WE WERE ALL DISCUSSING ABOUT WHO WOULD BE THE PRESENT TO PRECEDE APJ ABDUL KALAM BUT DID INDIAN PRESIDENT HAVE ANY JOB ON HAND TO DO? TO ME NO. IT IS JUST A SIGNING AUTHORITY TO SIGN WHAT PMO AND PARLIAMENT SAYS. IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE ONE OF THAT KIND WITH SOMUCH MONEY SPENDING ON HIM. FRANKLY SPEAKING INDIAN PRESIDENT IS A DUMMY CHARACTER WITH LOT OF DIGNITY WITH NO POWER LIKE A GRANDFATHER OF A FAMLY WHO HEADS THE FAMILY BUT DOES NOTHING.
FRANKLY THAT MONEY WHICH WE SPEND ON PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND RASTRAPTHI BHAVAN SHOULD BE USED TO THE WELFARE OF POOR.
RE:DID INDIAN PRESIDENT HAVE ANY JOB TO DO?
by on Jun 05, 2007 08:59 AM Permalink
I don't think the constitution makes the President a dummy. He has some real powers. However, the Congress party has made sure that all presidents are its stooges. (Of course, the present president was not nominated by the Congress). Perhaps we should think of having a directly elected President.
Most of the politicians are corrupt & we have never seen a clean President like Kalam tilldate(for the past 30 yrs, as I recall). Why cannot the so-called secular parties re-nominate him? Why cannot the Dravidian parties raise this point, as he belongs to South? Why cannot BJP(which of course nominated him first), which is trying to join 'minority appeasement gang' recommend this great act! Dr APJKalam has win the heart of all of us , including children.
India want a person who would address the major national issues.
1.Population problem 2.Compulsory family planning (even in islam family planning is allowed this should be conveyed to every muslim) 3.uniform civil code. 4.terrorism 5.goonds in metros all these problem need to be addressed
honest, hard working and eminent person with knowledge of politics should b the president. otherwise also very few politicians seem to b really honest.
I do not agree with you that if the election were to be thrown open to the public it is certain that the incumbent, APJ Abdul Kalam will get a 2nd term .
I agree with the BJP in this regard that no person should get a second term as President considering that that the President is only a defacto head . I am also not convinced of Kalam's grasp of the constitution considering his handling of the Bihar crisis . Even the issue of clemency to Afzal Guru he let it hang with him for months together until it went back to the Courts .
I do not think Politicians should be barred from the post as they are also citizens of India and have every right to occupy that post .
RE:Should Abdul Kalam get a second term ?
by Rema Keshavan on Jun 04, 2007 03:47 PM Permalink
what is the reason that president should not be given the second term, Politician gets a second and third term to become the CM and PM why only this separate rule for the President. After so many decades we are having a good and educated President, Politicans are citizens of India, but what have they done for the country, they have only made money, played with power. Today the situation is such that a honest citizen does not have a place of honour, they only want to wipe him out of the country. It is really sad to know the crime going on in our country.
RE:Should Abdul Kalam get a second term ?
by Prem Mohan on Jun 05, 2007 10:16 AM Permalink
Perhaps the present President has displeased Mdm Sonia Gandhi?
it is better to choose a non political person for the great post.We need people like Dr.Abdul Kalam or Dr. Radhakrishnan. The president has to take impartial and at times bold decisions. If we choose a political person its never happen. eg;just think about a person like G. sudhakaran, minister of Kerala becoming the president of india because of his plitical support.He dont know what he is talking. so our country requires a non- polical person for the prestigious post. HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED STATESMAN having a vision and cocern about the future generation must be chosen.
Yes, I think, career politicians should be barred from holding India's Presidential office. A politician may be much easier to manipulate by the political parties but he would not be absolutely non-partisan in a controversy. What happens when a politician is made a Speaker of the Lok Sabha, or of a State Assembly, has recently been seen. The Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee (whom Leftists want to be President) dissolved the Budget session of the House 3-4 days before it was scheduled to end, refusing to concede to the demands of the BJP and some other parties for an all-party delegation to Nandigram in West Bengal, where the Leftist government had perpetrated a most heinous massacre of innocent villagers on 14th March, this year. Had the Speaker not been a politician, he would have agreed to such a legitimate demand. Similarly, the Speaker of the West Bengal Assembly, Hasim Abdul Halim, barred a demand by the opposition for a privilege motion against the Chief Minister who told brazen lies in the House on the number of farmers of Singur who had willingly let the government acquire their land for the Tatas' car factory, on a flimsy pretext of the submitted documents not having been attested. In both these cases, the Speakers put allegiance to their party, the CPI(M), over their supposed neutrality. Not being a career politician, the present President, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam could return a brazenly selfish amendment bill about Parliamentarians holding offices of profit; a pol
