|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
ASSEMBLY POLL '98
|
|
|
'Congress would be betraying the country by forcing Sonia as our PM'
E-mail from readers the world over
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:58:18 -0400 The article 'Is Sonia Indian' was well written. However, I thought that the debate about Sonia was not whether she was Indian or not (we know that she is an Indian after having taking Indian citizenship), but whether she should be allowed to be the prime minister of India. Even in the US, naturalised citizens cannot become the president of that country.
V Umashanker Trivedi, Ph D
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:03:10 -0400 I think the person who wrote this article is full of garbage. He simply doesn't know the basic fundamental of life. He is comparing something irrelevant. If Sonia is Indian, then all Britishers are Indian. Similarly all Greek, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Iranians are Indian. They are part of the Indian tradition. Ask the author how our culture is like the American one. How many Indians have became president of US? How many Germans, Japanese, Muslims were president of the USA? Or show me a single example in 168 countries where the topmost is held by a person who was not born there? If the author is able to answer these questions I will appreciate it. Manish Vaja
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:56:06 -0400 I appreciate you for presenting both views on Hinduism and nationalism. But this has nothing to do with whether Sonia should be allowed to become PM. You said India should be more like US and not like Germany. Does the US allow citizens not born there to become presidents? Don't compare US with India. The US never allowed non-Christians or minorities or for that matter women to occupy the highest position in the country. The BJP or Hindu nationalists are not objecting to Sonia because she is a Christian and minorities are disloyal. We had minorities in the past occupying highest positions and they continue to do the same. Their objection is that she is not born in India, she didn't accept citizenship till her husband became PM. This shows how disloyal she is. India has accepted and accommodated "outsiders" in the past. The real problem starts only when these outsiders start ruling you. Hindu nationalists wouldn't have any problem if the future generations of "outsiders "(your definition) who were born and brought up in India, want to rule the country, eg: no one has objections to Priyanka. If we allow this to continue, anyone can come to India, get married to an Indian for citizenship and start ruling the country.
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:01:51 -0500 Sonia is certainly an Indian, though not by birth. But the fact is, she should not become India's PM. If the Constitution allows it, then change it. Ram Lakshminarayanan
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:23:54 -0500 In my personal opinion choosing between the Congress and BJP is like choosing between devil and the deep sea. Making this clear I want to say a couple of things about why I think Sonia is not fit. I agree that India is to remain secular and no specific way of life should be imposed on any community or group of people. Sonia and her family has every right to marry and be who ever they want to be. I do not dispute the fact that Sonia is an Indian. What I want to make clear is even if I stay for twenty/thirty years in America and made myself an 'American' in every possible way, I would have a tilt towards India no matter in visible actions or invisible. Don't start saying any tilt towards Italy doesn't mean much, what I am referring to is tilt towards the West. This aside, she should not be made prime minister as an answer to those Congress leaders who went on their knees begging her to be the PM. Permitting that will signal that anybody can get away with anything in this country if sufficient information campaign is done. I don't want a novice to be my PM (I don't give a damn for qualification like president of some party or other) even if s/he is supposedly very intelligent. Of course, party presidents do become PM, but there is a respectability through years of political experience. Especially if somebody who's been put on a pedestal by sustained positive information campaign is offered as the only option, we are supposed to reject it. Projected saviours don't deliver except for couple of goodies. As far as the Indian population 'electing,' everybody knows what exactly it is. Making things clear to them will certainly help, rather than letting vested projections become popular opinion and thus the mandate. The loss will be irredeemable if such a mandate is permitted in terms of setting precedent as well as way of political thinking.
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:30:21 -0500 I could not resist from pointing out that just because India is multi-ethnic like the US, it does not mean that Indians have to think like the Americans do. There is nothing in this world that says that the American way is the correct way. Even if that is the correct way, as far as I know only an American born can become a US president. The second point I had to mention was regarding the betrayal of Bengali Hindus during the Battle of Plassey. Any reader of the history of Bengal will remember that Mir Jafar and his associates who betrayed the Nawab of Bengal are not known to be Hindus. There are more like this in the article and I hope all knowledgeable readers can see that. I Chakraborty
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:34:23 -0400 Nobody questions whether she is an Indian or not. All I ask is what credentials does she have to be prime minister of India. Rajiv Gandhi was a Youth Congress leader before he became prime minister. All I ask is what's her experience in Indian politics and does she understand Indian politics and stuff well enough to be a prime minister?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:48:06 -0400 The issue is not whether Christians or Muslims are Indians. The issue is whether a naturalised Indian (that too an European -- Indian, considering the history) should be allowed to become prime minister or president of India. The author should note that even in the US (which is his favoured model) naturalised citizens cannot become president of the Unites States. Finally, I believe that in a democracy these things should be decided at the hustings. Let there be a referendum to decide the issue and we can abide by whatever the people decide. Ravi
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:03:46 PDT In this article, the author, in his attempt to justify his view, conveniently forgets to state a relevant fact -- that only a American-born can become the president of America. And it is important to note that the American president does not control the Congress (the House, and the Senate). Whereas, in India if the prime- minister's party has a majority by itself in the Parliament, and the PM is also the party's head (as has been with the Congress party, for a long time), then the PM controls both the executive, as well as the legislative arms of the government -- all the more reason to be careful in your choice. As for Sonia Gandhi, I don't think the issue is so much her religion, as her country of birth, and cultural experiences during her formative years. I think the best qualified prime ministerial candidate in the Congress is A K Antony (and then may be Manmohan Singh, although his political will is questionable.) The problem with Antony is his relative obscurity, and not his religion. I think, if he had been given more exposure, he would have been acceptable to the electorate. The Congress has only itself to blame for the lack of leadership amongst its ranks -- its leaders have often nourished second-rung leadership for their loyalty, rather than on merit. Navin
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:09:26 -0500 This debate has started and assumed some significance now because there is a possibility for her to become the prime minister of India. Otherwise, nobody would have bothered whether she called herself Indian or Italian. Becoming a citizen of a country and aspiring to become the head of that country are two different things. Similarly, accepting a foreigner as a Indian citizen and accepting him/her as their head of state are two different things. Sonia may be a Indian citizen but the fact remains that she does not have an Indian origin. I think it is time for us to bring a legislation which will allow only persons of Indian origin to contest and hold positions like president, prime minister, chiefs of armed forces and other key positions. I don't believe a person of foreign origin can become the head of any country, either they have a law or simply you cannot become one. Even ignoring the nationality issue, we have enough people across all the parties who deserve and are better qualified to lead our country than Sonia Gandhi. It is a shame that the Congress always has to bring in a Gandhi to solve their leadership crisis. When Indira Gandhi died, Narasimha Rao was very much there. Instead, they brought in Rajiv Gandhi. When he died, they did not find a suitable Gandhi at that time so they elected Narasimha Rao. If only they had brought Rao when Indira Gandhi died, they could have saved Rajiv Gandhi's life. The Congress is the only party in India which is definitely not an "equal opportunity party". You can never become its leader. There will always be a Gandhi who will come from nowhere to take the top spot. Finally, it is quite natural for Indians to want one among them to rule them and it is not that nobody else is around.
Vijay
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:16:03 -0700 Sonia may be an Indian, but still should not be the PM of India. Even in multi-ethnic USA, the top most job goes to only those who are natural citizens of USA (by birth). It is pretty difficult for people in India to identify themselves with Sonia. Did anybody hear Sonia speak?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:11:57 PDT Ashutosh Varshney's analysis of what constitutes an Indian is praiseworthy. However, I wish to bring to your notice one important issue which I feel should be considered by the savants of Indian polity before they attempt to pass any judgement on people like Sonia and their claim to a constitutional office. Madeleine Albright is considered by one and all as a thorough statesman, a seasoned politician and a very effective leader. Despite all these she can never ever become the president of the United States for the simple reason that she was not born in the US. People rate her much higher than Al Gore in terms of their work and contribution to the US, but the fact remains that she is not a citizen of the US by birth. I hope people realise this before passing their judgements on the issue of Sonia ascending the portals of power. On a one to one basis, Albright would be miles ahead of Sonia in terms of having all those qualities essential to lead a nation and yet if a thoroughly democratic and a forward looking nation like the USA can disqualify her from the presidency, India has, indeed, got to learn a lot. I am all for a constitutional amendment which disqualifies all those who are not citizens of India by birth from holding any constitutional post.
Prashant Nateri
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:32:30 -0600 The author seems to think that some people are against Sonia (which includes me) just because she is Italian born or because she is not Hindu. But this is not the case. If she has Indian citizenship she is an Indian. The question is whether she should be allowed to be PM of India? And at any cost I will say NO. The very same countries the author has given the example of ie: US, Germany etc do not allow any foreign born citizen to be the president or chancellor of their country. The same rule should apply to India. I, as an Indian citizen by birth do not trust her to hold the most sensitive post of my country. As far as the post of PM is concerned she will always be a foreigner. That woman rejected Indian citizenship for the first 16 years of her stay in India, even when she was the wife of our PM. That clearly indicates that she values Italian citizenship more than Indian. Any Indian with a right frame of mind won't allow such a person to become the Indian PM. She always talks about the death of her husband because of the LTTE. Has she ever spoke of the 2,000 Indian troops who died in Shri Lanka? What is the source of such an enormous amount of money with the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation? Her daughter Priyanka is living in a government bungalow. Why? Then why shouldn't I get one such bungalow? Who is she? If you are supporting Sonia as India's PM, I am sorry to say so but the sorry state of India's politics is only because of a bunch of short sighted people like you. Shreyas
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:34:10 -0400 If it is accepted that India is more like the US, will it also follow that only a citizen by birth can qualify to hold the highest executive post in the land?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:41:02 EDT The professor of Columbia University should stay away from politics. Of course, Sonia is Indian. But a prime minister of India has to be an Indian by birth. Italian blood and sensibilities still run through her veins. Europe and India do not see eye to eye. Why don't we have all our leaders from other countries. All they have to do is stay in India and speak the language or 'accept our ethos'. Is the professor Indian or an American citizen? Do not waste our time with this nonsense.
Date: 21 Apr 1999 14:41:47 -0500 The argument is not that if Sonia is an Indian or not (by the Indian community -- not only here in the US but throughout the world ) -- but can she be made the PM. when her qualification is nothing but being the wife of our beloved slained leader Rajiv. I'd like to stress that we whole heartedly accepted a Christian, a Muslim as our head of state -- because they were 'born Indians' with good qualifications.
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:40:21 -0500 This is an excellent article. Professor Ashutosh Varshney has elaborated this ongoing hot topic in India very well. In my opinion as he explains: “India is not like Germany for it is not an ethnic nation. It is more like the US, for it is a nation of many ethnicities. Indianism is an idea, an ethos, in which many many ethnic and religious groups have historically participated..." is a reality. Otherwise what could be the premise for the people from East who are not Hindus, north who are (eg Kashmiris) not Hindus and finally the people from North and South who hardly can understand each others language to live together for centuries. Finally Rediff and Professor you did a commendable job by writing this article at the right time. Madhav
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:00:32 -0600 I could not control myself not to reply to your article, I really liked your argument about citizenship and comparison of the USA and Germany. But I think we are missing a point here, we (Indians) have nothing against anybody who become citizens by marrying Indian citizens, nothing against their religion, nothing against gender as long as they obey the Indian Constitution. As you wrote they are American citizens who are not citizens by birth, my question is, are they eligible to contest for presidential elections? Though the USA allows foreign nationals to become citizens, why don't they allow them to become presidents? Chandra
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:16:59 -0400 I have certain questions for Mr Varshney: 1. If our country has an American view of nationhood then why have we categorised people of different religion (read Muslims) as "minorities?" There is no such thing as minorities in the US. 2. If the Congress and so called other secular parties follow a "secular nationalist" notion then why has the Congress divided the nationals (who are recognised as Indians but may belong to any religion) into different religious minorities and given special status to them? It was always Nehru and the Congress that talked about Muslims and protecting minorities and not protecting the rights of an Indian whatever religion he may belong to. 3. Even though the USA is a multi cultured country and all citizens of US are valid nationals irrespective of their caste, creed, race, religion, it is mandatory that the person holding the post of president be an American born national. Then why the application of the same logic in India creates so much fuss and heated debates? I think Professor Varshney should go through his analysis once again about coining the phrases like secular nationalists and Hindu nationalist, though I would prefer to be in the latter category because that category does not divide people in the name of secularism.
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:23:05 +0530 She is definitely an Indian citizen, but she's not a born Indian. Neither does she have Indian origins, except for the fact that she married Rajiv Gandhi. Now deciding to make her the PM is certainly not a non-controversial issue. This should involve an open debate/discussion. In such a situation, the Congress would be betraying the country by forcing her as our PM. My request to the Congress is to please go to the polls, project Sonia as the PM, win the public mandate and then no one will object her becoming the PM. Otherwise, you never know what kind of a situation one would be getting into. Vyas
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:23:11 +0530 I entirely agree with this critique on the question of whether we should treat Ms Sonia Gandhi as an Indian. I do not think that is the issue here. Whether Sonia as an "Indian (now)" could pass for the highest office of the land is the question. The question "why not" is difficult to answer. The "eligibility", as I would put it, for the position is something that cannot be defined into criteria 1, 2 and so on. What is missing in her is perhaps the "Indianness". Let me take the examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru. Both of them admitted (in their writings later) that they did not understand India in their early days, though they were born in India. It was true that they belonged to a society in India that was far removed from the vast majority of the Indians at that time (it is true even today for most of the "leaders" and the vast majority of Indians are still the same even after 50 years of Independence, but that is a different issue). They were initially educated in India, but further education and training was done at England. Their style of living, understanding the exposure to different cultures did not make them truly "Indian" when they returned. It took years for them to know India fully. While the Mahatma travelled widely across this country to get the feel of the land and the people, Nehru 'discovered India' patiently. Before they could think of taking part in the freedom struggle and leading the country for independence, they wanted to get the "Indianness" in them. What can we speak of Sonia in comparison? While the argument compares India with USA on the plurality and the right to become a citizen of this country, is it not true that there are still some stipulations for the US citizens to become president of the USA, such as that only those who are born in the USA can occupy the positions of the president, vice president, chief justice, etc? A generation has to pass to be eligible in the USA. That will make a US President truly "American". Shall we leave this to the conscience of Ms Sonia Gandhi?
Dr A V Ramaswamy
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
||