The Hindu : The outgoing and future Presidents

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jul 05, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The outgoing and future Presidents

By Muchkund Dubey

Like K. R. Narayanan, Abdul Kalam can also be expected to be committed to the cause of the poor.

IN A few days, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam will succeed K. R. Narayanan as President of India. No doubt, Mr. Narayanan has had differences with the BJP-led Government at the Centre. In a democracy, differences are bound to arise even at the highest level. We all know that Rajendra Prasad had major differences with Jawaharlal Nehru though both of them were reared in the same Congress tradition. The real test lies in the restraint and dignity with which the differences are expressed. Mr. Narayanan has expressed his differences with the Government in a measured tone and with utmost dignity. These differences have related mainly to the priority that should be attached to the grave problems facing the nation. The President has repeatedly drawn the attention of the nation to the plight of the Dalits and Adivasis, particularly the women among them. He has suggested that "our three-way fast lane of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation must provide safe pedestrian crossings for the unempowered India..." And recently he expressed anguish over what has happened and is still happening in Gujarat. In expressing his views on the burning issues before the nation, Mr. Narayanan has always acted within the limits of his powers and functions under the Constitution. For example, a large section of the public opinion in the country had expected him to oblige the Government to take effective measures to protect the minorities during and after the Gujarat carnage and restore confidence among them. However, shackled as he was by constitutional constraints, the President could not do anything more than forward various representations and appeals on the issue to the Government for action.

The country's interests would have been best served had Mr. Narayanan been requested by consensus to continue for another term. The argument that this would have violated the precedent of not giving more than one term to a President is not correct. After all Rajendra Prasad was given two terms at a time when he was one among the several stalwarts of our national movement. The case for Mr. Narayanan's second term is stronger because he is the only tall person among those who dominate the Indian political scene.

The incoming President, Dr. Kalam is a great achiever. His achievements have been duly recognised by the award of Bharat Ratna. Dr. Kalam will be the role model for millions of young men and women in the country fired by the ambition of achieving greater things in life. Apart from this, his humility, simplicity and honesty have impressed us. This is more than what we can expect from any politician today. His humble origins and his practice of austerity even now are bound to bring him close to the common man. Like Mr. Narayanan, he can also be expected to be committed to the cause of the poor and to work for the improvement of their lot. After all, he left a high position in the Government mainly in order to devote himself to this kind of work.

The political parties which are sponsoring Dr. Kalam's candidature are doing so not because of his intrinsic worth but in pursuit of their own political interests. The BJP is doing it to establish its non-existent secular credentials and to refurbish its image tarnished by the Gujarat carnage. The Congress and the other so-called secularist political parties are supporting him in the belief that this would enable them to retain, if not augment, their Muslim vote banks. Thus, we have here the case of the right candidate being nominated for the wrong reasons.

There are strong reasons to believe that once elected Dr. Kalam will not be the President of a particular political party but of the entire nation. He would not allow the fact of his being a Muslim to come in the way of his upholding the secular basis of the Constitution and safeguarding the interests of the minorities at all costs against the likely onslaught of the Sangh Parivar.

One of the objections being raised against Dr. Kalam's candidature is that he lacks political experience and is not well versed in the functioning of the Constitution. Therefore, he would not be able to grapple with the complexity of providing guidance for the formation of multi-party coalition Governments at the Centre. I am sure this apprehension would also prove unfounded. Dr. Kalam will not be an innocent at large in Indian politics. The person who has occupied the highest positions in the Government and has won the highest award in the country, and who has got huge projects sanctioned at the political level and led teams of scientists and technicians to implement them successfully can surely be relied upon to find his way out of the country's political maze and administrative labyrinth. Unlike wily politicians, Dr. Kalam would not get involved in political horse-trading. This will be good for the country. For we have had enough of political wheeler-dealers.

By far the most ill-conceived, ill-informed and self-defeating allegation levelled against Dr. Kalam is that by electing him President we will send a wrong signal to the world, of a militarist India reliant on weapons of mass destruction. This, according to these detractors of Dr. Kalam, would be in accordance with the BJP's belief in militarist and aggressive nationalism. There cannot be a greater injustice to our incoming President than making this kind of snide remarks. Here one may ask: can India afford to disarm unilaterally? Can we think of an India which can dispense with military force altogether? If not, why this guilt complex about our being a military power?

If we cannot dispense with all military power then where should we draw the line? Should we have stopped short of acquiring nuclear weapons? Even had we done so, on what basis can we take objection to our country acquiring missiles? For, missiles have emerged as the most effective carriers of even conventional weapons. Missiles have been integrated into the traditional armed forces of all significant military powers including not only Pakistan but also Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. What is the justification for prescribing a self-denying ordinance only for India?

And so far as nuclear weapons are concerned, India did not undertake their production years after it acquired the capability to do so. India started assembling nuclear weapons only after Pakistan's acquisition of such weapons became publicly known. Not to have done so would have amounted to taking unwarranted risks with our security.

The fact is that in the context of the present security environment in the region, it has become indispensable for India to acquire both nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. This decision has been taken by the country, Parliament and Cabinets of successive Governments, not only of the BJP. Dr. Kalam has not taken this decision. He simply happened to be in a position where he was entrusted with the responsibility of implementing one of its most important components. All Dr. Kalam did was successfully discharge his responsibilities.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Mixed signals

Alienating anti-terror allies

The outgoing and future Presidents

Market, morals and the media

New agenda needed for development