"India's first women president would send out a message to the world that we are committed to women's empowerment".. That's what the the ruling party UPA has to say regarding their presidential candidate. Its interesting how this entire farce is working. The best part being the President does not have any real powers anyways.. Is that what we try to project when we have a Dalit, a women and a Muslim President? Look here world we have all these people who one person represents and we are "committed" to their empowerment!

It really escapes me how politics really works... How can we have a post like that of a President who has pretty much absolutely no powers.. Are we to understand that our last president (a good man though) was to send a message to the world.. : we are committed to the Nuclear weapons and there is nothing you can do about it.. (he was the nuclear scientist if some one would remember)..

In first place, the Post of the President is nothing but a Public Relations stint, where He/She is expected to do nothing but cut ribbons, attend meetings and sign papers Parliament has already approved.. Would it not be more sensible to do away with it rather than use the colonial hangover where you need a nominal head no matter what.. Why are we still stuck with such silly, and extravagant practices and what is a Female President likely to do for women where thousands of unsung heroes, heroines and reformist are falling flat on their faces.

The last time I heard, Ex-Defense Minister Pranab Mukharjee was in race too.. What "Message" was he likely to give? "WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE DEFENCE of our country"! To defend from whom, for what? There is no Defence now. As long as the other side has the same arms and the first world has nuclear stock piles, there is nothing to do, there is no where to go and in short nothing to be "defended" from... The concept of Defence is our greatest enemy.

My first plea is do away with this Post that has no part to play in creating any equity in the society: going by the record previous Presidents could not stop emergency when it was not required, Kalam could not rationalise Office of Profit bill even when he wanted to and there are likely to be longer lists if each one of the Presidents were to be taken in account. If Parliament needs a rubber stamp, let it not be shrouded as a person who is "supposed to send out some sort of message to the world." A democracy should have no President, with any powers with out the consent of the people and if the Prime Minister is doing the same job, we Indians dont need a President.