Every thing has many facets. Different people will focus on different aspects. The real picture is a composite, which comprises of the debate about whether or not a woman as President would allow for empowerment of women, even symbolically. Well, this is not the first time that we have a woman at the top levels of the constitutional structure. Indira Gandhi was the prime minister of India for a long time. Did that change the pattern for women? Did it make a difference to women? Probably not to any great extent: Social change as Lord William Bentinck found out cannot be brought about from above. It must come from below. In that sense a single woman sarpanch might have changed the mindset a lot more than the president will or can. It is this force at the bottom of the pyramid, the unleashed energies of a million people, men or women which can change India. It is in that context that the much derided economic liberalization has a role to play, by allowing more people as opposed to a few government servants the chance to play in the arena, not having to wait for the petty bureaucrat to give permission, before starting a productive venture. Let Pratibha Patil, or Sonia Gandhi, or Manmohan Singh rule, but let them rule with a light hand with an eye on the people from whom they derive their powers. Let Government dwindle. As Robert Jordan says so well, "LET THE LORDS OF CHAOS RULE", or as Naipul correctly referenced, “A THOUSAND MUTINIES NOW” Give people a chance to make what they will of their life. Even the chance to fail, or succeed!