can you digest Mrs. Pratibha Patil as "india's" president?

[mayanks_098]

I know our opinion doesnt make any difference but still,
as very dissappointed on the political [miss]happenings on this issue.

UPA claiming pratibha ji as a valid candidate.
UNPA wanted Dr. Kalam,bt sadly due to the sick politics in our country he opted out of the race.(rightly so,cause a person of his stature doent need to lose on hands of these filthy politicians)

reasons UPA and left gave they don want him as prez were senseless like Pratibha ji can be the first women prez n that Dr. Kalaam is not a political figure and he has no understanding of politics.
were these allegations fair?i mean how can they question a person like Dr kalaam,person becuase of whom India stands where it is today,where it can give its own views,can take its own stand.

what did they mean by "he doesnt know politics"?
that he is an honest man and doesnt qualify for being the president? that only criminals n the likes can be politicians(may be right)?that they need a mere puppet in thier hands?
they dishounered him by questioning his integrity saying is it a democratic responsible behaviour that he said he will only contest is he is given assurance of a win?

isnt this signs of a secret handshake b/w congress n left, n the next vice prez is going to be from left?

im not against women candidate or women,bt with all due respect,is she fit enough to be?i mean no one knows who she is.now dont argue here.i am very much into news.
we all know in metro's like delhi too many people dont know important who's who?so will they ever get to know she is the president in her tenure @least?
how will she represent india when she goes abroad on official visits?

if these things dont matter,our mom's could also have been president of our country


share what you all think.

[infra_red_dude]

i agree....

to this day and till the end i will support dr.a.p.j.abdul kalam....i'm his fan i wudn't want some xyz to be the first citizen of india. too bad we can't elect our prez

[prasad_den]

reasons UPA and left gave they don want him as prez were senseless like Pratibha ji can be the first women prez n that Dr. Kalaam is not a political figure and he has no understanding of politics.
were these allegations fair?i mean how can they question a person like Dr kalaam,person becuase of whom India stands where it is today,where it can give its own views,can take its own stand.

Kalam and other worthy people like Seshan were rejected 'coz the polticians want a puppet at the Raisina Hill, which they won't be.. Kalam rejected the Office of PRofit bill rightly, and that has hurt the Congress sentiments..
About Mrs.Patil, she was chosen only after several male congressmen were rejected by the left and others.. If the Congress's true intention was empowerment of women, then they should have nominated her in the first place, instead of she being the last choice... Petty political games, these people play.. Mrs Patil will most probably end up being a puppet...

[infra_red_dude]

Politics and Scientific Fields are like opposite poles..... interestingly and unfortunately they defy the law: Opposites attract!!!!

[blackpearl]

No I can't digest Pratibha Patil.

[Cyclone]

Heck, even thinking about her makes me look like blackpearl's avatar!

Yech! Yech! Yech-Yech-Yech-Yech-Yech!!! <makes a face>

[..:: Free Radical ::..]

Apj Ftw

[AshishSharma]

Dr APJ Abdul Kalaam my first and last choice .... but the only reason why he's not being elected again is because we the 'public' like to cry about stuff instead of using our right to vote and choose sensible people who might think beyond politics and choose the right person.

But then when it comes to choice the options are bad / worst no good there

[mayanks_098]

Originally Posted by AshishSharma

Dr APJ Abdul Kalaam my first and last choice .... but the only reason why he's not being elected again is because we the 'public' like to cry about stuff instead of using our right to vote and choose sensible people who might think beyond politics and choose the right person.

i agree....
those who dont care have no right to cry...

[Lucky_star]

APJ all the way.
He has got that thing inside which makes him ideal as a president.

[Quiz_Master]

APJ...
A scientist is smartest.
He is an idol for everyone.

[gaurav_indian]

I want APJ Abdul Kalam as president.Look at Musharaf how active he is.We need active president not like Pratibha Patil.This is a joke.

[ssdivisiongermany1933]

Kalam has not one qualification , that he is not Puppet in hand of Madame Sonia
Gandhi .Just like what like Tainted Mrs Pratibha Patil is ......

Kalam has not one qualification , that he is not Puppet in hand of Madame Sonia
Gandhi .Just like what like Tainted Mrs Pratibha Patil is ......

[dd_wingrider]

Originally Posted by ssdivisiongermany1933

Kalam has not one qualification , that he is not Puppet in hand of Madame Sonia
Gandhi .Just like what like Tainted Mrs Pratibha Patil is ......

Kalam has not one qualification , that he is not Puppet in hand of Madame Sonia
Gandhi .Just like what like Tainted Mrs Pratibha Patil is ......

+1

[yesh1683]

If Mis Prathiba Patil becomes president how she will be called in hindhi and other languages

President=Rashtrapathi
[pathi=male (even president name itself male gender)]

Then how should we call Rashtrapathi or ??????

[kumarmohit]

Everyone knows that UPA wants their rubber stamp as President, so that the person will not be able to make independent decisions. Manmohan Singh, despite being great man and all is nothing more than Sonia's puppet. I suspect that Mrs. Patil may become her handmaiden.

What will we have as net result? Sonia Madam will become a Super President along with the fact that she already is Super Prime Minister.

On a lighter note - Hai to Sonia bhi insaan hi, itna load mat dalo uspar, mental breakdown hone ka khatra ho jayega.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by prasad_den

Kalam and other worthy people like Seshan were rejected 'coz the polticians want a puppet at the Raisina Hill, which they won't be.. Kalam rejected the Office of PRofit bill rightly, and that has hurt the Congress sentiments...........

.................Petty political games, these people play.. Mrs Patil will most probably end up being a puppet...

Hear, Hear!
+1

[gxsaurav]

None of them

APJ is scientist not a politician. Hard to believe, but we don't need a scientist to run the country, we need a politician. Now APJ is indeed an idol & superb personality, but he is not a politician. Running a country is not like working in a lab.

[dd_wingrider]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

None of them

APJ is scientist not a politician. Hard to believe, but we don't need a scientist to run the country, we need a politician. Now APJ is indeed an idol & superb personality, but he is not a politician. Running a country is not like working in a lab.

bt he will be far more better den d corrupt ones

offtopic: so u r back it seems

[karnivore]

First, given a choice, the white elephant called "The President" should be done away with, and so be the case with "The Governors".

Now, since that is not going to happen anytime soon, and we must have a president, then seeing the alternatives around, APJ would have been a better choice. Not because he is honest, learned etc. etc. but simply because there is no other alternative.

As with Mrs Patel, she represents all that is wrong in Indian politics. First woman president, my foot.

I would disagree with gx_saurav, in that, president doesn't run our country. In any case his is a position of a rubber stamp. Thats all.

[mayanks_098]

Originally Posted by yesh1683

If Mis Prathiba Patil becomes president how she will be called in hindhi and other languages

President=Rashtrapathi
[pathi=male (even president name itself male gender)]

Then how should we call Rashtrapathi or ??????

she would still be called RASHTRAPATI.....because constitution says the post of the president is independent of the gender of the person.

[abhijangda]

pratibha patill can be a good president.

[praka123]

Prathibha patil-criminals suites against her brothers.Dont stare with a religion bias on Sir APJ.he is one nice man.there is nowhere proved a scientist can be a scientist only,not a very good president.he is a Very good president and he can be inspiration for all of us.
Both Pratibha and Bhairavan Singh -we dont want.let APJ continues,else some other clean people,not like few earlier (vice)Presidents like Devilal...India cant be headed by Criminals and selfish politicians.why cant someone from other sectors like charity comes who is clean.
but i know after 4-5 yrs we got another poll running,where our elite,enlightened forum members voting for La(l)lu Parsad Yadav as such a nice,good human being.right?

[mayanks_098]

^^
was waiting to hear your opinion...
ma saviour in linux...[sigh]

[kumarmohit]

Originally Posted by karnivore

First, given a choice, the white elephant called "The President" should be done away with, and so be the case with "The Governors".

Now, since that is not going to happen anytime soon, and we must have a president, then seeing the alternatives around, APJ would have been a better choice. Not because he is honest, learned etc. etc. but simply because there is no other alternative.

As with Mrs Patel, she represents all that is wrong in Indian politics. First woman president, my foot.

I would disagree with gx_saurav, in that, president doesn't run our country. In any case his is a position of a rubber stamp. Thats all.

Actually its not that the president of India is a white elephant. We need a president because a democracy needs checks and balances. In a democracy the constitution is supreme, but since const is a mere book, there has got to be some one who balances the power of parliament, just like we cannot allow the president to have a lot of power and become a dictator, we cannot have a parliment which suspends const, bans elections and becomes the supreme ruler of the nation.

A president is as necessary as the parliament. Look @ the British, while the parliament has a lot of power, the govt is still called Her Majesty's Govt and the courts are called crown courts because the British monarch is the supreme enforcer of the British Constitution. The crown is a balancing tool in British system similarly the President is the balancing tool in Indian parliament.

[Yamaraj]

Originally Posted by kumarmohit

A president is as necessary as the parliament. Look @ the British, while the parliament has a lot of power, the govt is still called Her Majesty's Govt and the courts are called crown courts because the British monarch is the supreme enforcer of the British Constitution. The crown is a balancing tool in British system similarly the President is the balancing tool in Indian parliament.

The Indian President(TM) is more likely a by-product of mixing the British constitution with that of the American one, than a symbolic balancing factor introduced voluntarily. Same goes for the Governors of the states.

Seems, our *great* constitution experts were little more than cheap plagiarists of the worst kind. Why is that we must bear the unnecessary burden of their stupidity and inefficiency? We can most certainly do well without a mammoth bureaucracy that is only feeding onto the resources it is supposed to build for us.

[karnivore]

@ Yamaraj
Seems, our *great* constitution experts were little more than cheap plagiarists of the worst kind. Why is that we must bear the unnecessary burden of their stupidity and inefficiency?

Hey, come on. Don't be so hard on them .

Given the circumstances, they did the best they could. Actually its the generation after them who should be blamed. Instead of revising the Constitution, they simply sat on it.

@ kumarmohit
Actually its not that the president of India is a white elephant. We need a president because a democracy needs checks and balances. In a democracy the constitution is supreme, but since const is a mere book, there has got to be some one who balances the power of parliament, just like we cannot allow the president to have a lot of power and become a dictator, we cannot have a parliment which suspends const, bans elections and becomes the supreme ruler of the nation.

No brother, u got it a little wrong here. The constitution does not give him any power or authority to do the balancing act. Parliament is supreme and NOTHING can supersede it. Not even the President. Don't get carried away by the term "President". All our president ever does is eat, sleep, $hit, tour foreign lands, collect mementos and lecture from Red Fort. Oh, sometimes signs some bills as well.

A president is as necessary as the parliament. Look @ the British, while the parliament has a lot of power, the govt is still called Her Majesty's Govt and the courts are called crown courts because the British monarch is the supreme enforcer of the British Constitution. The crown is a balancing tool in British system similarly the President is the balancing tool in Indian parliament.

Yeah, thats why they, along with the Canadians, are the butt of all jokes. Our democracy emulates the British. Thats why we have a President, a bunch of good for nothing Governors and a circus called Rajyasabha, a.k.a. Upper House in British democracy. The Monarchy does not hav any say in the internal as well as any external politics.

Trust me, a poor country like ours can very well do without these useless showpieces.

[kumarmohit]

Just FYI, If there had not been the President, or had he been powerless, the Parliament members would have increased their pays and perks as and when they thought fit (Venkataraman stopped that bill), They would have defined everything as per their whims (Office of Profit Bill), Killed the power of state (Refusal by a number of presidents to impose President's rule in states as a number of times). Indian Pres also has something called Pocket Veto. (Please search wikipedia for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_Veto:)

Actually the Constitution is supreme, not the Parliament, but since Const. is a mere book and cannot safeguard, we have to have some one who enforces it (President, through the executive) and someone who safeguards it and interprets it when needed (The courts)

Despite Indian const being the longest, it is still vague in a number of areas. And you cannot always interpret it in light of 1950s, at that time Parliament was not made of goons and criminals, now its hard to locate a parliamentarian without a single FIR ever lodged against him/her.

[karnivore]

Sorry boss, i hav to differ this time too.(hope this doesn't turn out to be a slugfest )

Venkataramn didn't stop any bill. If my memory serves me right, he only returned the bill to the parliament for revision. It was never returned back to him.

Actually this is the procedure. A bill is FIRST sent to the president for his approval, which, by the way is purely symbolic. He sees it and if he thinks that something needs to be changed he sends it back to the parliament with recommendation for scrutiny, revision or changes etc. Note, he can only and only make a recommendation. If the parliament decides not to pay heed, it can do so. Now if the same bill is sent back to the president for the SECOND time, in whatever form, the president WILL HAVE TO SIGN IT. He has NO choice. Thats what happened with Office of Profit bill. So that makes the post of president redundant, useless junk and nothing else.

As with Article 356, imposing a presidents rule, it is imposed by the president only and only if it is ratified in both the Houses. So, again president is powerless.

Constitution can be amended by a unanimous decision in the parliament and not by the president. Which means, parliament is supreme . It is highest of the high. And rightly so. Parliament is the hallmark of any democracy and what differentiates it from other form of governance.

Believe me, whatever the president does, can be done without him around. There is no sense in spending cores of money for a rubber stamp.

[kumarmohit]

Oho read about Pocket Veto?
Naturally, he will have to sign it, but in what period?
There is no period defined, and the Presidential assent can only be overridden in case of a money bill not in a general bill.
As there is not defined period for Presidential assent, but there is a limit on parliamentary term, you must be aware that a bill cannot sustain parlimentary transition unless its assented and made a law by the President So the President can keep a bill in his pocket, niether sign it and nor return it in which period if the parliametary elections are held, bill will have to be repassed by both houses.

One more thing, The President can refuse to sign a bill outright if Supreme Court backs him. If the court thinks that the bill is unconstitutional when President seeks its opinion, the President is automatically authorised to throw the bill in trash.

Actually the thing is that even Professors in the Law faculty of Delhi University where I study are not having a unanimous opinion on presidential powers. So how can we have one!!!

As for Parliament and people's power being higher than Constitution,please read the jayalalitha case, wher SC held that COnst, even though amendable is still more powerful than parliament, which cannot tamper its basic skeleton.

One more thing, Constitutional Amendment does not need a unanimous vote (100% yay and 0% nay) It just needs a 2/3 vote, and the state govts also come in the picture in some types of amendments.