Presidential nomination or muppet of congress?

After much ado and disputed opinions Congress successfully convinced all party leaders to vote in favor of their preferred candidate. Though delayed, Pranab Mukherji added another feather to his cap by being nominated as the 13th president of India. And here we say good bye to our beloved Prathiba Patil (now ex- Prez) who was infamously known as a profligate traveler.




Our Indian constitution says much about the role and the duties of the first citizen of India but execution on the part of the president nominated is still controversial. It is mentioned in the constitution that the president is the nominal head in the Indian democracy and enjoys certain privileges.

But are these rights performed correctly? 
Are these privileges enjoyed without self-interest? 

If we trace down the history and president-ship there are few names which pops up in an average, aware cerebral cortex ie our magnificent first president of India after independence, Dr Rajendra Prasad and the notable APJ Abdul Kalam. The in-between candidates nominated as president were more or less filler or rather frivolous. The reign of Kalam was undoubtedly progressive. At least, he contributed in the field of education and science and was closely in touch with the people especially, the youth of India. Talking about Prathiba Patil our former president, who was also the first lady president of India proved to be total disappointment. When Patil became the president, our country rejoiced with consensus hoping that she would ascertain radical nationwide development, principally, on the women front. Instead, she became the most traveled Maharashtrian who took her family members to expensive world tour shrinking tax payers money. Ask a college going student about Prathiba Patil all they know about her contribution is refuting capital punishment apart from that few participation here and there but nothing significant. If at all we compare Kalam, his involvement is noteworthy to pen it down and enough to be remembered.

The doting question arises here is that - If President has no role in Indian democracy then why that post exist? Just for initiating foreign talks and maintaining international relations? If yes, then what if the president fails to even smoothen our foreign relations? What if the highest position of president-ship fails to fulfill its obligation towards the nation? In recent times, we haven’t heard any president proclaiming State, National or Financial Emergency even in times of dire need. And if at all we talk about the nomination of Pranab Mukherji who was disliked by majority of Indian citizens ( but still was nominated) only proves that Congress is just expanding their puppet population.

Certainly, If people who are capable of bringing change in the society like Abdul Kalam refrain from being nominated, fearing Congress and reformist like Anna Hazare are restrained from raising their voice. It truly and solely exhibits the monopoly of Congress rule in India.