Talk:K. R. Narayanan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

[edit] Not offered second term, gujarat

I understand Mr.Narayanan was not offered a second term as president,since the BJP wanted a rubberstamp president(or whatever).Perhaps that could be mentioned?

About his letter on the Gujrat Pogrom;there was a report in The Hindu yesterday that the Government doesnt wnt to make the letter public.That too could be added.(Will add this one myself,once I am less busy:))--Sahodaran 07:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. The first point should be developed with some detail and care, I feel.

A third point that we should look at is what K. R. N. did for the Dalits during his Presidency.

There are important references to Dalit affairs in his speeches, and his Republic Day address of 2002 seems specially important for this.

Will come back after thinking this out a bit more.

Italo 22:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Structural Changes-22/10/'05

Again,I have done some major structural changes.The article has a lot of content and needs to be more arranged for the ease of reading,I think.So I edited.But a long way to go,especially about the works as a President(needs to be arranged).

Also,seemeth to me,the external links section is too much cluttered.What about adding the links to the main article as and when the incident is cited?I have linked a couple of speaches in this way,it seems thats the standard with wikis.Correct me if I am wrong here.--Sahodaran 12:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree to the need for more structuring, but I think it should be done in a different manner. Adding more sub-sections, I think, will not achieve much, and will obscure the connectedness of the article; I would favour very few sections, to maintain the flow of the article. I would like the article to be a good connected essay, rather than a collection of disjoint sections. The way I was editing, I had written what was a fairly connected essay, and then introduced some section headings to reflect the structure that has emerged in the narration (as an afterthought). I would suggest you look at the article as a connected piece of prose (ignoring the sectional divisions), think why there is a need for rearrangement, and set out to do so by means of the devices of prose (rather than a markup language). I think the word 'origins' reflects the contents of the first section better than `birth'; I do not feel the word `career' is appropriate for the Presidency (and the Vice-Presidency).

I don't know about the standards much (I also think it is good to not to be too concerned about them). I feel an undue number of web links in the article will be distracting; I suggest we link only what we consider as important speeches and documents within the body of the article, and keep the remainder as a separate section.

Regarding newspaper reports (particularly those which have advertisements attached), I don't think they belong to the article page at all. My feeling is that they should be kept as sources of (perhaps rather distorted) information at best, within the discussion page.

I am removing the link you made on the President's voting in the elections (after absorbing the details in the article), and am linking it here as a source:

President votes in the elections

I have also embedded some links within the body of the article.

I have added some more points, but I plan to have an important addition tomorrow.

Italo 01:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further addition/changes

Finished my planned additions to the article now. I have embedded more links within the body of the article (but have kept them in the external links section as well). Yes, the external links section could be helped by some structuring, so I have tried to put them in some sub-sections. Did not like some of the previous sectional headings (especially some deeply nested sections), so I have done some modifications (Please edit if something can be done to improve things).

I think the article now has some reference to most of the important events of KRN's Presidency, so it could now do with some rewriting in some places; as remarked above by Sahodaran, the Presidency section is rather long, and some more organisation is required; but I still think it has to be done by writing with the structure in mind (I did try to keep it in mind when I edited, but it is difficult to do this as well as one might wish when the article is evolving), and would want to introduce additional sectional headings only sparingly.

Italo 00:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Executive president

He often described himself as a `Citizen President' and a `Working President' during his tenure, while taking care to distance himself from the role of an executive President; other Presidents have treated the office to be largely a ceremonial one. what exactly does that mean? he took care to distance himself from his job? is being an "executive president" something bad? i am unsure about this. correct me if i'm wrong: how about simply:

He described his tenure as that of a `Citizen President' and a `Working President'. The office of President has been largely treated as a ceremonial post. Narayanan..(was different. if he was, why: summarise in a short sentence)

As for "While taking care to distance himself from the role of an executive President": ok, i don't want to edit it out; but would someone be kind enough to tell me what it means.. just curious to know. i don't understand what the sentence means. [..] perhaps minor editing can only muddle up the good work so far. --Pournami 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

About your question concerning the lead paragraph, I have followed KRN's own description in his interview of 1998 (in the links section). An executive President, as I understand, is one who actually sets policy and governs, such as the French or American Presidents; KRN was consistently opposed to such a Presidential form of government; also he did not seek to exceed his constitutional brief. That is what I sought to mean by the clause 'while taking care to distance himself from the role of an executive President'. I think your complaint can be resolved by citing the interview (which has a fuller description) in the sentence, and putting this clause within parentheses (to make it clear that it is not the main point of the sentence, but rather a clarification). A very short description of why KRN was somewhat different is in the sentence prior to the sentence you have quoted. In my view, the section on the Presidency tries to explain this in detail. I don't find it easy to come up with another way of suitably putting forth this idea. Also, I thought a short lead section is good...

I had thought the usage `executive President' is not unusual when discussing the nature of a Presidency. Yes, I think there should be some place where that can be explained, but I feel it is better to do that in the general article on Presidents (to which this article links), than in this article (which is now not so short in any case).

His portfolios as Union minister can be found in the Rashtrapati Bhavan biography (a more bureaucratic one than ours) linked in the article; I do not know much about his work in that phase, so I did not elaborate.

Also, I have noticed that the article is now on the verge of actually exceeding a limit on the size for wikipedia articles... (I had not known about such a limit.) If you add a sentence to the present version and try to preview, you get a warning...

As you seem to have guessed, it took some effort and thought to write the present version. That is because KRN's life, experiences, and background are very unusual (and also very important), and it is not possible to take anything for granted when writing about his life... His origins, education, career, everything have unusual facets which need to be illuminated if the article is to be reasonably complete. His Presidency had a lot of striking and complex aspects to it, I feel, and it is not really possible to skip detail if one tries to describe it clearly.

You have asked what the sections are which need to be rewritten. I don't know myself... (I have been writing this article for too long, I suppose.) From now on, I shall not heed this article much (except for answering comments on this page), and will come back sometime later with a fresher perspective.

I also agree that minor edits will not improve the article much (however, always edit if you think something can be improved). Yet, it seems some improvements can be made... I think the way to discover that is to slowly absorb the details and try to describe it anew your own thoughts on the matter from a new perspective (I shall need to stay away for sometime before I myself can do this).

Maybe you will get a completely new and better draft, and we can then have a discussion on how to merge your insights...

Italo 22:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice article, good enough to be featured

A wonderful article, may I congratulate the person(s) who wrote it. BTW, KR Naraynan was also the first President to send back a ruling party's recommendation for dissolution of a state government. Congress has been known to be interventionist and (miss)use Article 365 to dismiss state governments. The BJP requested the same to be done in 1998 for Bihar, which it could not win in a free and fair election. While it was never pointed out in media it is only for the blind to not observe that BJP recommended the unfair use of Article 365 based on one sole incidence of mass killings in Bihar where the instigator of the crime were the upper caste Thakurs - a caste that BJP serves the interests of. While Lalu's vote bank is the lower caste which was at the receiving end of the violence in Bihar. BJP wanted Bihar by hook or crook, even if it meant killing innocent people. Had any other previous President been in power the outcome would have been different but KRN knew the Constitution better. BJP was at the receiving end of heavy criticism [1] and it did not expect such a move. With all due respect for former Presidents of India, it was the first time India had a President who actually performed his duties rather than being a wagging dog to the government in Power. It is the duty of the President to correct a ruling government when it makes mistakes (especially when the party running the government is inexperience). This lead to the acrimony in relations between BJP and Naraynan. As soon as his term was over the inexperience and Gung ho, BJP made in the equally inexperience and Gungho Kalam, India's president. Edit: I noticed now this has already been mentioned in the article (of course in milder words) and the Gujral government's recommendation for dismissal of Kalyan Singh government completely evades my memory (hmmm, our memory is affected by prejudice). Again kudos to the person(s) who wrote the article for its completeness and fairness. Obviously the personality of KRN made it possible to write so much about him. I read the Obituary on BBC's website and it looks like a summary of this article. 156.34.86.111 14:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A tragedy for Ottapalam

The voters of Ottapalam faithfully voted KRN to Lok Sabha , hoping that he might improve civic amenities but alas , Ottopalam remains in doldrums . It awaits a less intellectual man to represent who will not place self interest over civic interest like KRN did. sumal 13:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide some citations and concrete statements to illustrate the claim you have made above of KRN neglecting his constituency, so that we could consider writing about it in the article? As it now stands the claim does not seem substantiated.

Italo 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

[In response to a suggestion] The reference section has to stay, irrespective of the presence/absence of footnotes. Footnotes point to the references, but are themselves not supposed to stand in lieu of the reference entries. Moreover, not all references have (or need have) a direct citation in the article. This leads to some repetition, but that cannot be avoided.

Italo 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal/reinclusion

Citizen president(thinking of revising whole sentence)

[edit] Ram interview

my image of a President is of a working President, not an executive President, but a working President, and working within the four corners of the Constitution

KRN:"My image of a President before I came here, and before I had any hope of coming here, was that of a rubber-stamp President, to be frank. This is the image I got. But having come here, I find that the image is not quite correct. I thought, I will have a lot of time, leisure for reading, writing, waking etc. But somehow I find I can't get it now. So, my image of a President is of a working President, not an executive President, but a working President, and working within the four corners of the Constitution. It gives very little direct power or influence to him to interfere in matters or affect the course of events, but there is a subtle influence of the office of the President on the executive and other arms of the government and on the public as a whole. It is a position which has toi be used with the, what I should say, a philosophy of indirect approach. there are one or two things, which you can directly do in very critical times. But otherewise, this indirect influence that you can exercise on the affairs of the state is the most important role that he can play. And, he can play it succesfully only if he is, his ideas and his nature of functioning are seen by teh public in tune with their standards."

N. Ram: "A citizen President.."

Re: "I think the President has to be a citizen and there must be some equation between the people and the President, and if some advice or something is to be given to the executive, it would be received with grace, it would be sometimes accepted, if it is known that public opinion is on the side of the kind of advice the President is giving. Otherwise, he cannot exercise much influence. You can call it moral authority, I don't want to elevate it to such a position as to call it a moral authority. It is to be in tune with the popular expectations."

(still sorting out. some of the subtlety and humility of krn's words have somehow gotten lost between the lines in our article? -Pournami)

[edit] New tags

I have added the citation needed tags & weasel tag .The article would become more reliable if you can give the sources as well.Bharatveer 07:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The ref is already there:(Mari Marcel Thekaekara: "A President to be proud of", The Hindu, 22 Apr. 2005. Retrieved 24 Feb. 2006). The article has a large list of sources and citations just about every other sentence. Weasel tag is not necessary. : If you meant, "reportedly": The source is Thekkekara and many biographers of KRN, we don't know what happened, we say what "reportedly" happened; and there is a source. -Pournami 13:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"The HIndu" newspaper in the matters concerning "hindus" cannot be concerned as a reliable source. But Since it came from President Narayanan's himself, I agree that weasel tag is unnecessary .Bharatveer 15:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added citation needed tag to the Kargil paragraph. For the sentence "Vajpayee indicated his agreement, but later failed to act on the suggestion" the source cited is "Political echoes"; But i read that article , but no where in the article is mentioned the above view point that Vajpayee agreed and Later retracted. Either a better source should be cited or else that should be deleted.Bharatveer 15:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vajpayee had indicated to the President that a session could be called in the first week of July, but he has not acted on the proposal,

So it is there in the provided citation.Or are you questioning the veracity of the source?--Sahodaran 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I missed that sentence. The article is almost all sourced from leftist view point. So questioning the veracity doesnt make any sense. Anyway i will remove the tag from there.Bharatveer 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the citation needed tag . Bharatveer 03:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 09:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly is the problem?The article isnt referenced?The sources are bad?Or the article should be modified to prove that KRN was neutral?The article just states the things he had done in his life.What is the problem with it?Please be more clear.Thanks--Sahodaran 07:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed that tag already. But what is the point in inserting your reply before my comments??Bharatveer

[edit] Political POVs

" The NDA then proposed to elevate the Vice-President (Krishan Kant) as a consensus; this drew support from the Opposition and an agreement to this effect was conveyed by Vajpayee's representative to the Congress. However, the NDA suddenly went back on its word and proposed another candidate, who the Opposition parties judged to be of flexible loyalties; the Opposition parties approached Narayanan and renewed their request to seek a second term. "

This paragraph is pure political POV especially the phrases like "suddenly went back on its word" . If name of Shri.Krishan Kant can be mentioned, then why there is no mention of Dr.P.C.Alexander who was the next NDA choice. In the article he is mentioned as another Candidate who was judged to be of flexible qualities . These have to be either rephrased or deleted to make it NPOV . Bharatveer 15:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it is PCA, and i'll edit to include it in the article.

The reason why PCA's name was not mentioned originally is that it is not particularly relevant. The Vice-President[who has been elevated by default in most instances] and the eventual winner are prominent enough to be mentioned at least parenthetically (with no biased intentions). The object of the paragraph is to describe how KRN's candidature did not succeed, and not to provide all the details of the election. For example, we do not mention that the NDA candidate Kalam was the eventual winner; the reason is that it is not particularly relevant to this article; neither is PCA's name, I think [If at all any one is keen to know, the references provide the details].

And regarding suddenly, suddenly=in the gap of a day (rather sudden change of stance regarding a major political consensus?), The dates are June 9, june 10 as stated in refercend source. however, if "suddenly" is pov, required modification is possible-Pournami 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a citation needed tag to " (P. C. Alexander), who the Opposition parties judged to be of flexible loyalties" .The word "flexible loyalties" is an affront on a personality like DrP.C.Alexander. Citing sources would help to show why the opposition parties felt Alexander was of "flexible loyalty" .Bharatveer 10:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources are generally cited using ref at the end of a paragraph. In the abovementioned paragraph about election: "(P. C. Alexander), who the Opposition parties judged to be of flexible loyalties": It is not wikieditors's purpose to attack his highness p c alexander; the statement only says that PCA was "judged" --by the opposition parties-- to be of "flexible loyalty". anyone who was confused by this could look at the references provided, which make quite clear that parties in the opposition at the time did not like PCA for their own political reasons:

[2]"The indifference towards Alexander is occasioned by several factors. He has served as Principal Secretary to two Prime Ministers and been a witness from close quarters to the functioning of the executive authority. Although untainted, he had to leave office midway through Rajiv Gandhi's tenure as a gesture of accountability for an espionage scandal involving a member of his staff. But since taking up the gubernatorial assignment in Maharashtra, he is believed to have developed a certain proximity to the Shiv Sena chieftain Bal Thackeray. He did not use his powers of counsel when in 1998 the BJP-Shiv Sena coalition government summarily rejected the meticulously recorded findings of the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry into the 1992-93 Mumbai riots. Although once an intimate of the Gandhi dynasty, Alexander is believed for all these reasons to have dropped out of favour as far as the Congress(I) is concerned."

[3]"The Alexander proposal soon united the Opposition parties...Alexander evoked intense distrust within the Opposition for several reasons. The government dangled the office of the President before him when his role during the phase of instability faced by the Congress(I)-Nationalist Congress Party coalition government in Maharashtra (story on page 36) was under observation...Among other Opposition parties many see Alexander as a former career bureaucrat who was too closely identified with the Nehru-Gandhi family, but later won the grace of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and senior Union Ministers Advani and Mahajan by his inaction on the Srikrishna Commission Report, which had indicted the Shiv Sena on the 1993 Mumbai riots. Some Opposition leaders believe that had the NDA fielded Alexander, Narayanan would have agreed to contest."

Again, please note that the article is not about alexander. you or someone else could create an article about alexander and put in all you want. This article didn't even mention the name until you pointed out the name. This is on KRN.-Pournami 11:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Pls be civil. Your usages like "wikieditors's purpose to attack his highness p c alexander" is offensive and unnecessary. I was objecting to the term " flexible loyalty" . Even though the article is about Shri Narayanan , there is no need to bad mouth all others.And I am going to add the citation needed tag once more unless reference is cited for that sentence.Bharatveer 11:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 11:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about rewording, then. You were objecting to "flexible loyalty". The cong and others did not like PCA; the NDA generally was favourable to him. So no wonder the opposition did not like PCA, because that would mean ruling party was trying to make a pro-NDA person the president. The reason for the words "flexible loyalty" is explained in above extracts. I suggest you propose an alternative to summarize the above extracts in a sentence? -Pournami 11:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of something like this??

"In the search for a consensus candidate, the first name to come up was that of Vice President krishan Kant.For a while it appeared that krishan Kant would emerge as the consensus candidate, But due to the strong opposition from within , the NDA coalition came up with another presidential candidate , Dr.P.C.Alexander. But the oppostion parties did not agree to it. So the NDA coalition came up with another candidate Dr.kalam , whose candidature was supported by majority of opposition parties "Bharatveer 11:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What do I think of this, honestly? If you'll forgive me, I'll call it a (not wholly accurate but passable) start for a stub called "2002 Presidential Election, India" or a good little para on Kalam article regarding his election. For the article on KRN, I have objections, regarding its inclusion as replacement for a more informative, to the point paragraph which exists at present. "it appeared" etc is weaselly. Let's compare your alternative to the present one.

do you not see what you missed? The article is on Narayanan, not NDA, not APJ, not pres election.

your omissions lead to irreleveance to the present article, hence assuming that your omissions were not deliberate but accidental, i fill up your blanks [..] so, still, i'm not satisfied with your alternative, even with inclusion of a few words more.

you asked me what i think of your proposed alternative. I think it's not as good as present one. my pov. what it does is:

delete why PCA was opposed. (ok, you object to "flexible loyalties". but this was the reason the opposition did not like him, fact. if it's not fact, and why is it opposition opposed him, then? because they liked PCA so very much? no, because they didn't like him, and the reason they didn't like him was that he was perceived to be dillydallying with bjp-sena. you want to not mention reason at any cost? Because PCA is such a what-is-he? you want to delete the "why" with no replacement. ok, you like PCA so very much, i have no objection. even assuming i agreed to the deletion of "flexible loyalty"; i'd want something to replace that. PCA was opposed, because...(fill in blanks). let's say, he so angered the cong by..
The nda announced Kalam's name, without seeking any consensus. Once an eminent scientist is announced, and once your support is fractured, there's no choice but to choose to not contest, opt out. The NDA fractured the opposition voice by announcing Kalam's name. You ignore this fact, and say, "they put up candidate#2, and oppositon disagree, and they put up candidate#3, opposition agree". You edit out KRN's part. You want to throw out of picture, the fact that KRN was willing to contest only as long as all oppositon parties unanimously supposrted his candidature.
needless repetition, no further info: "In the search for a consensus candidate, the first name to come up was that of Vice President Krishan Kant. For a while it appeared that Krishan Kant would emerge as the consensus candidate"

we're writing an encyclopedia. hope you understand why i object to your alternate version. An encyclopedia has no obligation to make sure, "we won't hurt the bjp ever, we won't include criticism of PCA ever" -Pournami

Pournami, "we won't hurt the bjp ever, we won't include criticism of PCA ever" .You are making unnecessary allegations here. Encyclopedia is not about saving or hurting anybody .As stated wiki policy of being NPOV, this article needs a lot of editing on this line. On selecting a presidential candidate , there is no compulsion on consensus, but consensus was sought owing to the peculiar political alliances. So when NDA could not agree on Shri.Krishan Kant, they announced Shri Alexander. But it was not acceptable to Opposition parties. If you state this how will the relevance of KRN go?? It was made clear by NDA from the very beginning that KRN willnot be supported by them. Bharatveer 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source:MMS

About Shri.narayanan being "was referred by Nehru as "the best diplomat of the country" ; the source cited is the condolence message by PM MMS, it would be better to cite the source which shows where and why Shri Nehru made this comment.This is important since it should be remembered that SHri Narayanan(inspite of his LSE education) entered IFS through Nehru's Political appointment. Bharatveer 16:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a better source, "which shows where and why Nehru made this comment", do include it instead of Manmohan's condolence. As for now, we state nehru's remark, and provide the source of that info. "it would be better to..".. yes, you're free to believe so. Anyone who reads the article and is curious to know how the editors knew of this, they'll go the given ref; if MMS isn't good enough for them, what can we do? They can keep their prejudice for or against MMS to themselves. (oh, please, don't take offence personally with each comment by me!). "This is important since it should be remembered that SHri Narayanan(inspite of his LSE education) entered IFS through Nehru's Political appointment", I assume that since you seem to be talking to me, User: Pournami, yes, thanks for the enlightenment. does not the article explicitly state that nehru personally asked KRN to join IFS? Where and when Nehru said so, "is important since it should be remembered..".. "Where and when Nehru said so,".. that may be important to you; to wiki, whether or not Nehru said so is the question; we have a source, that is MMS. in his capacity as PM may have access to any such document which contains the said remark by nehru. We don't have to worry about the source of our source.

the readers of the article are informed that the said remark was made by nehru; reading further down, they are informed what the relation between nehru and KRN constituted of. and there are sources. do you question the reliability of the sources? -Pournami 10:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I just meant that it is not proper to use a "condolence message" as a Source in an encyclopedia. With due respects to Shri.narayanan And shri.Nehru , it would be good to remember Shri Nehru's "infamous" declaration of General Kaul as the "best general in Indian Army' before the Chinese debacle. However I am not doubting either SHri Nehru or Shri.Narayanan , Just that it would be good to get the 'primary source'.Bharatveer 12:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAQ

I'm thinking of compiling an FAQ for this article talk. NOt that there are any FAQ's yet. I'm getting where this is going. Question every source, every citation, everydetail, every inclusion and omission, every this and that. There's already many Q&A in talk. Much more in PR. I'm (only thinking) thinking of making a bulletted list of possible questions and answers. but after a thorough edit of article, might be good. Pournami 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queries about article

[edit] K R Narayanan or Kocheril Raman Narayanan?

Should the page be titled as K R Narayanan or Kocheril Raman Narayanan? What does wikipedia naming conventions say about initials? thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

Here are the conventions. We just have to chose the most recognisable and unambiguous name,and if we use initials,they have to be followed with a full stop and a space.--Sahodaran 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of birth

So when was he born? This page says October 27, 1920, while this page claims February 4, 1921, like the article. Anyone know? Henrik 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes:).And it is explained in the article itself.

He was born on February 4, 1921, but his uncle, who accompanied him on his first day in school, did not know his actual date of birth, and arbitrarily chose October 27, 1920 for the records; Narayanan later chose to let it remain official.

Good to see that "the encyclopedia" would have been able to provide the answer if someone reached here for that info. Also,may be this was sourced from this article itself.--Sahodaran 11:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vajpayee, Kargil

For the sentence "Vajpayee indicated his agreement, but later failed to act on the suggestion" the source cited is "Political echoes"; But i read that article , but no where in the article is mentioned the above view point that Vajpayee agreed and Later retracted. Either a better source should be cited or else that should be deleted.Bharatveer 15:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vajpayee had indicated to the President that a session could be called in the first week of July, but he has not acted on the proposal,

So it is there in the provided citation--Sahodaran 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence since its a political POV and not a fact. See this Daily Excelsior report .Rajya Sabha session-Vajpayee's Views Bharatveer 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting problems?

There's something strange about this article. When I click to edit the section "Further reading," all seems ok until immediately after the end of "Commentary by journalists." The Wikitext shows up for me as:

 <noinclude>
 </noinclude><noinclude>
 [[Category:Politics]]
 </noinclude>

It's part of Template:Krn-ref, but I don't know why it's there. Is there a special reason that a template is being used for this? It makes it very confusing to edit the end of the article (categories, interwiki, etc.). Ardric47 04:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate phrase

"who the Opposition parties judged to be of flexible loyalties".. since an alternative pphrase/sentence as replacement for this phrase is not forthcoming from B, who objected to the phrase, I propose this: "whose percieved proximity to the shivsena, an ally in NDA, caused unanimous objection to his candidatiure from the opposition parties". but this is bad, in my own opinion.Pournami

You can 'simply' change "who the oppo.......flexible loyalties " by something more neutral Bharatveer

I think I have now made that paragraph thoroughly NPOV Bharatveer 12:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to Note 35 is not working.Bharatveer 16:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed "unanimous " from the sentence because the opposition's disapproval was not unanimous .Almost all parties seemed to Like Dr.PC ALexander (the importance being that he would have been the FIRST CHRISTIAN president), except some. it was widely reported that the strongest opposition came from COngress (I) and from Ms.Sonia Gandhi. I have also removed the reasons stated there because it is not necessary to give that here, And if u have to give , then you should include all versions . So it would be better to leave the reasons out Bharatveer 06:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 06:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the introduction paragraph.Bharatveer 04:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/2E/_/Talk%7EK._R._Narayanan_6684.html"