Madam President’s role
Here the paper gave itself away. It avoided using the key words, impartiality and neutrality.
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Most editors thought not. In the event, because the electors consist of legislators and not editors, she got elected. The deed done, I was looking forward to some analysis of why the opposition got so worked up.
Alas, I was disappointed. Most papers were content to say let bygones be bygones, and now that she is president let us get on with it. Some gloated, some moaned, depending on their political allegiance.
The Hindu was amongst the gloaters. " There is nothing wrong in guaranteed losers going all out to make a foregone conclusion look like a real contest. There is also nothing particularly wrong in exploiting weaknesses in the opposing camp, seeing that due diligence does not seem to have been done…But what was terribly wrong was the smear campaign of unprecedented viciousness, combining a modicum of fact with a maximum of falsehoods (italics mine) and dirty tricks; and for sections of the news media to participate in this intensely partisan propaganda."
Reading the Hindu these days I wonder if it should not be rechristened Pravda. Modicum of fact, Sir? Maximum of falsehoods? From the RBI, no less, even if you want to ignore the others? Should not Caesar`s wife be seen to be blameless even if she were not?
Having rid itself of its prejudice, the paper did get down to the core issue. "The issue is no longer whether Ms. Patil is the right person for the Rashtrapati Bhavan. It is how she should conduct herself institutionally as the next President of the Republic."
Here the paper gave itself away. It avoided using the key words, impartiality and neutrality. Instead, it quoted Walter Bagehot, the guru of
"…the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect."
It also said the head of state or the constitutional monarch "must at all times appear non-partisan and remain above the fray when controversial and divisive questions are being debated in the political sphere."
And then it said this: "But we need not rely only on Bagehot." Why, pray? Because, said the paper, according to B R Ambedkar "Under a parliamentary system of government there are only two prerogatives which the King or the Head of the State may exercise. One is the appointment of the Prime Minister and the other is the dissolution of Parliament." Aha! Ahaha!
The cat was thus out of the bag. I wait to see what the paper will say two years from now. Have no fear, I will be watching.
It also said this. "..those who conducted a near-hysterical campaign to the effect that Pratibha Patil would be a `rubber-stamp` President have been barking up the wrong tree. What
Remember, this is the paper that had endorsed K R Narayanan`s activism when he had said he was not a "mere rubber stamp". Talk about consistent editorial stands.
The Pioneer went off the other deep end and said equally disgusting things in reverse, as it were. The rest were just full of platitudes and plain nonsense. For example, the Indian Express wondered whether Rashtrapati Bhavan would still be open to the Ram Lal, and Sham Lal and family. The Hindustan Times made suitably pious noises. The Telegraph, mercifully, did not comment.
And these are called our `quality` papers. Wonderful, is it not?
Subscribe To The Newsletter