Ba, Beti aur Bahu

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.

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

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!!

#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.

#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

#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.

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.

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 !

#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.

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.

Sorry for typo in #43
My expectations from India......

bjkumar#34:

Wikipedia does not guarantee accuracy. I can say for sure that this contributor is totally unknown as a contributor outside of chowk.com, either under this nick or my real name, Nand Tandan. Veeresh Malik and Harish Nambiar, on the other hand, could have been mentioned as Indian journalists.

BTW, Nehru was not as great a democrat as he is made out to be and one does not have to name ``unmentionable`` names to show this. He forced Purushottam Das Tandon to resign from the duly elected post of the Presdident of the Congress Party as soon as his mentor, Patel died. This sent a clear signal to everyone that anyone with a different approach than his own had no place in the Party. More damaging was his dismissal of the Kerala govt. which enjoyed a clear majority in the state legislature. He thereby set the precedent of the Centre dismissing state govts. that it did not like. It was the dismissal of state governments in Punjab and J&K by Indira Gandhi which started the separatist movements in those two states.

#45 DM-jee

I was unaware of those political activities of Nehru that you list here. There may be truth in saying that many of these were precedent setting.

However, let us get real. Such activities did not make him a dictator. He did many things which were by their nature precedent setting for the young democracy. For example, the concentration of power in prime ministership may have been his doing too - for all I know.

Was there anything in what he did which broke the rules written down in the constitution? No.

Did he ever exceed his mandate? No.

Did he ever try to rewrite the constitution for personal gain? No.

Did he try to impose his progeny as the crown prince/princess? No.

In retrospect, sure he did not do every thing that he could have done. He had his socialist vision - back then I believe he was not the only one - but his vision was an honest one - which is a lot more than can be said of the current Indian reds. He was impetuous perhaps - his blind trust in the Chinese turned out to be a major blunder and their opportunistic attack robbed the country more than a few thousand square kilometers of land - it also robbed this great man of his well-earned few additional golden years.

Make no mistake about it - he was a clean person with a clean conscience! Among the last few of a rapidly diminishing line which would shrink quickly - with only a few then left who could perhaps be counted using the fingers of one hand.

And then there were none!

I refuse to kow-tow to this crowd of ``intellectuals`` which knows not even how to spell names in its sneaky attempts to revise history for meeting any particular agendas or objectives.

Somewhere, somebody may bump into a few, if only a few, qualms of conscience for hurling crap on individuals who lived for the country and died for the country and lived through example - unlike those who followed them!

Simple as that!

#43 by Zeena

Zeena, hijacking is done by force - when the population comes along willingly, you can call it their mistake but not hijacking. When people choose their leaders by exercising their free-will then that IS democracy - no matter how awkward or irregular the results.

You blame the army, corrupt politicians, Bhutto clan and the rest for the current problems of Pakistan. Fine. But are there ANY good leaders in your country?

If no, why is it that there aren`t any?

If yes, why is it that they can not get elected?

Just something to think about - this bahanebaazee is not going to work!

Also, Pakistan is no younger than India - they used to be the same country so they are equally old.

There is absolutely no reason why the young generation of Pakistanis should expect, shoot for, or settle for anything less than the young generation of Indians! Not a single reason!!!

It is their perfect right, their legitimate privilege, and perhaps their duty to accept nothing less!!

(Hint: start out by throwing away and discarding all that you have been taught be the ``older`` generation!)

#47 bjkumar

bjkumar sahib jii

Namastey/Hi
How you doing?

First of all thank you for your thought provoking and informative interactions. I enjoyed reading`em. If I say you are genuinely intellectual interactor, it won`t be surprising to you either,b/c you know you`re! Just a compliment.

Now, you raised some good concerns about current Pakistani political issues. I agree with you for all those concerns. I will try to answer your concerns,but I guess the topic of this article is Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Indian politics, Not Pakistani. I assume we can use Pakistani politics for comparative purposes, but absolutely not for the sole purposes.

I used term HIJACKING for connotation and you clearly know that. Yes, I call brainwashing as hijacking of the minds of people.
Just like fanatics from any religion hijack any religion just for their own selfish motives, similar ways corrupt politicians and army can hijack people for their own motives. There is never any sincere intentions behind that.

Majority of Pakistani peoples minds are hijacked by the same feudal pseudo politicians which are the same politically illitrate feudal clans trying to rule Pakistan for generations.
In my opinion sincerety is the basic rule of a true politics i.e. for the people, by the people.

In Pakistan, Yes we do have sincere politicians and more will be seen in future, if political ultrafiltration won`t stop. For now Pakistani democracy is static due to Martial law And it is not very suitable environment for true democracy to be flourished for the people. Any object will be static if that particular object is not moving relative to it`s surroundings. So, currently Pakistan`s democracy and ultrafiltration to filter the weeds and moles is static.We can just hope for better future...............

Pakistan is just 50 years old and India is here for centuries with all the true democracy , rich culture and good working governance.


Now, Indian democracy is free from all clutches of Army and fanatics and like you said, Indian democracy is the best and politicians uphold the true values of democracy that is for the people and by the people.

Then Indian democracy should be flawless. But, what I am seeing here is just opposite, why Indians need Ghandi`s clan to rule India and now Mrs. Sonia Ghandi who is not even Indian.

Why I am seeing a static political ultrafiltration in India? Why Indians are stuck with Ghandi`s clan? Why Indian politics is not moving with it`s surroundings? This is big Indian politicial stigma.

India is highly populated country, why still unable to filter the weeds and moles?

On the contrary what I see in Pakistan is Pakistan army (even though I am not in favour of any martial law) did get rid of majority of today`s corrupt politicians as a successful experiment, this brings some velocity towards political destiny for the people of Pakistan and got some success to filter some seasoned politically illitrate pseudo politicians and to break the feudal clans. I must say that did bring some young , sincere and qualified politicians up surface.

If, democracy is not halted and is not hijacked by exclusive clans then bad apples can be replaced with good ones. But, when same privileged clan rules through generations, people are left with no choice but, to replace bad apples with bad apples.

In my opinion, bad apples must not be replaced with bad apples with new polish which will end up to be bad again. These are the dangers of Monarch democracy which is prevalent in India. If, you just close the eyes and close your ears, reality doesn`t change, unless you really find the courage to face it.

My stand on this discussion is crystal clear. Nice interacting with you. Will love to discuss other topics with you on other boards for sharing informative views. Till then Bye and take care.