“Can we imagine an umpire or a referee who knows nothing about the sport. A President is not called upon to write poems, stories, novels nor talk about scientific research. He should take decisions on issues affecting political, economic and social life of the country,” Mr. Bardhan said giving a talk on Presidential elections at a meeting organised by the State council of CPI here on Sunday.
Sir, shouldn’t we then have some minimum educational qualification for legislators?
He said the country had entered a crucial era of coalition politics, breaking the monopoly of power by Congress. In this context, the highest office required a person who had knowledge about the relationship between parties that made up the coalitions. “Tell us, what is wrong in our thought”, he asked.
Nothing sir. We are just wondering if such knowledge is possible. Will some present/erstwhile members of any coalition Government shed light on their ‘relationship’ with other constituents?
He said the Left was opposed to second term for A.P.J. Abdul Kalam because it had not supported him even at the first instance.
How consistent!
14 comments:
Left is always worried about intellectuals. Perhaps they feared their secrets will come out. They want to use their pratibha to install rubber stamp president.
Could be..
But I expected the Left to come up with better reasons.
The parliamentary left of India are a bunch of jokers. Who takes them seriously? But having a twisted left is still better than having no left at all.
btw, about your comment on minimum educational qualification. Should we not make education a fundamental right before implementing it?
Anoop,
That was just a corollary to Mr. Bardhan's demand for certain qualifications for President. Not my view.
I agree that we can't have minimum qualification for legislators without universal compulsory education.
And who decides the syllabus of universal compulsary education? Like in Yes Minister, the people may need another Universal Compulsary Education to compensate for the one they get in schools....:):)
Having got used to MK's explanations on almost all stuff Baradhan's "consistent" reply doesn't tickle much.
Maybe I am being naive, but in a parlimentary democracy like India does the President matter? Your comments? Actually the questioner is not as naive the question
BTW ,CV, have you read the Yes Minister Yes Prime Minister series...How did you like it.
Yes. Especially in the times of coalition politics. The office of President has largely been shadowed mainly because most of them were Congressmen. During Mrs. Gandhi's and her son's times and , they owed the office to their allegiance to a particular family.
Due to these reasons, the Office of President could not manifest in a way it should have.
The President is expected to act as a wise elder counsel to the Government. And this can be done in many ways.
Returning a bill for reconsideration with his objections / observations, which Kalam did in case of Office of Profit;
Refusing to sign a bill, Like Zail Singh did with the Postal Bill.
Refusing to dismiss a state government like Narayanan did with Bihar;
Seek information from the Cabinet on important issues, which are usually kept secret, and consequently offer his advice or prepare for some future course of action;
Refusing to read certain lines from his address to the parliament;
Now these might be symbolic actions, but they definitely force the government to rethink on its stance. It also gives a wide publicity to issues that might otherwise be swept under carpet or might be needing the much needed fillip to gather momentum among the public.
In case of Office of Profit Bill the rethinking did not really happen, though Kalam's objections were very valid, because all the parties were the beneficiaries of the bill.
I often wonder why no President has refused to administer oath to tainted ministers. It might not be in the spirit of the Constitution, but it definitely is a possibility the only way out for which is, I presume, impeachment which, again is virtually impossible in an era of slim majority.
It is not what power is vested, but how creatively it is exercised. Remember, it took more than four decades and a man called Sheshan for us to know what the Election Commission can do.
Hmmm...... a very concise reply...
"It is not what power is vested, but how creatively it is exercised"....
Very well put.
Though I am very pessimistic about the way democracy functions....I guess stuff like publicity on contentious issues do make an impact on people's mind.
Thanks for providing some food for thought.
But you ain't answered my second question on YM?
Sorry. I overlooked.
I did not read it.
Hi,
Congrats :) :) :) (not for this post), but for your achievement
Bruno
Thank You :-)
good insight into left's double standards..
cv,
hope you're doing well.. and shall return with all your wits/wit intact.. best.
Kuffir,
I am fine. Struggling to come out of the inertia of inactivity. :-(
Hope mussorie gives both the time and fodder for blogging.
By the way, how about a cup of coffee before I leave?
yes, that'd be great.. i'm much older than you, so i am not really aware of the kind of addas young folks like you hang out.. think of a date and time and place (where smoking is allowed) after monday.. and let me know here or mail me..
Post a Comment