Saffron? Sorry, wrong colour

If “proof” was really needed on why the Left parties vetoed both the initial “nominees” from Congress for the post of President, here is Dr Karan Singh in an interview to the Indian Express a few days ago, talking about whether his being a practising Hindu stood in the way of his becoming president, or being considered worthy of the job of president by the Left?

***
SHEKHAR GUPTA: You have always been very open about being a practising Hindu. You even wear an Om Namah Shivay bracelet on your wrist. Did that stand in the way of your becoming president, or being considered worthy of the job of president by the Left?

Dr. Karan Singh: I’ve never been apologetic about this. If Om Namah Shivay is the reason I didn’t become president, then certainly it’s a great blessing, because I won’t exchange my Om Namah Shivay, as Arjun says in the Bhagwad Gita, “even for the sovereignty of the three worlds, what then for this land.”

***

While Shri Shivraj Patil (the other “nominee”) may have been less explicitly “saffron”, his “soft approach towards the saffron parties” (BJP, Shiv Sena) while he was LS Speaker was sufficient for Shri Bardhan (CPI General Secretary) to veto his name.

“When he was the Speaker, I don’t think he was very impartial. In fact, he thought by leaning on the side of the BJP and the Shiv Sena, he was making people know that he was not a Congressman….” Bardhan said.

But how did Shri Bardhan explain the “secular” Congress and the Left being on the same side as the Shiv Sena? Simple:

”We supported Pratibha Patil first, they (Shiv Sena) did it later,” said A B Bardhan, General Secretary, CPI.

Neat!

Makes me wonder what might have been the fate of India had the words “socialist” and “secular” not been introduced in the Constitution?

P.S. As some of you may know the expressions “socialist”, “secular” and “integrity” are not included in Jammu and Kashmir’s Constitution.

Image courtesy: Wikipedia

Related Post: A *must read* series on Presidential Elections