Bull's Eye

To decide whether the next president should be a scientific or a patriotic rubber stamp? No politician or media pundit has debated seriously what role the president should play. If the prevalent perceptions hold of what the president can or cannot do, such debate about qualifications was futile.

If current perceptions are valid, why not Madhuri Dixit for president? She would be more decorative, more charming, and read more effectively from a prepared script.

Earlier this column had discussed the president's powers. It had argued that in an era of multi-party rule, the president has to be interventionist in order to uphold the Constitution. Only after accepting this premise would discussion about a presidential candidate's political attitude become relevant. But politicians were debating political attitudes of candidates without altering their perceptions about the president's role.

There is therefore an ominous discrepancy between what the politicians expect and what the new president might deliver. Candidates for president had never before held press conferences and discussed political issues as they did this time.

Even during the most controversial election of V.V. Giri as president, only the politicians indulged in debate. In that election, Indira Gandhi worked against her own candidate to split her party. She believed the president must cooperate with the PM, on the latter's terms. Therefore her choice should be final. This distorted view of the president's role has prevailed until now. From his press statements, Dr Kalam seems to assume that his vision of India would be translated into official policy. He seems conscious of his responsibility to meet the aspirations of the Indian people. Both assumptions are unexceptionable. But do they square up to current perceptions of the president's role? Dr Kalam might be good for the nation. He could be bad for the government.

Must the nation's choice
Be his master's voice?
A master whose equation
Is with House, not nation?