The Hindu Business Line : A `Third' aspect to the Presidential race

The Presidential race has acquired all the aspects that it should not have — religion, caste, regional and gender issues. An update from RASHEEDA BHAGAT in the context of the Third Front naming the incumbent, Mr Abdul Kalam, as its candidate.

TARGET — RASHTRAPATI Bhavan.

After prominent leaders of most political parties had repeated the mantra on how the election of the President should not be politicised, all of them went ahead and did just that. For the moment the Presidential election is turning out to be the glue that has got together some out-of-power-chief ministers such as Ms Jayalalithaa, Mr Chandrababu Naidu and Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav into the Third Front.

Hectic political parleying was on at Ms Jayalalithaa's house in Chennai on Monday to determine who this new Front would like to be the next occupant of the Rashtrapati Bhavan.

The astute political players of the new Third Front, christened United National Progressive Alliance (UNPA), bowled the first googly at the United Progressive Alliance chairperson, Ms Sonia Gandhi, when the AIADMK supremo, Ms Jayalalithaa, announced in Chennai that the UNPA wanted Mr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam as its candidate as there was nationwide "consensus" that he was the fittest person to continue as President.

Immensely enjoying the limelight and virtually donning the role of the UNPA leader — anyway she had played host at the meet — Ms Jayalalithaa fielded most of the questions from the media on the new Front's candidate. An articulate leader, she well reflected the public mood when she said: "There is only one personality who has the support of all sections of society — intellectuals, students, educations, politicians, etc. Surveys have shown overwhelming support for electing Mr Kalam as President again."

Dignified Presidency

There is little doubt that throughout his tenure in the Rashtrapati Bhavan, Mr Kalam has endeared himself to the nation by literally becoming the `People's President' by being accessible to every one, virtually (through e-mails) and personally, and carrying on his constitutional duties in a dignified and fair manner. Even without any political experience or background — or perhaps because of it — he has taken major decisions objectively and impartially. Of course, sometimes he did give in to the UPA Government's whims, as in May 2005, when he signed the proclamation dissolving the Bihar Assembly. But it was made abundantly clear that the President, who was then away in Moscow, had had little choice and had to act on the Prime Minister's recommendation. But what he certainly did not do was dance to the Government's tunes, and this ultimately appears to have resulted in the UPA deciding against giving him a second term in office. Pliable Presidents are so convenient.

It is unlikely that Mr Kalam will agree to contest as the UNPA's candidate, as that would amount to his being third in the race, though the Vice-President, Mr Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, who is also in the Presidential race, has announced that if Mr Kalam agrees to contest, he would withdraw from the race. But by recommending a second term for Mr Kalam, the UNPA has managed to embarrass the UPA, particularly the Congress(I) and the Left parties, which can now even be termed to be "anti-Muslim" by their opponents.

Crossing boundaries

While the UNPA may at least derive some vicarious pleasure by embarrassing the Congress, Ms Jayalalithaa may have over-stepped the limit when she termed the choice of Ms Pratibha Patil as the President as a "joke" that Ms Sonia Gandhi wants to play on the nation. This is indeed a harsh word to use for a person who in all likelihood will end up in the Rashtrapati Bhavan. And when she does, is Ms Pratibha Patil likely to forget this insult heaped on her by a prominent politician and a former Chief Minister of an important State like Tamil Nadu? The AIADMK leader is, of course, continuing her personal attacks against Ms Sonia Gandhi, but at the receiving end is the UPA's presidential candidate who deserves a more measured criticism from her opponents.

Is it a gender thing?

So, is the propensity to use intemperate language or make off-the-cuff statements a gender thing? Certainly not, one would think, but then Ms Pratibha Patil too put her foot in her mouth within a couple of days of being declared the UPA presidential candidate, and hence a certain winner. Needlessly she finds herself in the centre of a controversy for her remarks on the veil being introduced during the Mughal era to "protect Indian women from Mughal invaders". Not only has she got her history wrong, as historians have pointed out that the veil was prevalent in India, particularly in the Rajasthan belt, much before the Mughal era; but she has also ended up antagonising Muslims.

Nobody can quarrel with the broader message of her ill-timed words — that women should shed their shackles and come forward to enjoy an equal place in society. But a direct attack on the veil, particularly in the present context when most Muslims see their religion under assault by the `wicked west' and believe that its symbols, such as the beard or the veil, are sacrosanct, is bound to deepen their sense of insecurity.

As it is, India's Muslim brotherhood is not happy at the prospect of seeing a Muslim, and an able and erudite one at that, on his way out of the Rashtrapati Bhavan. And now to have the President-in-waiting attack what they consider is their religious and cultural prerogative is to further deepen the sense of persecution.

And when a person who is going to occupy such a high office as that of the President makes a sweeping statement calling for an end to the veil system, is she not messing around with those women, be they Muslim or orthodox Marwari, who willingly opt to use the veil for whatever reason?

For many of us the veil may be a symbol of regression or backwardness, but there are thousands or lakhs of women in this country who think otherwise. Just as it is correct to defend the right of a woman who is being forced by her family or elders not to wear it, the right of those who do want to wear the veil, the purdah, the ghunghat or whatever, has to be respected too.

The sensible for the Western world is just to wake up to the reality that diversity is most natural; different people from different cultures dress differently and they shouldn't be judged on that basis alone. Unless it comes to something like a school uniform; though the very word `uniform' stipulates that all students have to dress the same way and there cannot be any compromise on that. France managed to enforce this law, and rightly so.

Sweeping statement

Though it might be unfair to judge her on this one bloomer, Ms Pratibha Patil making such a sweeping statement against the veil doesn't inspire much confidence in her capacity to meet the exacting demands of her new job for which she is the frontrunner.

Coming to her choice as the UPA's Presidential candidate, under ideal situations religion, caste, region or even gender, should be the last criteria for electing a President. But, then, we live in conditions that are far from ideal, especially in the political arena, and so far the debate has been only on religion and caste — a Dalit in Sushil Kumar Shinde, etc — till Ms Pratibha Patil's name came up at the end of the UPA meet convened to decide on a presidential candidate. And suddenly other criteria took a backseat and everybody hastened to say `Aye' because it "would be politically incorrect to oppose a woman".

As the Left parties and the Congress(I)'s coalition partners in the UPA have fallen in line to endorse her candidature, pulling Ms Pratibha Patil out from near-political wilderness, the question that demands an answer is whether we couldn't have done better.

The simple answer, of course, is that the people elect and get the legislators/parliamentarians they deserve; the latter, in turn, choose the President we all deserve!

Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in