Thursday, August 31, 2006

The Office of the President

I am curious about why we continue to keep the Office of the President in India. As far as I know (and I know very little), the President has no real powers. I remember Giani Zail Singh (former President) being under controversy due to him taking orders from Indira Gandhi (then the Prime Minister). Abdul Kalam is certainly the most inspiring President we have had in the past two decades. He is a scholar and academic and has several accomplishments up his sleeve, notably his role at ISRO.

My conspiracy theory is that the current President's nomination was largely because he is Muslim and came close on the heels of the Godhra riots in 2002. The former BJP government did not take any steps to punish Narendra Modi but had to do something to show that their motive was not Hindutva. So they appointed Abdul Kalam a top scientist, known for his vision for India, and most importantly, in my belief, a muslim. There is no doubt this President is a very capable man; however, how much can he do from his current appointment? How much can any President of India do? If his powers are very little and there is very little voters can do towards making him accountable why have a President in India. I think I will take up a new hobby this semester, reading the voluminous Constitution of India.


Anonymous said...


Some interesting posts. It is good to see an Indian libertarian, somehow ever better to see a woman libertarian.

You might consider using your by reading "Human Action" by Mises rather than on Indian constitution. Constitutions are inherently statist and anti-libertarian. And honestly, I wouth rather that British never left India. We were much more free then.

Sorry, didn't mean to preach...


Triya said...

Thank you. Why the anonymity? Human Action is part of my reading list this semester. I believe in knowing my opponents before facing them and that's the reason for the Constitution assignment. :) I do not believe we were freer as a British Colony.


Anonymous said...


My grandfather used to tell me taht the British TAx officer in India saw my grandfather to the door each time he went there. He used to say that they were stand-offish, but they were not disrespectful.

I worked in Indai for many years beofre I emmigrated. I have never met one honest public officer in India. Usually I do not consider them human. I have a lot of my family in BJP. They all look saints to the public, but i feel like throwing up when i see them.

My heart cringes when I think about the possibility of workign in Western bureaucracy/poltics. I think i would get seriously depressed (probably suicidal) if i had to work for the state in India. By that measure, Abdul Kalam and Manmohan Singh are serious crooks.

My personal belief is that they are worse than conventional crooks. When a crook steals, he steals for himself, when Abdul and Manhoman steal, they do it not so much for material need but to satisfy their low self-esteems. And then they try to look like saints. At least a crook knows who he is. These totalitrains don't even know what they are.

Morally I think conventional crooks belong to much higher level spiritually - and i am not exaggerating at all to drive accross any point.

Having said all this, I am fanatically anti-statist, so perhaps, I am just screwed up. But really, one can be either pregnent or not pregnent. There is no half way. You are either a libertarian or you are not. Any respect or concession, in my opinion, you carry for the state (and the statists) and its symbols is going to keep you on a slippery slope.

no anonimity, but this is the first time i have ever written to any blog. my name is jayant, and somehow i ended on your site.

good luck,