Why did we need Kalam as president of India?

So we know APJ Abdul Kalam was a people's president, loved by one and all, and that he loved them back in equal measure. That he was the real aam aadmi, the humble president, someone who loved children and was an inspiration for a whole new generation of Indians. That he gave the office of the President of India a new colour, which for once had little to do with the prefix ‘political’, and that the Rashtrapati Bhavan looked the most effervescent when Kalam resided there.

We also know it's all true. No one doubts that.

The doubting Thomases claim not that he was a bad president but that his promotion (from all accounts by others, not by Kalam himself) as a nuclear scientist, etc was suspect; that the missile man and the pasha of Pokharan titles might have been over-the-top reactions of an otherwise ignorant and overtly sentimental nation. In fact, most obits and tributes pouring in still say more about "Kalam - the scientist" than "Kalam - the president".

Here are four: "Dr Kalam will be long remembered for his passion, science and innovation and his contributions have enabled scientists, educationists and writers. His achievements as leader of DRDO vastly enhanced the security of our nation. In his passing away, we have lost a great son of India who dedicated his entire life to the welfare of his motherland. Dr Kalam was a people's president during his lifetime and will remain so," said President Pranab Mukherjee.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: "I got to work with him closely. I have lost an uttam marg darshak. The country has lost a son who worked for the strength of India. He had spent every moment for the youth of India. No person will be able to fill the gap left by him. His work will inspire us to work for the development of the nation."

Actor Amitabh Bachchan: "A simple man, of childlike demeanour, practical, caring and endearing to all."

Sachin Tendulkar: "Former President of India, a renowned scientist, an inspiration to all, a terrific human being...RIP Dr. Abdul Kalam."

You get the drift. If anyone said anything about precisely why Kalam was a great president, guilty as charged — I missed it.

Which brings us to the question, if that is all we will remember the time in Rashtrapati Bhavan of arguably our most lovable, adorable, humane President of recent times with, do we need a President of India at all? If they have no other role of significance, do we need the office of President, and that residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan?

A few niggling questions have been bothering me since the word “people's president” started being bandied about after Kalam's death on Monday night. No, I am not questioning the idea of Kalam being a “people's president” — with so many people telling us about it, I am sure he was that and more. I am questioning the idea of president of India. (The niggling questions became a bigger irritant on Wednesday, when the Supreme Court rejected Yakub Memon's final petition against the death warrant on him and Memon sent another mercy petition to President Mukherjee, who, of course, redirected it to the Union home ministry.) Now, five questions:

1. Yes, Kalam was a good man, but there are plenty of good men in India. Do we make them all presidents? (Okay, he had better good human being credentials, and much bigger credentials professionally, than most of you and I. Even then, do we need the office of ostensibly India's citizen number 1 to award or reward them?

2. Yes, he was a first rate scientist. But is the Rashtrapati Bhavan a laboratory?

3. Yes, he inspired the youth and is said to have instilled a scientific temper among a new generation of Indians. But it's a little too expensive a hobby to run a post to counsel the India's youth, is it not?

4. Yes, Pranab Mukherjee is an extremely erudite man and an expert on constitution and law. But can he take any decision on his own on even five of the 1,825-odd days he will live in Rashtrapati Bhavan as part of his ongoing term?

5. No, the president isn't supposed to take decisions, and the Constitution itself makes it clear, giving that role to the executive, legislature and the judiciary. Why not abolish the post, then?

If we do not know how to acknowledge good human beings, successful academics, seasoned but past sell-by date politicians or even failed PM aspirants and sundry courtiers, there's no point wasting public money and making them the president. If their only role and responsibility is to enlighten and inspire people, let those private citizens approach counsellors. There's little point in running the office of head of state for that.

In 1971, Indira Gandhi, while doing away with privy purses to the erstwhile princely states through the 26th amendment to the Constitution, had contended that, among others, it would help reduce the government's revenue deficit. Is it time for another amendment?