The election of India's president has acquired disproportionate importance ever since Indira Gandhi outmanoeuvred her rivals in the Congress in 1969 and put up Varahagiri Venkatagiri against the official candidate. Giri's victory not only marked the triumph of Gandhi's "Left turn", symbolised by the abolition of former maharajahs' privy purses and bank nationalisation. It also vested excessive significance into a top-heavy, indirect, selection process devoid of mass campaigning. The office of the president is largely ornamental, like in European-style constitutional monarchy. It is not the court of last resort. The president is bound by conventions and norms. S/he can return a bill passed by parliament, only once. If parliament again votes for it, s/he must proclaim it into law. As a rule, the president only acts on the Cabinet's "advice". Within this limitation, s/he is expected to play a dignified role which rises above party agendas. His/her election should also reflect dignity and gravitas. It's thus regrettable that the current presidential election has become a bitter contention, in which parties are trying to outwit one another and playing for minuscule, temporary advantage. The Congress vacillated over choosing its nominee. Its choice, favouring the non-descript Pratibha Patil, has left many United Progressive Alliance (UPA) supporters disappointed, although quite a few were glad that the UPA didn't nominate Shivraj Patil, who has badly under-performed as the home minister. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance thwarted any chance of a UPA-driven consensus on the presidential nominee. Last November, it started pleading with President APJ Abdul Kalam that he should seek a second term. This flies in the face of a well-settled convention. This convention has been repeatedly cited by various parties since 1962. That's why the highly regarded Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was denied a second term. The BJP invoked that very convention in May 2002, when it told K.R. Narayanan that he should not seek re-election. So it's utterly hypocritical for the BJP now to campaign for Kalam's second term. It nominated vice-president and BJP leader Bhairaon Singh Shekhawat as the NDA's candidate — only after Kalam refused to enter into a contest. However, the BJP still speaks in multiple voices. Confronted by the announcement of the eight regional parties like the SP, AIADMK and Telugu Desam — now called the United National Progressive Alliance — that they would "persuade" Kalam to seek a second term, the BJP said it supports Kalam, but only as a consensus candidate. But Kalam isn't a consensus candidate. The UPA isn't about to reconsider Patil's nomination. Meanwhile, Kalam has muddied the waters by declaring, in an unprecedented oral statement, that he "can accept a second term of presidency provided there is certainty about this." This "certainty" isn't "consensus". This announcement brings Kalam no credit. However, the BJP is trying to turn the tables on the Congress by saying it must explain why it doesn't back Kalam. This is preposterous, but typical of the BJP's intimidatory tactics. The BJP is using such methods because its election plans are going awry. Two NDA allies, Shiv Sena and Trinamool Congress, have spoken out against nominating Shekhawat. The BJP was hoping to cut a deal with some members of the UNPA, under which their second-preference votes would go to Shekhawat. That would enable the NDA to avert an embarrassing loss of face. However, after its latest decision, the UNPA's may abstain from voting. This is widely expected of the SP and TDP, with 80,000 of the UNPA's 105,000 votes. In that case, Shekhawat could suffer a crushing defeat. The BJP disingenuously attempted to pass off Shekhawat as "non-political". This just won't wash for someone who is a lifelong Jana Sangh-BJP functionary and RSS member. The numbers favour Patil, with the UPA, the Left and the Bahujan Samaj Party's votes exceeding the half-way mark in the 10.99 lakh-strong electoral college. It would be a huge surprise if Patil doesn't win a thumping majority. Her victory would be welcome primarily because she's a woman with long experience of portfolios like culture, health and education. That said, Patil is a singularly undistinguished leader. She comes from North Maharashtra's prosperous Leva-Patil community, which migrated from Rajasthan four centuries ago. She married Devisingh Shekhawat from Vidarbha. She was brought into politics by YB Chavan primarily because she is a woman and represented two distinct regions. No political observer in Maharashtra recalls Patil for anything she has done or said. Recently, however, she committed a faux pas when she said that the purdah (veil) was introduced in India to "save women from Mughal invaders." This is both historically wrong and politically deplorable. Historians say purdah predates the Mughals' 16th century arrival. Many communities practised gender discrimination during the early medieval period — regardless of religion or caste. Patil perhaps spoke out of ignorance and a crude form of patriotism — not communal bias. The fact that she withheld assent to a Rajasthan Bill outlawing religious conversion, including voluntary conversion, speaks of a secular bent of mind. Yet, it would be unbecoming of a president to make remarks that can be interpreted as prejudiced. Patil should make a clean break with Kalam's habit of casually issuing all kinds of statements, including some with policy implications. The president, Indians know from experience, need not be, and usually isn't, a fount of wisdom/ sagacity. Barring Radhakrishnan and Narayanan, most presidents have been neither erudite, nor wise. A majority were over-ambitious. All we need is a relatively sober, prudent and dignified individual. We needn't despair about Patil even if we don't feel elated.