Do we need a president? Indian Express 29th June 2007

Today the selection of the president of India is dominating our television screens and morning headlines. But before we decide who we want as president, have we stopped to ask ourselves a more fundamental question: do we need a president?
Our civics books in school told us that the president was only a ‘nominal head’. The less charitable books, the guide books even at the level of civil services examinations, called the president a ‘rubber stamp’. If one goes through the powers of the president, the post does resemble a rubber stamp. The president can, at best, meekly refrain from endorsing a decision — and that, too, only for the first time.
So why does such an ornamental post prove so attractive? Superficially speaking, the president gets to occupy the Rashtrapati Bhavan, which is quite a palace to say the least. He gets a retinue of servants and can house a number of relatives. It is said that one of our presidents did, in fact, have several dozens of his relatives living on the premises throughout the year. Presidents also get high level security wherever they go and free medical treatment — usually in the US. There is also a lot of foreign travel thrown in, and presidents get to meet a frightful number of lower level dignitaries of lower level countries and, occasionally, more prominent heads of state.
They have their speech writers doing all the hard work of writing the stuff that needs to be read out on public occasions, and there is always the photostat to help in the recycling of lofty thoughts and aspirations. It is, generally, a fairly non-controversial job, because you do not have to take important decisions anyway. Even if ticklish issues come up — like the dismissal of a legitimate state government — no one really cares since it is accepted that the president is, anyway, only a rubber stamp.
Politically, of course, getting one’s chosen candidate into the office is highly desirable, leading to a show of strength, based on a formula that takes into account a party’s seats in the Parliament and the state legislatures. Presidents also, whether they like it or not, tend to get identified with a particular party.
But that is also why the process of selecting a candidate for this post has become so acrimonious. We therefore seriously need to decide whether or not we need this post. It is similar to British royalty, which is maintained at considerable public expense but for no good enough reason.
And if we want to persist with it, we need to give the president more powers to keep the government of the day under check. Are we prepared to do this? Probably, not. In which case, we should seriously consider dispensing with this post.