As the US debates its readiness to accept a woman such as Hillary Clinton as president, India has already done so, with the election of Pratibha Patil. Although in India the presidency is primarily a ceremonial post that carries less weight than that of prime minister (the position once held by Indira Gandhi), it is symbolically significant. Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the ruling Congress Party, who pushed hard to promote Patil's candidacy primarily on gender grounds, calls this election "a special moment for women across the country."
Moreover, India can claim a great deal of pride in the fact that the last two presidents were from minority populations -- one from the lowest of castes (Harijan, formerly referred to as "untouchables") and another one from the Muslim community.
As a daughter of a woman who fought for women's rights during the independence movement and was instrumental in starting one of the first women's institutions in India, I should feel a genuine sense of pride in the election of Patil.
But I have mixed emotions.
Both of India's last two presidents had distinguished themselves in professional careers before being elected -- one in the Foreign Service and the other in nuclear physics -- and their reputations were above reproach. Patil, on the other hand, is a controversial figure, with questionable qualifications. Most of India's major news outlets highlighted in their coverage of the story charges of corruption and ineptitude. One well-respected publication even called Patil's selection "embarrassing."
Women hear over and over that we have to be twice as good as men to be perceived as successful, deserving leaders. Even if we disregard some of the accusations against Patil as baseless, it is hard to imagine a less powerful candidate for the highest ceremonial post in the largest democracy in the world.
All the same, I applaud Sonia Gandhi for her commitment to appointing a woman to this important position. In a country full of contradictory attitudes toward women -- ranging from the worship of the powerful goddess Durga to the killing of innocent young brides -- such gestures can be very powerful.
But gestures cannot be a substitute for real action, or for the hard work that is necessary to empower all Indian women. Indeed, one could argue that such symbolic acts may even create a blind euphoria that obscures the fact that, as a result of less education and lower pay, young females in India continue to have far fewer resources than their male counterparts.
While the Indian president may be only a ceremonial head of state, during periods of political instability -- especially in the age of coalition governments -- it is the president who makes crucial decisions about governing parties. Many past presidents have also used the position to throw their intellectual weight behind such important issues as education and India's cultural diversity.
So President Patil has large shoes to fill. One can only hope she will prove her critics wrong. For those women in India who have proven themselves to be effective leaders, it would be wonderful if she can demonstrate early on that she has the intellectual and professional gravitas that befits the position.
Vishakha Desai is the president of the Asia Society.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS