What cricket thinks today, the State thinks tomorrow. No disrespect is intended towards the august office of the president of India by this comparison. It is rather the messy pirouetting among limited options, unexpected refusals and intransigent pressures, culminating in a slightly strained rabbit-out-of-a-hat show that was undertaken — first by the Board for the Control of Cricket in India, and then by the United Progressive Alliance — which need to be compared. Yet, the president of India has always been what is rather ignobly called a compromise candidate. The rationale behind this is not ignoble. The president’s role in India is somewhat like that of the sovereign in Britain. He is the ceremonial head of state, the symbolic vehicle of the Constitution in whose name the business of the republic is conducted. Yet the president of India is elected, although through electoral colleges, unlike the sovereign in Britain. This anomaly is not always easy to smooth over. It is considered best, therefore, that there be a minimum of competition in the election, in order to maintain the dignity of the office. The president is above politics, and a political contest during his election seems undesirable. An agreement among all parties regarding the presidential candidate prior to the election is felt to be the decent way to go about things.

But in this age of diminutions — and diminishings — even the route to the apparently decent thing is convoluted. The search is no longer on for an eminent personality with impeccable credentials in public life. The times no longer produce a Rajendra Prasad or a Radhakrishnan. Even the think-tank of the left is talking of persons with a specifically political background instead of persons of stature in fields other than politics. Such a premise does not make neutrality a primary requirement in a president. An agreement regarding the presidential candidate seems to have more to do with the show of correctness than correctness in substance. That is, correctness in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution.

The UPA was in a fix with all its possible candidates politely rejected by the left and other allies. From that point of view, the name of Pratibha Patil came as a relief. Being a woman, Ms Patil has given the UPA an unanswerable edge in the political correctness competition. So has her background. The fact that she is from Maharashtra and is married to a Shekhawat in Rajasthan has stumped, even if for the moment, a large segment of the National Democratic Alliance, including the Shiv Sena. It has put Bhairon Singh Shekawat, another competitor, in a fix. He would not like to queer his own pitch in Rajasthan by running against a Rajasthani wife. If elected, Ms Patil may surprise everybody by turning out to be the best president India ever had. Only the acrobatics that have led to her candidature are a little too clever. Not much else.