Khare's Leftist Nonsense

Did anyone read Harish Khare's defence of Pratibha Patil in the Hindu today? It is a rehash of the same things that have been doing the rounds in the media circuit for the last few days . Here are a few of the points her supporters are making which Mr. Khare parrots again and the answers to them: (1) Laundering district level pettiness, antagonisms and quarrels demeans the contest to the Republic's highest office, hence the campaign should not be conducted. True, but the nature of the allegations and the campaign depends on the kind of people and activities that the candidate has chosen to associate herself with. If a campaign ought to remain of a high level, surely a candidate who has such a record ought to have been chosen. (2) She is our potential first woman president. Oh, since when is being so and so a defense of anything? Expecting to be treated as a Presidential candidate cuts both ways – along with the authority, the name and prestige also comes the responsibilities and the probing media inquiry. If one wants the job, they ought to stop whining about the downside and learn to face up to it. (3) This campaign reeks of a character assassination. If close relatives of the candidate have been implicated in shady financial dealings and murder, it may not been the candidate's fault but is it wrong, ethically and morally, to make that known to the public at large given that such people may benefit from the power and glory flowing from the candidate's authority should she be elected to office? If such people face legal punishment after her allegation, would that not also reflect on her and her office? (4) The BJP would rather convert the Presidency into an antagonistic institution and the bitterness would spill over into Ms. Patil's innings. I have no idea what an 'antagonistic Presidency' means or will look like. Presidents are primarily figureheads and by the very nature of their position, no one has a particularly good reason to antagonize such a person and if indeed they do without good reason, it will simply engender more support and sympathy for her and reflect badly on those who engage in the act. The very same argument can be made for every elected institution – whether it is parliament, cabinet or prime minister's office, asking even legitimate questions might well inject partisan bitterness and convert them into 'antagonistic' institutions as well. Surely if preventing partisanship and protecting the office from such 'damage' were so paramount, the founders of our constitution would not have approved of a campaign or even an elected presidency at all; instead they might well have preferred a nominated or hereditary Presidency and saved us all the expense. All these criticisms are little more than obfuscation. The simple truth is this – Ms. Patil has been asked some questions and she must answer them straightforwardly to the best of her ability. Let the Electoral College and the people then decide where the truth lies and whether she deserves the treatment she has got.