Ba, Beti aur Bahu

40 inquirer

inquirer sahib jii

I agree with you more than 100% in the context of Pakistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan has had been hijacked by army and various corrupt politicians and on top of those are Bhutto clan. Bhutto clan is the one solely responsible for the present and past chaos in Pakistan.
I am NOT discussing Muslims, Hindus or any other religious related issues here. Again, you are the one who is bringing up nuclear deal, Muslims, Pakistanis etc, etc.

India definitely has better democracy than Pakistan. No doubt it.

But, my dear inquirer

India is the most ancient country on the map of the world. Pakistan is just toddler.
My expections from Indian democracy are far far beyond what they are stuck with . All they are stuck with is Gandhi`s clan and now, Mrs. Sonia Ghandhi. India is thickly populated country, I believe if, they will try to establish a true democracy with refined values of real democracy they will come up with polished diamonds with out any trade mark or name brand of any exclusive clan.

When democracy is hijacked by any exclusive clan, it loses it`s true purpose, it becomes highly STIGMATIC with stigma of monarch democracy, where even brainless members of that specific clan can rule the entire nation.
Thank you.

#41 wiseguyin

wiseguyin sahib jii

You see this is how people get in to personal attacks. Inspite of me requesting you Not to bring dirty slangs in this discussion . You persistently do. We can discuss every matter with certain decorum of decency with out getting involved in to this out burst of slangs and gaali gaaloch.
May I request you NOT to abuse me directly or indirectly by using dirty slangs, sir.
I do not wish to involve in any kind of brawl fighting or name calling. I will discuss with open heart and mind as long as you stay civil. Thank you , Sir.

I am not discussing Sonia Gandhi`s political position from Pakistani perspective or from any other angle. I made my point simple and straight forward with out any complexities. Now, if you wish to contrude it or to stretch it to fit your own complexes then I can`t help it.

#35 Inquie

You may be right.

Better Latin than Latte!

Turning this back to serious stuff again, the issue of fidelity of individuals to their place of birth has been a touchy one all over the world. Sonia Gandhi is an immigrant to India – that is simply a plain fact of life.

In many countries, people do not become citizens even if they are born there! According to information I saw on a Center for Immigration Studies web site (apparently an innocuous name but it perhaps leans toward reducing immigration levels), out of thirty-eight countries they surveyed only twelve (including U.S. and India) accord automatic citizenship to children of foreigners.

As everyone around here appears to know, to be elected the U.S. president, one must be a natural-born U.S. citizen. This is the only place in the U.S. constitution where a distinction is drawn between those who are citizens at birth and those who become citizens via naturalization. I quote the following from a Washington Times article published in November 2003.

“…..In his forthcoming book, “America’s Constitution: A Guided Tour,” Akhil Amar of the Yale Law School points out that the Constitution’s approach to eligibility for office actually “represented a considerable liberalization of 18th-century English practice.” As he explains, under England’s 1701 Act of Settlement, naturalized foreigners were prohibited from serving in the Privy Council or Parliament, and from holding any office or place of trust, whether civil or military. “By contrast, the Constitution opened virtually all federal positions — the Congress, the judiciary, the Cabinet and the military — to naturalized citizens.”
…..

Mr. Amar credits the Framers with operating according to a general rule of openness to immigrant Americans. They departed from that rule in writing the natural-born citizen requirement because of their worry a foreign duke might come to America “with immense wealth and a vast retinue and then use his European riches to buy friends on a scale that virtually no homegrown citizen could match.” Here, too, observes Mr. Amar, America differed from England since the 1701 Act imposed no natural-born requirement on the head of state and in fact contemplated the foreign-born monarchs that soon would rule.”

The issue of what constitutes citizenship by birth in the US has been generally considered settled through the Fourteenth Amendment – which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.” This concept has been considered inviolate – and unchangeable except through a Constitutional Amendment (which is a prolonged and difficult process) – and it has been practiced as such. However, it has recently come under attack from some quarters opposed to “illegal”-immigrants who – through legal hair-splitting (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. (Thank God!)) – make the case that the Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. (In the U.S., there has always been a sometimes strong and sometimes weak undercurrent of public feelings against immigrants – usually coinciding with turbulent economic times or foreign adventures!)

An early draft of the currently pending immigration bill (or perhaps one of its companion bills) in the U.S. Congress would have stripped citizenship from the children of the illegals – but was dropped.

#33 by wiseguyin on April 6, 2006 12:30pm PT
Re: # 30
{{{{Inquirer,
I don`t think Zeena had the nuclear deal in mind when she wrote down her cents. Ok at least
not the deal specifically. It was just a blinkered puki view point. But nothng more then
that.}}}


wiseguyin sahib

Just one request, please reserve your own highly blinkered puki view point for your very own self. Trying to abuse others by useing dirty slangs won`t take you far. You won`t look cool to use such street slangs like(PUKI). Thank you

Now, come to the point :-

In my opinion there is no true democracy in India. As Indians always roar out loud that they are the biggest democracy in the world. Arright, they are. Then why they fail to establish the basic principle of democracy which is (for the people, by the people). Now, if they consider people are only Gandhi clans and their related ones, like Mrs.Sonia, then they should re consider their UNIQUE type of democracy.

Why not real people from poor Indian clans? Why not people from middle class clans? I am sure there are hundreds of middle class and from lower middle class bright Indian men and women who can lead India towards a true democracy.

Thank you

#30n inquirer

inquirer sahib

I am objectively pointing out flawed democracies in India, Pakistan and even Bangladesh in the context of this article`s topic about Mrs.Sonia Ghandhi`s selection as future PM for India.
I am absolutely not discussing nuclear deal here.You are stretching my post far beyond it`s elasticity. I am discussing south and you`re saying North.

My whole point is Indian democracy shouldn`t be hijacked by a certain privileged clan for generations . That even if, a tree is related to Gandhi`s clan, Indians would feel pride to elect that tree as their PM.

Re: # 37, zeena:
What can I say? It shows your total ignorance of India`s democracy. Indian democracy is far better grounded and mature than you think or are willing to concede. India has had fourteen independent and free elections. Various parties have ruled India with remarkable thread of consistency symbolized by devotion to the nation. Your objective analysis is totally baseless for India`s case.

Of course, your perception of democracy is hemmed in by your experience of ``it`` in Pakistan, where the rigged Islamic elections have been invariably followed by Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf. So, you talk about a Gandhi tree!!!!!! Indian electorate is far superior to American electorate, let alone Pakistan and Bangladesh. Condoleeza Rice was not exaggerating yesterday nor was George Bush when he went to India or delivered the curt reply to Musharraf (regarding civilian nuclear deal) who will go down in US History an outstanding Foreign Policy President. Muslims, in general, have to properly grasp Bush`s farsighted and proactive foreign policy.

You need to read the Indian Constitution and Indian History written by non-ISI Pakistani to get a hang of truth.

#32 Inquie

My first choice was “chowk-types”, which was changed to “intellectual-types” (after all, the chowk is where intellectuals roam). You can translate it to your liking - but others may object!

For the record, every case is different - but the reality is that Sonia`s foreign origin shall remain an issue with some people forever.

By the way, for those who don’t believe me, here is the complete entry on chowk from wikipedia:

“Chowk.com is a South Asian website operated by a group of United States and Canada based Indian and Pakistani intellectuals. It is a completely non-commercial and non-profit venture that was started in 1997. It usually supports leftist and liberal political agendas and has some of India and Pakistan`s frontline writers and journalists as contributors and columists, such as (from Pakistan) Tariq Ali, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, Nadeem F. Paracha and (from India), Farzana Varsey and Dost Mittar.”

Re: # 34: Thanks for the definition from wikipedia. I was fooled by the comments that I have seen from the chowk inhabitants. They really look like to be from Chowk vs. Civil lines!!

This article reads a bit better the second time around.

The fact that Sonia Gandhi – an ostensible “outsider” – can get elected without a hitch shows one thing – the Indian electorate is not hostage to prejudice on such accounts as the national origin. Sonia is not really a “suspect candidate” – except perhaps among the intellectual-types. The vast majority of people do not hold her in suspicion of any kind. That is one area where even the USA lacks – where an immigrant can never occupy the White House.

It also shows that the Indian masses still look at a married woman the same way as they have done for ages – as somebody who comes from another family (in this case, from another country), but is supposed to break all ties of blood and become a part of her new family – perhaps its pivot.

The fact that somebody – in this case Uma Bharti (who comes across as a real lightweight by comparison) – has to harp back to the “daughter of the soil” theme indicates that she really has no creative ideas of her own. The fact that she had to start a party of her own is a bit similar to Indira Gandhi – who broke up the original Congress party – again and again. (Note: in her claiming Hanumana as her elder brother, people should perhaps not look for a family resemblance.)

People with dictatorial tendencies are simply unable to conform to a common set of rules set by others. It applies in politics and it applies in other domains of life.

One advantage of having Sonia in there is that she – the “outsider” – is less likely to divide the masses along fault lines for her own political gains – she does not belong to any of those factions.

Sloganeering is a favorite pastime for many Indians – especially of the “socialist” variety. Sloganeering requires little effort (other than some hot air) and it gets to the ears that matter to it – the ears of those it is trying to please. There is not much to be read in such acts. Sonia is no more and perhaps no less corrupt than most of her peer politicians. Her “tyag” was not so much the giving up of her MP seat – perhaps her act of handing over the PM chair to another person fits the term better.

One weakness of the article is that it harps back to the days when Sonia was just the wife of Rajiv who was just the son of Indira Gandhi – before she decided to bring him into politics. That is unfair – for all practical purposes, her vision was very limited at the time – limited to her (nuclear) family. The acts of long ago do not define her and should not be used for judging her. Also, the fact that she valued ties to her place of birth should be taken for what it was – just like many desi people continue to do to this day.

The article also fails to tell the Indian voters who they should vote for. Uma, who appears to be a divider - or Sonia, who appears to be a uniter?

Abstaining is not a practical option!

Re: # 31, bjkumar:

Your comment is sensible except for - ``Sonia is not really a “suspect candidate” – except perhaps among the intellectual-types.``

What is your definition of intellectual? I would have substituted intellectual in your sentence by `idiotic.`

#28 delhiwala

delhiwala sweetheart

Chillax, take a chillpill and cool it off.

I never said I hate India. I am just giving my point of view about patriarchal democracy which ultimately leads any nation towards monarchy. Same kind of feudal democracy is in Pakistan as well. Even in Bengladesh, if president dies, his widow becomes the president.

Look at Bhutto clan in Pakistan, Bhuttos believe that Pakistan is their property and it is their right to rule Pakistan.

And the irony is,all these feudal clans , Bhuttos, Ghandis etc, etc with this mind set of a monarch, yet call themselves followers of true democracy.

Now, look at General Zia`s sons in Pakistan , both have become political leaders , Anwar and Ijaz. Ijaz is even trying to be PM of Pakistan.

My whole point is , there is no true democracy in India and same is for Pakistan. Democracy needs ULTRAFILTRATION to filter weeds out of the main stream and let the main stream run the politics. Let the real political gems shine.

Why same families hijacking the true democratic system of these countries? Why not new faces? Why not new breed from average middle class families with new bright ideology?

Re: # 29,Zeena:
So, the cat is out of the bag!!
India and Pakistan both have the same democracies, so why not the civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan also? Did you cc to Nicholas Burn also?

Re: # 30
Inquirer,
I don`t think Zeena had the nuclear deal in mind when she wrote down her cents. Ok at least
not the deal specifically. It was just a blinkered puki view point. But nothng more then
that.

Re: # 33: So your latin was just flying free??

Re: # 35
Inquiry sahib,
do you seriously think that the perception of pukis is guided by the nuclear deal alone?
Hmmm, u must have missed the action of the previous 60 years ...

Duh !

Zeena and some others:
Can someone explain to me if George W Bush was not the son of George H Bush would he ever had been a President of US OF A?

Dynasty rules everywhere in the world and is a big factor most of the time.

However, it is not a norm rather an exception. Bajpayee is a grass roots leader and so is Advani(I am not a supporter of them). However, they still made it.

Same way, Nawaaz Sharif was not a dynasty leader, yet still he was elected as PM of Pakistab.

You cannot attact Indian Democracy by dismissing it as a sham even if you hate India with full force.

Pakistanis need to be more smart if they want to make a genuine case against India. Otherwise it always feels that every Pakistani wants to criticize India for every single thing happens here. They need to mature little more and make a solid case with facts that are more appealing.

For e.g. one glitch in Indian Democracy that I often point to others is that:

People: Oh! India has a Sikh PM now, so Hindus must love Sikhs and there no tension between them.

Me: With a little smile, Sir/Madam Sikhs love Hindus and Muslims alike, however please note that MM Singh is not an elected PM. He was appointed. No Hindu belt Indian would have voted for him, had they known that a Sikh is a contender for Congress`s nomination.