President’s functions

MR S. SAHAY’S article "President’s functions: Rajendra Prasad as role model" (February 10) was timely. Comparisons are odious; but at times they have to be made. There is hardly any room to put President KR Narayanan on the high pedestal occupied by Rajan Babu, for two terms.

Rajan Babu never forgot that he was only a Constitutional Head of the State endowed with much dignity, but with little power. He knew it full well that he was always to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. An example. When Nehru’s intention to introduce the Hindu Code Bill appeared in the media, Dr Prasad wrote to him and stressed his right (Article 78 of the Constitution)to be kept informed on important public matters. Nehru felt annoyed and drew the attention of the law luminary to several British conventions.

Rajan Babu showed full patience, but finally drew Nehru’s attention to the "doctrine of mandate" asking him if he had sought the mandate of 80 per cent of India’s population to change the entire fabric of its social life. Nehru fought the 1957 elections on the specific issue of the Hindu Code Bill. He won and passed the Bill which Dr Prasad assented to, notwithstanding his personal views to the contrary.

But Dr Narayanan in his brief tenure has picked up a row with Chief Justice AS Anand on the issue of judges’ appointment and was adamant not to sack the Rabri Devi government even though there was no trace of the rule of law in Bihar. One hopes the learned President reads once again the oath of office (Article 60) that he took while entering Rashtrapati Bhavan. It provides that he "shall preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and devote himself to the well-being of the people."

S. S. JAIN

Chandigarh

Reservation for women

This refers to Deep Shikha’s article A woman problem or...? (Jan 19). I feel sorry for I shall not be able to congratulate the author of this most cynical and confusing article. Perhaps Deep Shikha has not been able to convey what she really wanted to about reservation and the dignity of being a woman. I wonder how the reservation belittles a woman or how it teaches a lesson of weakness to the next generations of women. Asking for reservation is not asking for alms. It is not reservation on "Allaha Ke Nam Pe—-". It is the right of women and they are fighting for their right. Since they constitute half of the population it is their right to represent that half in person on the political stage. In fact, they should have asked for 50 per cent reservation. It is generous and magnanimous of them that they have asked for much less.

It is sad that even educated women like the author, instead of endorsing the cause ridicule it by giving a very funny and illogical example of "reservation within reservation". Do men give reservation to widowers, divorcees, married, single or chronic bachelors that women would need to do so? "Reservation within reservation" is the brain child of crafty male politicians who do not want power to slip from their hands. However, it is being taken up supportingly. The recent commitment made by the Congress President is one such example.

What women actually want is their share of the cake. They want their dignity, self respect and equal partnership in power sharing and decision making. Their demand is not unjust. It is fair and justified. Woman has lived enough in the shackles of man-made laws. She has proved her worth and talent in every field of life. In politics also she has proved herself no less. That’s the reason her male counterparts are scared. No to Women’s Reservation Bill so far has only one major reason and that is fear in the minds of men that empowered women might push them off the stage.

It is wrong to think that demand for reservation is any show of weakness on women’s part. It is rather an act of defiance that woman herself wants to hold reigns in her own hands instead of basking in the glory of her father, husband, brother or son.

LALITA JAGMOHAN SINGH

Chandigarh