In comparison, A P J Abdul Kalam stands out as the first technocrat-cum-bureaucrat President of the nation. Considering that he held the sensitive post of Scientific Advisor to the Defence Ministry before moving over to Raisina Hills, his early months in office have been uneventful, and at the same time purposeful.

That apart, no other President other than Radhakrishnan had inspired the nation and its people as Kalam is now doing. Radhakrishnan appealed to the

elitist sections, whose intellect set them apart as a class, both nearer home and elsewhere. Kalam, in contrast, is a man from the masses and for the masses. Yet, he has taken care not to sound as a President of the masses, by speaking out of turn on issues over which his mastery is unquestionable.

Kalam learnt by experience, and teaches from such experiences. His hopes for, and faith in the future generation has been unfailing and all-embracing. He has found time to be among children, and finds all the ways to inspire them to do greater things, now and later. But in all such interactions, with students and their teachers, parents and public at large, he has not only been circumspect but also discreet to the point of erring on the right side.

The President’s office is not as ceremonial as it thought to be. Proactive Presidents in the past had done everything other than what Kalam is now doing. That included political involvement and guidance, and at times diplomatic interventions on behalf of the Government that they represented in interactions with foreign dignitaries. On occasions, they were known to have provided a personal insight into nations and their peoples, to the Prime Minister and the Government of the day.

Before Kalam, K R Narayanan and R Venkataraman were the only two Presidents to have had a working knowledge in diplomacy or defence, which in turn are the two cornerstones in a nation’s strategic evaluation and thinking. As a career diplomat, Narayanan was trained to maintain discretion and silence. In contrast, Venkataraman, who was Defence Minister for a term (apart from being Finance Minister once), was a politician by training.

Without belittling the contribution of his predecessors, it needs to be noted that Kalam as the ‘Father of Indian Missile Programme and as the guiding force of the Pokhran II nuclear tests, has personal more knowledge and assessment of India’s strategic considerations than any other President. This is particularly so in these times of evolving global order, and South Asian strategic evolution. Suffice is to point out that the Pokhran II tests forced Pakistan’s hands to declare its nuclear capability, of which there were guesses but no confirmation. India, more than the rest of the world, needed that confirmation.

Given his advocacy of the deterrent effects of a strong nuclear-missile programme for the nation, Kalam should be seen as a ‘hawk’ in the defence and strategic planning community of India. But what little he had to say on the matter, he said by the early weeks as President. Even there, he was only reflecting the mood and method of the Government of the day, only that both shared similar views on the subject.

The studied silence of the President on sensitive, strategic issues has its own advantages, and reasons. For a President in office for close to a year, Abdul Kalam has not visited any major world capital, for him to argue the Indian case on strategic issues with the personal conviction. While not in the ‘loop’ on issues like Iraq, New Delhi has since evolved as a major world capital, visited in turn and out of turn by foreign dignitaries and diplomats in quick succession.

In turn, there have been Indian VIP and VVIP visits to other nations on a diplomatic sojourn, unnecessary. It is more so after the South Asian situation heated up with the terrorist attack on Parliament. Barring an occasional foreign visit by External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha or Defence Minister George Fernandez, even foreign visits by Prime Minister Vajpayee have not occurred in as quick successions as they used to be in the early years of the new political dispensation at Delhi.

Like Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, P V Narasimha Rao, and also I K Gujral before him, Vajpayee as Prime Minister takes a personal interest in foreign affairs. Maybe, it has something to do with his first stint as a Minister, in the Morarji Desai Government, when he was in charge of External Affairs. Like Nehru, Vajpayee has displayed statesmanlike qualities and disposition. His statesmanship extends to the region, whereas Nehru, given his times, was a global statesman, a coauthor of the non-aligned movement.

Vajpayee has many political veterans aiding him and airing views on foreign policy issues. The list includes Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani, External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, Defence Minister George Fernandes, and Finance Minister Jaswant Singh, who did an earlier stint in the Foreign Office. In National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra, who also doubles as the Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary, Vajpayee has a strong personality and dependable aide.

It takes effort for an all-knowing man to keep quiet. Kalam is all-knowing in aspects of strategic-thinking. He was a technocrat by training and bureaucrat by practice. To this, he has added rare quality of being a diplomat by intuition. Definitely, he did influence policy-making on the strategic front while heading the nuclear-and-missile bureaucracy. Once President, he has kept his counsel to himself. He is obviously influencing, without interfering. This is a rare quality, which is particularly required from a one-time teacher, that too in a multi-faceted polity like India. Here again, like elsewhere, that of Abdul Kalam stands out.