presidents themselves are rightly judged for the qualities they themselves bring to their tenure. Silence in the face of criminal political conduct would not be particularly honorable, in this President or any other.

Our netas' instinct for self-preservation has placed before President Kalam the opportunity to demonstrate that his words aren't hollow. If Parliament continues on its current path, then shortly the head of state will be asked to endorse their move to override the public probity demanded by the courts and the Election Commission. As the legislative scheming to keep the doors of Parliament and the state legislatures open to felons moves towards obtaining his assent, the much-touted Mr Kalam is called upon to demonstrate that he is a worthy occupant of the office he esteems.

Begin well, Mr President.

ALSO READ:
The Presidential Election 2002
The Presidency: A Special Series

Ashwin Mahesh