The founding fathers of our Constitution hoped that after every five years the country would be able to elect a non-controversial respected citizen as the President of India who would not only act as a lodestar for guiding politicians but also embody the hopes and aspirations of the people and would be a shining example of a Constitutional head parexcellence. Whether all the previous ten incumbents who occupied this office were outstanding persons is a debatable question. But there is no doubt that so long as the Congress remained the dominant party, the country’s presidents were elected without much fuss. Now, when no single party can claim majority support, the election to the office of the President has also become mired in controversy.

According to the Constitutional provisions, India should have a new President by July 16, 2002. However, there is no bar on the pre-sent incumbent to be re-elected to the country’s highest office. It is doubtful to say who will be the next incumbent when more than half a dozen candidates have thrown their hats in the ring and are only hoping that they would be able to find favour both with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the Opposition leader Sonia Gandhi whose growing political clout has become a factor to be reckoned with in any discussion on who will be the next President of India.

As there many a slip between the cup and the lip, it is difficult to say anything at this stage as to who is the most potential winner among the candidates lobbying for support now. The picture might become clearer by the middle of June. The candidates who are in the fray at the moment include the incumbent President K. R. Narayanan, the Maharashtra Governor P. C. Alexander, the Vice-President Krishan Kant, India’s missile man A. P.J. Abdul Kalam, former minister, diplomat Vedic scholar Karan Singh, former diplomat and Constitutional lawyer L. M. Singhvi and the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Farooq Abdullah. Ram Jethamalani, eminent lawyer, is also itching for support but no party so far has expressed any interest in him.

The Bhartiya Janata Party with 184 MPs is the largest constituent of the National Democratic Alliance ruling the country. It favours Maharashtra Governor P. C. Alexander, a former Indian Foreign Service officer, for the post. That all the 28 parties, are members of the alliance, will fall behind the BJP is still not clear, although the general assumption is that the Prime Minister holding out the temptation of being included in his Cabinet to be reconstituted after the Presidential election may succeed in making all NDA members toe his line. What queers the pitch for Alexander, however, is the fact that the Congress and other Opposition parties do not favour him and seem intent on opting for the re-election of the incumbent President, K. R. Narayanan. By sheer coincidence, both these candidates hail from Kerala and were classmates in school. Normally, the Congress should not have any reservation about pleaing a Christian in the highest office in the country. But the problem with the party is that it regards Alexander, who was aide to two former Congress Prime Ministers – Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi – as an apostate whose candidature is being supported by Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray. Of course, during the heyday of the Congress rule, Alexander was always in the Congress camp. But during his tenure as Maharashtra Governor he has been able to cultivate a good working relationship with the Shiv Sena boss, Bal Thackeray who is instrumental in inititating the move to have him installed in the highest office. Ever willing to oblige Thackeray, the BJP so far has not shown any reluctance to adopt Alexander as its candidate for the presidential poll.

But the Congress idealogues are disinclined to favour Alexander not only because he is now in the rival camp but also because he is a Christian. It is argued that Alexander’s presence in the country’s highest office might act as a discouraging factor to the possible election of Sonia Gandhi as Prime Minister should the party do well in the next parliamentary elections due in 2004 and be in a position to form government. Two Christians occupying the highest offices of President and Prime Minister in Hindu majority India would not be palatable to the populace and hence Alexander’s presence in the Rashtrapati Bhavan might act as a stumbling block for the appointment of Sonia Gandhi, an Italian Christian, as India’s Prime Minister. There is no doubt that out of all the candidates now in the race for the highest office, Karan Singh with his command over Sanskrit, greater knowledge about the Vedas and the Shastras and his skill as an effective speaker would make a better President. But the former Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, who at one time was a favourite of the Hindutva lobby in the BJP, forfeited the sympathy and support of all his erstwhile admirers by contesting against Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the Lucknow constituency in the last election. All his followers and admirers in the BJP camp have been lukewarm in their support for him. Even when Sonia Gandhi met the Prime Minister for talks on the Presidential election recently, Karan Singh’s name did not figure in the discussion. On the contrary, Sonia Gandhi lobbied for the re-election of K. R. Narayanan. But the Prime Minister was reportedly cool to Narayanan on the ground that his re-election would set a bad precedent of being elected to the highest office twice India’s first President, Dr Rajendra Prasad, was the only incumbent who occupied this office for two full terms. This could happen mainly because Nehru, the then Prime Minister, could not prevail upon his party to get a new incumbent for the office. Even when Prasad’s name was first proposed, Nehru was not very happy. He wanted C. Rajagopalachar to become the first President, but he could not have his say for the party rank and file favoured Dr Prasad.

Although under the Constitution, the President is only a constitutional head and cannot turn down anything proposed by the government, prime ministers have always wanted such incumbents in Rashtrapati Bhavan who are willing to toe their line without any question. Prasad had somewhat strained his relations with Nehru because he had publicly expressed the view that the President could refuse to sign any bill if he did not approve of it. The Hindu Code Bill which Figured in Parliament in the early fifties did not find favour with Prasad and therefore he had taken recourse to expressing his views openly on the issue. Nehru did not like this. When Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signed the document declaring emergency in the country, just as the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi wanted him to do, after the emergency was lifted his role came in for much criticism. It was felt that had the President declined to be a rubber stamp the country could have been spared the torture of emergency.