'Pliant' Patil, India's next president
By Sudha Ramachandran BANGALORE - Pratibha Patil is poised to become India's next president in voting this Thursday. Her victory is a foregone conclusion; the numbers are in her favor to make her India's first female head of state.
A former deputy Speaker of the Upper House of India's Parliament, the Rajya Sabha, Patil, now 72, was a practicing lawyer before she joined politics. She has held five consecutive terms as a legislator in her home state of Maharashtra and has held ministerial portfolios several times. And she has been governor of Rajasthan for the past three years. Besides that, she has been involved in social work, founding banks, colleges and schools for the poor and economically disadvantaged women.
But skeletons have been tumbling out of the Patil family cupboard ever since the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition put her up as its candidate in the presidential race.
The president is elected in a secret ballot by an electoral college made up of state and federal lawmakers. If the president were directly elected, incumbent A P J Kalam, who is known as the "People's President", given his immense popularity, would have won hands down. Kalam pulled out of the race after the UPA and the previous ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) could not agree on fielding him for another term.
The Patil family has been accused of nepotism, murder and fraud. Her husband Devisinh Shekawat's name was linked to the suicide of a schoolteacher seven years ago. One of her brothers is connected to the murder of a Congress party leader in Patil's hometown, Jalgaon. The latter had apparently drawn the attention of the party leadership to the brother's misuse of funds. Patil is said to have protected her brother from the murder charge.
Then, a cooperative bank Patil helped set up in 1974 to assist women went under when her relatives - the bank's main beneficiaries - failed to repay loans. A sugar mill she founded went under too. The mill owes the equivalent of US$4 million to the bank from which it availed loans.
Patil's supporters argue that it is unfair to hold her responsible for the crimes of her relatives. Indeed, these charges could well prove to be baseless, being leveled by the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has a strong interest in undermining the ruling coalition's candidate.
Indeed, it is party politics that is behind the BJP's ugly smear campaign against Patil. These allegations have, however, been around for a while. Yet the BJP did not rake them up when she was appointed governor of Rajasthan - a BJP-ruled state - three years ago. It is only when her name came up as the presidential candidate that the BJP chose to stir the pot.
Incidentally, the BJP's candidate for president - Bhairon Singh Shekawat, the current vice president - is no better. The Congress has accused him of sheltering his son in a case of illegal land acquisition. Shekawat's dealings, it seems, go back several decades.
If the slush from the BJP's mudslinging is sticking on Patil it is because she has not clarified issues but chosen to remain silent. It is the Congress party itself that has batted in her defense. Her silence, while not proof of her guilt, is suggestive of it. Even if the allegations are simply part of the BJP's campaign, Patil cannot distance herself from the public statements she has made.
As Maharashtra's health minister during the Emergency (1975-77), Patil issued a statement in the State Assembly endorsing a proposal seeking to make "family planning" (birth control) compulsory for all citizens. The government would take "appropriate steps" to ensure that all citizens adopted family planning measures she said, adding, "We are also thinking of forcible sterilization for people with anuvaunshik ajar [hereditary diseases]." Patil has never apologized for endorsing forcible sterilization. Neither has she indicated that she has rethought that contentious view.
A month ago, Patil said in a public gathering that veiling of Indian women began during Mughal rule to protect them from Muslim invaders. This is an argument that India's Hindu right has often made, which has been refuted by leftish historians. Patil, who called for an end to the purdah system (purdah is a veil but it also refers to exclusion of women from the public space), incidentally covers her own head demurely with her sari pallav (the free end of the sari).
While campaigning, Patil claimed she had a "divine premonition of greater responsibility" coming her way after speaking to her late spiritual guru. "The future president of India speaks to dead people," wrote Indian Express columnist Tavleen Singh, pointing out that it is "very worrying that India's first citizen should represent the obscurantist and weird underbelly of the Hindu religion".
But Patil is not alone in looking to mediums and "godmen" for ideas and inspiration. The vast majority of India's politicians - even some among the "godless Marxists" - would hesitate to take a step without consulting their astrological and spiritual masters. She is being hauled over the coals now ironically by the BJP.
So couldn't the UPA find a less controversial person for the top post? Is this the best the coalition could come up with? Names the Congress had suggested were turned down by the left and vice versa. After running through a long list of names, the Congress came up with a name that the left couldn't turn down - that of Patil, who has sound secular credentials.
But what made the Congress suggest the name of a regional leader for the presidency. Surely there are other women with stronger secular credentials than Patil in a country of a billion plus. It appears that what worked in Patil's favor was her proximity to Sonia Gandhi, the Congress president and leader of the UPA coalition. Patil is seen by the Congress as a "loyalist", that is, loyal to the Nehru-Gandhi family, an essential qualification for anyone hoping for an appointment under Congress rule.
The Nehru-Gandhis have always favored loyal presidents. Zail Singh (1982-87) began his tenure with the declaration that if "Indira-ji so wanted," he would "happily pick up the broom and sweep the floor". And Patil has stood by the family through thick and thin. Her critics jeer that she looked after former premier Indira Gandhi's kitchen in the difficult period after the death of Indira's son Sanjay in 1980.
Every phase of this presidential election has been ugly. If the process of choosing candidates left the reputations of several senior ministers as well as that of incumbent Kalam seriously muddied, the vicious campaign for the two candidates has severely undermined the stature of the presidency.
India's presidency is largely ceremonial. But in an era of fragmented mandates, hung parliaments and coalition governments the president plays an important role. In the event of a close verdict it is he or she who makes the decision as to who gets the first chance to try their hand at government formation - the single-largest party or the single-largest coalition. In such situations it would help to have a friend in the president's seat.
The 2007 presidential poll is not just about choosing India's 12th president for the next five years. It is about the general election in 2009. It was bitterly fought because of the high stakes involved. With a "loyal Patil" in the Rashtrapathi Bhavan (India's presidential palace), the Congress will be hoping for a leg up in 2009.
The UPA coalition has emerged stronger from the presidential contest not only because its candidate will be the next president but also because it managed to break the opposition alliance. Its choice of Patil, a Maharashtrian, compelled the Shiv Sena, a pro-Maharashtrian party and an important BJP partner, to break away from its partners in the NDA. This is likely to result in a more formal parting of ways between the BJP and the Sena - a major coup for the UPA.
So what can India expect from its president in the next five years? A pliant president?
India's presidents have on occasion sprung surprises. President Zail Singh was willing to wield a broom if Indira Gandhi ordered him to, and he did swear in her son Rajiv as her successor in 1984, departing from established procedures. But when Rajiv treated him with scant respect, Zail Singh asserted himself, and relations between the president and prime minister were strained.
Patil, who comes to the top post with a strong record on social welfare, just might actually act to empower women. Perhaps she will spring a surprise yet.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG19Df04.html
