What he made clear was his dislike for coalitions. "They impede development," he said. The government had to cater to different parties. There were pressures which required accommodation within the space available. I was not surprised over his views because he had publicly stated that he favoured the two-party system in the country. And his plea was the democratic system would be served better.

President Kalam was aware of his duties as the head of the state. "I have seen to it that the constitution is respected both in letter and spirit," he said. He gave me two examples in support of his argument: One, of returning the Office of Profit Bill to the Manmohan Singh government and, two, of seeking a reply from the Vajpayee government to a memorandum of complaints that some eminent citizens had filed before him, enlisting some steps of the government which violated the basic and fundamental rights.

One thing that nagged me for a long time was the persistent rumour that the President had asked questions on Mrs Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin when she met him following the majority that the UPA-Left had secured in the Lok Sabha. He vehemently denied this. He said he had never expressed any reservation whatsoever on her becoming the Prime Minister. She met him twice, he said, once when she informed him that the UPA-Left combine was in a position to form the government and the second time when she brought Dr Manmohan Singh along to convey that he would head the UPA government.

The problem with journalists is that they want to focus straightaway on the news part. The President was keen to explain how he had converted Rashtrapati Bhavan into a People's Bhavan. He had invited thousands and thousands of ordinary civil servants, students and children at Rashtrapati Bhavan and had specially laid down a garden for the handicapped to smell and see the flowers and greenery. It was, indeed, admirable on the part of President Kalam to have demystified the awe-inspiring Rashtrapati Bhavan, once the Viceroy House, and to bring it to the level where the common man was a participant. He was beaming with joy over the achievement.

Yet, my effort was to divert the conversation to something newsy, something which he had not mentioned earlier. News was that way different, more negative than positive. He understood this and we battled for 45 minutes a few days ago to put across what I wanted to extract and what he wanted to project. It was the first time that I met him as a journalist. Therefore, I went through his Press Secretary for an appointment -- not through his secretary as I would do as an activist.

Did he expect the Indo-US nuclear deal to go through? He did not reply to the question in terms of yes or no. Instead, he said our real problem was uranium which was rare in India. "We should be developing thorium, which was available aplenty, as fuel." He diverted the conversation to the explosion of the bomb and congratulated the then government. The bomb, he said, had given impetus to growth all over. "Everything has begun developing, industrial and other fields, after that."

The President was so transparent and so impressive that I wished the political parties had agreed on him for a second term. He said he had indicated that he was "available" if all parties wanted him. But his "remark was misunderstood" in some quarters, he complained. I recalled how a couple of Union ministers had criticised him as if he had thrown his hat in the ring. Their comments against the serving President were unfortunate, to say the least.

Recalling his travels within the country and abroad, the President said: "I have addressed seven parliaments in foreign countries and 17 assemblies within India to put across my vision that the country would be the greatest power on the earth by 2020." President Kalam said while addressing the European parliament he told them that the "world over, poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and deprivation are driving forward the forces of anger and violence. These forces link themselves to some earlier real or perceived historical enmities. Tyrannies, injustice, inequities, ethnic issues and religious fundamentalism are flowing into an outburst of extremism worldwide." In a way, he was commenting on attacks by fundamentalists, either at Glasgow, Islamabad or elsewhere. Why did he not visit neighbouring countries? "I had invitations from Pakistan and Sri Lanka." That was all he said. He could not say more because the President's trips outside India were approved by the government. What are your thoughts as you are about to lay down your office? "I am going to pursue the Vision 2020, that India would be the greatest nation in the world." The country would have by then developed to oust poverty and backwardness. His formula was: "A National Prosperity Index (NPI), which is the summation of (a) annual growth rate of GDP; plus (b) improvement in quality of life of the people, particularly living below the poverty line, plus (c) the adoption of a value system derived from our civilisational heritage in every walk of life which is unique to India." The President's passion for India was overflowing. He wanted everyone to think of the country first and other things later. In his view, everything dwarfed before national interest. Where would you place religion? I asked. "Religion comes later. The country comes first." This was his reply to those fanatic Muslims who said umma was above the country. I think the country will miss him at Rashtrapati Bhavan. But then he is going to live in New Delhi and pursue his vision. He plans to travel four days in a week. Sure, this will keep him busy, including the chancellorship of the Nalanda University which will specialise in Buddhist studies.

What struck me as I shook hands with him to say goodbye was his humility and the child-like enthusiasm for India 2020. As I left his study, I saw on the opposite wall the photo of Subramania Bharati, a Tamil poet, who too had faith in the greatness of India and its destiny to revolutionise thinking in the world.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.