The announcement of the candidature of the 13th President of India has shaken the roots of Indian politics. Alliances being broken, rumours being circulated and not to mention the ridiculous to the face of it opinion of choosing the Prime Minister as the President has turned the upcoming poll topsy-turvy. But in the wake of this chaos and madness, I would like to offer my take on a topic which has rarely been touched upon; “Does this really matter?”
I remember one Civics lecture where I asked my professor “Why do we need a President?” .After all, his powers were simply banal and virtually nonexistent. The nail in the coffin is that the post itself by definition is of “formal importance” and “works as a figure head”. Almost none of the decisions taken by the President are his/her own. I remember my Sir’s answer. “Arrey Beta, We were freed from UK but our political as well judicial systems remain similar. But India had nearly 635 Kings in 1947. So to avoid the mess among them, a post was created to match the monarchy of UK”.
As a keen reader, I always noted this; anything a President does, is on the advice of The Cabinet Of Ministers (headed by the Prime Minister). So basically it’s the ruling party’s will (to be blunt and crystal clear). Even shocking is the fact that the Constitution itself declares this particular issue. Many people live under the impression that the President can overrule the Parliament. To them, I would just like to point out that technically the President DOES have the power to return a bill which has been passed in both houses(with/without suggestions), but is powerless to act in case the bill passes again(even without amendments). The President has to give his nod, no matter what. Such an issue was raised way back in 2006 when Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam sent back the Office of Profit Bill. Now, the Office of Profit Bill was one law MPs were desperate for. According to the constitution, No MP can hold an Office/Post during his/her tenure from which they may be benefitting or profiting. The OOP Bill added a list of nearly 50 exceptions to this rule which basically legalised the money-spurning of corrupt politicians. When Dr.Kalam sent back the bill with his suggestions, the bill was passed again in both houses (WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS) and Mr. Kalam was forced to sign it( although he did try to delay it by nearly 17 days but ultimately had to surrender).
A brief glimpse of history shows us that never has the President ever in history taken any major decision which was for the betterment of the nation. I agree there may be some exceptions but the crux of the matter is that our politicians get what they want to no matter what, so why the hue and cry over electing the President? Why is India so concerned over who shall sign the next bill the corrupt politicians throw at them?
What India needs is a honest, neutral President along with a modified constitution which gives the President some much needed powers. Nehru ji had justified this lack of authority by saying “ The powers if given, would create a rift between the Prime Minister, who is the Head Of The Democratically elected Prime Minister and the President, who was elected by an indirect system of voting.” But wouldn’t these powers give us a unilateral as well as decisive monitor over the top honchos of the nation who are more often than not brought under the ambit of our corrupt radar and are always proven guilty (2G Scam- A Raja; Common Wealth Games- Suresh Kalmadi; Coal Gate scam; Controversy over P Chidambaram’s Lok Sabha election and what not). Is it not our dream (and also Anna Hazare’s vociferous demand)?
In the previous paragraph, I stressed upon honesty and neutrality as a factor just because it would be of no good if our President was corrupt or party biased. We need someone with guts, someone with balls. We need someone who can shake up the machinery and actually command the power. Our current President, Prathiba Patil has a back history which is not known to us. She founded Pratibha Mahila Sahakari Bank in 1973 whose licence was revoked by the RBI in 2003(She is also one of the 34 respondents in a High Court case with regard to the misappropriation of funds). As Health Minister of Maharashtra, she had blindly ignored Human Rights by proposing compulsory Sterilisation of people with hereditary diseases. She apparently has also protected her brother, who is involved in a Murder case. If all this is not enough, we also know she is “insanely cuckoo” as she publically said that she has spoken to the spirit of Baba Lekhraj! I’m not accusing anyone but just pointing out the obvious. If I could find this in 2 hours via the Internet, imagine would a CBI investigation would do! The point that arises from these accusations is that having No President is any day better than having a bigoted, corrupt and mentally ill President.
Coming back to the crux of the matter, why is India going gaga over the next President when all he or she will do is “Sit, Sign Shit, and Then Shit”? Does it matter if it will be Pranab Mukherjee or Mohammad Amid Ansari or someone else? Logically, Yes but technically, No. Any party backed President is bound to favour one group over the other which is ethically as well as democratically incorrect. The same question pops in the Media 24/7: “Who will be the next President Of India?”. It’s with great restrain I don’t shout “Please, a third grader with a modem could answer that; going by the current chain of events, it is bound to be a TMC, SP and Congress backed person who will eventually agree to all of Didi’s demands and pass the idiotic bills put forward by either the BJP or the Congress because no matter what, the bill will pass (if not in the first go, then definitely the second go). I guess all our MPs care about is collecting autographs. Or else what will justify their fight over choosing the next person to PRESS-N-INDENT their signature on a paper which says, The 13th President of India.
