Ba, Beti aur Bahu

fv
indian politics are ever so confusing why can`t they have just left and right of the westminister type.
more later

FV,

Very boring.

Why not write something about whatever became of her???

Family rule through the ballot-box is a serious deficiency of the Indian political scene. Fortunately, so far such unnatural fascination is confined to a single family.

It is not fair to call Nehru a ``power hungry`` politician - and you know it. Nehru did not have the dictatorial mindset - though he was a bit moody and emotional.

Nehru was a freedom fighter. Indira was a politician. Rajiv was a flake. Sonia was a reluctant fighter. Her progeny - they are in politics because they know little else. There will be others. Someday people would stop voting simply based on names. Then these individuals will have to WORK for a living. Or at least earn those votes.

Some day..... (Keep writing!)

For the present, however, the simple fact of life is - like in most Indian families - the bahu is the outsider but inherits the household invariably - and rules the roost the way she sees fit.

(What is with the long foot notes?)

It is a waste of time to even think about, let alone write about the two women, who embody the worst of Indian politics. Not that the others are any better.

This article is an interesting read but it leads to one inexorable conclusion. It is neither politically savvy nor analytically deep. It truly presents the the general negativism that permeates the author`s personna and writing style.

I would say that Sonia Gandhi`s action is remarkable:

a) It shows respect for democratic institutions - she resigned without fighting though she could could have won the political battle.

b) It shows a recognition of what Indian electorate wants - if you have possibly viable reasons to be in wrong then force the issue by seeking the electorate`s judgment.

c) Even people without eyes and brain can not deny the political acumen that Sonia Gandhi symbolizes.

d) Without doubt, Sonia`s personal sacrifice is outstanding - she could have easily withdrawn from the rough and tumble of politics for a foreign country which is every bit as uncomfortable as she has described it. This ability and desire to keep flying her husband`s and his country`s flags has made her the darling of Indian electorate and the exceptional person she is.

e) Finally let us not forget India is on the verge of becoming global power due to the devotion of Nehru`s family not inspite of them.

Any person with least bit of knowledge of Indian History can see how: Nehru`s love of all Indians (Muslims included!), modernism without copying the West laying the foundation of Indian Industrialism and steadiness; Indira Gandhi`s decisive action regarding Bangladesh, unflinching support of the Indian underclass against the exploitative rich of India and correction of the Sikhs without engendering general hatred agains them; Rajiv Gandhi`s preparation of India to take step towards nuclear weapons step if needed; and last but not least the systematic way that Sonia has reenergized Congress against the Stalwarts like Vajapayee and Advani - let us not forget it was the farmers that brought her in power.

All examples above shoe the consistent respect for democracy and the devotion to the Indian People. As long as that tradition is maintained the Congress and the Family will continue to exert influence for the betterment of India. There is nothing wrong in having an outstanding and successful family as long as we can ward off the personality cult like of which Russia suffered under Stalin.

As for Uma Bharati, she is not significant enough to be a footnote in the History of India.

``chor uchaka chaudary, GOONDI run pardhan`` (All the thieves have become chaudaries, and women of ill repute leaders) _ Nanak wrote 500+ years back.

it is still true today.....

all these women are GOONDI run s.

``My family has always been on the target of the opposition -- be it Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi -- each one was targeted with equal vehemence. They were not merely prime ministers but great leaders, therefore unmindful of the opposition they continued to serve the nation.``

Because each of them were the most malicious kanjars and kameen ever born......

{``Modern-day czarinas are not born into royalty, but their rule is so regal simply because they have perfected the art of looking down their noses. ``}

Farzana,
Thank you for an interesting and informative article. I saw Uma Bharti on TV and from what little I heard, she appears to be a real demagogue and a confirmed right-wing Hindutva, slightly more extreme than Thackeray or Modi. Women like her, Sonia, Indira, Hillary, Benazir, Haseena, and Golda Meier just prove one thing - Women are really equal to men.:)

I don`t know. In politics, I think that the best thing about women is that they are not as dishonest, as mean, as corrupt, and as stupid as their male counterparts - or is it that the latter are there in such abundance that they steal the scrutiny?

Dear Farzana:

I am amazed at the maturisation of Sonia Gandhi as a politician. From an ordinary housewife with no particular talent, she has mastered the game of Indian politics and can outplay the best of them. She also has firmly understood the psychy of the Indian masses.

This resignation, in my opinion, was a masterstroke. This was a completely risk-free proposition for her. By resigning, she has refurbished her aura of Maha Atma and Tyagmurti. At the same time, there is no question that she would be reelected in the by-election. I also think that she would probably be returned with an even larger margin than the last time. This would not only enhance her status, it might also reverse the fortunes of her party in U.P where politics seem to be increasingly communalised. While the BJP is once again successfully playing the anti-minortyism card and Mulayam consolidating his hold over Muslims as their only only genuine protector, the Congress seems to be losing on both sides. A massive victory in Rae Bareili would be a morale booster for the Congress in the State.

As for Uma Bharati, she is a bit player. I dont think that her new party would stand a chance. The RSS may like her but is unlikely to support her against the BJP.

Re: # 8,D-M:
No doubt Sonia`s maturation is noteworthy but she was married into one of the most distinguished families of the World and took care to familiarize herself with the psyche of India.

But there is something more to it than that. She is a genuine person and is devoted to the democratic process. Of course, she is blessed with energy to work and she loves her husband`s country.

I agree with you about the resignation being a very smart political move.

Re: # 6
Hi, you reminded me of another Nanak story. He went to a village where he was not treated very well, so he blessed them saying ``Baso``.

Then He went to another village where He and his disciples were treated very well and he blessed them saying ``Bichro``

One of his disciples on hearing this was suprised and asked Nanak why he was blessing this village so. Nanak replied that that these were good people and he wanted people like these to spread and wide taking their goodness with them.

To you , Nanak would have said baso.

Ferzana,
this is contrived..why bring in the lost one, Uma Bharati? Sonia played a cool game in this case. Also, I disagree with the ``hindu`` characterization of indian politics ... that all women are supposed to be Mother figures..nooone considers `Amma` Jayalalita or Mamata Bannerji or Indira Gandhi as mother figures..nutcrackers maybe.

It is interesting that Indian Politics are so disorganized and yet being able to function.
My American Sikh convert friend, who lived in Amritsar for 10 yrs said ``First few months you hate the despicable environment but after few months you realize that there is a method in madness``.

I think above is applicable to Indian Politics.

FV`s article took my thoughts to my friend.

Dear Chief Editor

Another brilliant article!!!

My thoughts always leave me wondering and clueless with almost dead end. Starting with zero and ending with zero, whenever I think about Indian democracy. India claims itself to be the largest democracy in the world, excellent!

But, what sort of democracy is this? Where family name is the trademark for selling like hot cakes in this democratic monarchy. Where political minds for political power are believed to be inherited through generations. Where genes are the hallmark of political identity. Where even getting married to a special Indian clan gives any Italian woman an acknowledgment to be recognized as a top most Indian leader. Wow! Really impressive.

An ordinary Italian woman becomes a PM of Hindustan. What else could be more impressive and real democracy? Wonder why? What If Sonia would have been in Italy, not married to Gandhi clan? Migrating to India, contesting for elections to be PM? Would she be elected? Of course NOT. Why? B/c India is a great, free and fairly balanced world`s largest democracy giving chance to all Indian citizens on equal basis to be elected leaders to rule India. India is great! It gives right and recognition only to those who are the heirs of an influential clan. Wonderful, simply marvelous!

What if, Sonia would have been in Italy? Would she be recognized as an Italian leader? Never. Why? b/c Italians don`t recognize their own jewel. Just pathetic. An Italian couldn`t get recognition in her own country, but got not only recognition but, also Indians offered her PM ship with all their love and pride. That showed their broadmindedness and true democracy. By electing her as President of Congress party, and then PM ship Indians have proved that their democracy is unbeatable. After all they believe in free for all democracy.

Then my thoughts lead me to another scenario, what if, an Indian woman migrated to Italy? Would Italians elect her to be their head of the state? Never. Why? b/c there is no country like India, which can invite any foreigner and offer PM ship like a piece of cake. Brilliant! Italians will never ever do that. Why? b/c they are prejudiced and don`t have a high sense of democracy like Indians. Indians are great!

India is always ruled by monarchs. Emperors have been ruling this piece of the Earth for centuries. So, this tradition of having a monarch from an exclusive clan of Gandhi family is deeply rooted in Indian soil. Monarchs in the form of feudal rule. This is called FEUDAL DEMOCRACY. Very pleasant!

Indians have a new form of democracy, known as monarchs democracy. Indians are brilliant, they have set a perfect example of an exclusive Indian Empire, ruled by Gandhi family for generations under the banner of democracy.

So, what if it is pseudo democracy, error excuse me(just slip of the tongue, I apologize), I mean TRUE DEMOCRACY. So, this is also another case of hereditary monarchy, haaan. Simply amazing!

Long Live Sonia Future Indian PM.

Chow staff
Why you deleted my post number 13? What did I write that was not related to chowk guide lines?

For India and Indians, this is a big enough issue. And if these two women in fact represent the worst in Indian politics, I do not understand why one should not write about them. You would not say one ought not to write about Modi or Advani or Ghulam Nabi Azad…

#3 by bjkumar:

[It is not fair to call Nehru a ``power hungry`` politician - and you know it. Nehru did not have the dictatorial mindset - though he was a bit moody and emotional.]

Oh, and mood swings in political leaders is okay? I do not wish to get into the nitty-gritty of his ‘power-hungry’ persona for that would bring in certain controversial names, and this board is not about them.

[Nehru was a freedom fighter. Indira was a politician. Rajiv was a flake. Sonia was a reluctant fighter. Her progeny - they are in politics because they know little else.]

They know little else? Do they even know this?
- - -
#5 by Inquirer:

I really wish you had delved a bit more into the non-political aspects of this article. Perhaps then you would have seen there is more than “the general negativism that permeates the author`s personna and writing style”.

This is not to contest your opinion, just to not restrict the discussion.

[d) Without doubt, Sonia`s personal sacrifice is outstanding - she could have easily withdrawn from the rough and tumble of politics for a foreign country which is every bit as uncomfortable as she has described it. This ability and desire to keep flying her husband`s and his country`s flags has made her the darling of Indian electorate and the exceptional person she is.]

You make this sound like the ‘hardship allowance’ diplomats and top international honchos get on their India assignments. You may deem what I have written as pop psychology, but do make the effort to understand the mechanics of ‘sacrifice’.

[e) Finally let us not forget India is on the verge of becoming global power due to the devotion of Nehru`s family not inspite of them.]

Jog your memory. Liberalisation started with P.V.Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh as FM. Indira Gandhi was a Russian puppet for long and Rajiv was a surface-level moderniser. Inviting his Gucci-gang only resulted in Italian tiles and Belgian glass in their own homes.

[Any person with least bit of knowledge of Indian History can see how: Nehru`s love of all Indians (Muslims included!), modernism without copying the West laying the foundation of Indian Industrialism and steadiness;]

The first part is so patronising (thanks anyway!), but heard about vote banks? For a freedom fighter he could not afford to blatantly copy the West; besides modernism does not translate into westernisation, as elementary sociology will tell you. The true revolution in economic terms was the Green revolution and the co-operative movements, like Operation Flood. (And see what happens to Kurien Varghese).

[Indira Gandhi`s decisive action regarding Bangladesh, unflinching support of the Indian underclass against the exploitative rich of India and correction of the Sikhs without engendering general hatred agains them;]

We are ‘reaping’ the results of the above-mentioned actions – immigrants, the slogan ‘garibi hatao’ was a huge joke, and we all know what happened in Punjab.

[Rajiv Gandhi`s preparation of India to take step towards nuclear weapons step if needed;]

Yeah, sure…the gupshup sessions in the Andamans and the kickbacks…

[and last but not least the systematic way that Sonia has reenergized Congress against the Stalwarts like Vajapayee and Advani - let us not forget it was the farmers that brought her in power.]

Which farmers? The Congress would have come to power by default.

[All examples above shoe the consistent respect for democracy and the devotion to the Indian People. As long as that tradition is maintained the Congress and the Family will continue to exert influence for the betterment of India. There is nothing wrong in having an outstanding and successful family as long as we can ward off the personality cult like of which Russia suffered under Stalin.]

India has become better because of its people. Let us not even get into respect for democracy and devotion to the country. What a contradiction you come up with. The Family IS the personality cult here.
- - -
#7 by Salim_Chauhan

[I saw Uma Bharti on TV and from what little I heard, she appears to be a real demagogue and a confirmed right-wing Hindutva, slightly more extreme than Thackeray or Modi. Women like her, Sonia, Indira, Hillary, Benazir, Haseena, and Golda Meier just prove one thing - Women are really equal to men.:)]

I find the concept of right-wing women interesting, because traditionally they are not supposed to be RW. Yet, there are several examples, and female fanaticism is an altogether different concept – the women seem to be forcing themselves into masculine roles.

Re. “women are really equal to men”, I would like to quote that our aspirations are not that low!
- - -
#8 by dost-mittar:

[I am amazed at the maturisation of Sonia Gandhi as a politician. From an ordinary housewife with no particular talent, she has mastered the game of Indian politics and can outplay the best of them. She also has firmly understood the psychy of the Indian masses.]

I’d say Rabri Devi did well for herself too. Honestly, most home-makers can be Indian politicians – it is all about that ‘chaabi’ they have to hold while role-playing the Bharatiya naari. I do not think she has understood the psyche of the masses; rather she knows the minds of chamchas and that she has worked shrewdly around.

[As for Uma Bharati, she is a bit player. I dont think that her new party would stand a chance. The RSS may like her but is unlikely to support her against the BJP.]

I maintain that she is working on a parallel track; she is the backup for the BJP. I keep saying it – the RSS-BJP put up this ‘we do not see eye-to-eye’ act when they are really in it together.

I have been wrong sometimes, but perhaps we should wait and watch. I do not believe a woman whose marriage plans, whose flag hoisting, whose resignations , whose CMship become issues can be a bit player.
- - -
#11 by jang:

[this is contrived..why bring in the lost one, Uma Bharati? Sonia played a cool game in this case. Also, I disagree with the ``hindu`` characterization of indian politics ... that all women are supposed to be Mother figures..nooone considers `Amma` Jayalalita or Mamata Bannerji or Indira Gandhi as mother figures..nutcrackers maybe.]

No, it is not contrived. I was struck by the two polarised ‘sacrifices’. Mother figures do not necessarily mean ‘Hindu’, although the symbolism used here is – it is Indian mythology (I used Biblical ones too!) All the women you mention are also considered mother figures, whether overtly or not. No one would roll on the ground for just a woman in a cape.

Farzana Versey
Why my posts are being deleted? Can you please, check this glitch?

On side note:-
So, what if, her hgihness Mrs.Sonia Gandhi is not blue blood herself. She is widow and daughter in law of blue blooded clan.

Farzana sahiba

Thank you for re storing my posts. I appreciate that.

Re: # 15, Farzana:

My congratulations and appreciation to you for being a caring and thinking author of an article. Chowk is full of authors who sleep-write their articles and then hibernate. They are either uninterested in responses to their musings or are unable to grasp and respond to the commenters.

And while I am at it, I do commend your effort for watching carefully the propriety level of discussions at Chowk. You do not have to reduce this watch, I believe it can be still more effective. We will abide by the Chief Editor`s judgement on this.

As for ``I really wish you had delved a bit more into the non-political aspects of this article.``: I agree. But the subject of the article was so predominantly political that I could not give importance to other - interesting, but less important aspects. I suppose there will always be a difference in women`s often dominantly emotional and men`s correspondingly intellectual approach to any problem.

Finally, about the substantive contents of the debate between us, I am reasonably sure that we probably cannot convince each other but I would be content with the readers` judgment about it. So, let it reflect.

PS. Oh, yes I could not let this one go. PV Narasimha Rao was one person who was most faithful to the Nehru philosophy about the development of India. He was present in all Congress Ministries from Nehru`s time. Rao stood at the shoulders - or was it in the lap - of the giants Jawahar Lal Nehru and Indira Nehru so that he could reach goals put infront of him. Without the substantive preparation that Jawahar-Indira-Rajiv provided Rao could not do what he initiated.

Without the infrastructure built during fifties to seventies the Green Revolution could never arise. As for the vote banks, your myopia is remarkable. Nehru did not need the vote bank. One of the valid criticism of Nehru is that he deferred too much to the Indian Electorate. He did that to bring them up in the democratic procedures of the twentieth century.

Regarding Punjab: I remind you of Mahabharat. For the right things War is not to be automatically ruled out. The consequent calming down of the sessionist Sikhs is proof enough.

Further, the BJP`s NDA was defeated in elections of 2004 by massive support of Congress by the farmers of India. They were neglected by the NDA`s computer wizzards!

Re: # 10: I hope to God that you are a Sikh. If you are then we need more of you.

Dear Farzana:

``I do not believe a woman whose marriage plans, whose flag hoisting, whose resignations , whose CMship become issues can be a bit player.``

The Indian media is all ``page 3`` even on front pages these days. Uma is certainly a celebrity but I dont think that she can be a power by herself. As for running parallel tracks, I tend not to look for hidden explanantions if what`s apparent makes sense. I agree with you that Khuranas, Bharatis, Shingals, etc. all subscribe to the RSS agenda just as do the ``moderates`` in the BJP but this does not mean that they do not have clashes of personality and ambition, which is what politics is all about.

I would like to address something that you wrote to another interactor re. Rajiv Gandhi and his gucci gang. I think that they get less credit than they deserve. I have said it before that the foundation of economic reforms were indeed laid during the Rajiv period. The economic reforms were started by none other than his ``socialist`` finance minister, V.P.Singh, who dramatically reduced the income tax rates and reversed the earlier socialist tax regime. The gucci crowd brought in by Rajiv included World Bank economists Montek Ahluwalia and Shankar Acharya who have played important role in the reform process. I was at that time a visiting Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Punlic Finance and Policy in New Delhi and was aquainted with some of these people. Another of the gucci crowd was Sam Pitroda who initiated the reforms in the telecom sector, which laid the foundation for the IT sector in India.

Re: # 20,D_M:
It is important that people who look at the developments in India take care to see the contributions of the previous leaders in India. Your pointing out of the significance of ``gucci gang`` is valuable.
India has developed because of what India is. And that is what made Indian leaders. The commonsnse of the Hindus as a vast majority should also not be underplayed. Pakistan without its dynamic Hindu population and the concomittant commitment to rational national policies is a pool of quagmire - universally acknowledged.
Where India and Pakistan are is a consequence of the policies adopted by the people of the two countries - hence, by its leaders. Though the leaders have kept the proper flame alive and that is where their own personal contribution lies.

#15 FarzanaVersey {``Re. “women are really equal to men”, I would like to quote that our aspirations are not that low! ``}

Farzana,
Touche. In that case, we men should do our very best to step up to mediocrity. :)

Delhiwala #12 {``It is interesting that Indian Politics are so disorganized and yet being able to function. ``}

Dillidost,
You said it my friend. With all the tradition of violence, vote buying, demagoguery, and dynastic rule, the Indian electorate has been getting progressively more sophisticated over the years. I think that by their performance in the recent national elections, that threw out the BJP, Indian voters have demonstrated more maturity and resolve than Americans did in 2004. I am very happy for India.

Zeena madam ko phir se gussa aa gaya.
Madam - Dynasty politics does happen in India, but they keep getting routed out. It is a cycle.
Not much unlike the Kennedy`s have a certain aura around them.

Oderint, dum metuant. Huh.

Re: # 23, Salim:
While I appreciate a Pakistani recognition of the success of democracy in India, in absence of any documentation of fraud in American elections in 2004, I beg to differ from your implication of lack of ability of American Electorate.

We have to realize that in democracy a platform can lose, no matter how high falutin it may sound, if the leadership fails to factor in the will of the majority of the voting groups. The Democrats have singularly failed, and John Kerry was a symbol of that general failure in 2004, to grasp what the voting people in America want. They need to stop acting like a guardian of the people. Democrats should listen to the people`s call. Let us hope that they do better in 2006 and not demand that the people (voters) do better.

Re: # 24: Who hates and who fears?

#25, Inquirer {``in absence of any documentation of fraud in American elections in 2004, I beg to differ from your implication of lack of ability of American Electorate. ``}

Inquirer,
I was merely comparing the sophistication of the Indian electorate to the jingoism of the 29% of the American electorate (evangelists, KKK, white supremacists, bubbas, etc) who would vote Republican even if George Bush had one eye, a tail, and foam all over his mouth. My point is that the solid ``red`` states, that Bill Maher ridicules all the time, are a manifestation of the lack of objective thinking on the part of the electorate, especially down south and out west. :)

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.

#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?

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.`

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.

Zeena:

While I cannot go along with your comparison of India and Pakistan, I do understand the cynicism about democracies as they are practised. It is only when you live in the countries mentioned that you understand it adequately. The right to vote and holding elections regularly do not necessarily mean a thriving democracy. In fact, the more elections there are, the greater the scope for corruption, meting out favours, sycophancy.
- - -
Inquirer:

You are right -- we will not be able to convince each other, but I do not think that is the aim of every discussion. Thanks for your comments in #18, though; one does try and make an effort to further a dialogue. However, your later comment -- in another context I should hope -- `` I would have substituted intellectual in your sentence by `idiotic``` was in poor taste.

I do not think anyone with any sense here or elsewhere tries to promote themselves as intellectuals; the problem is with others who throw these epithets and then hold people to scrutiny.

It is time some interactors desisted from their constant insinuations. There really is more to a discussion than `complicity`.

Since most of you have delved on -- and opposed my views on Sonia -- I can only re-post an excerpt from what I had written here earlier (sorry, but been there, done it, so can`t help it): Can Pasta Become Paratha?

Yet we need to look at the flipside, however limited be its appeal. Sonia Gandhi certainly has more of a right to speak on behalf of the country than the NRIs. Recently there was a ‘Pravasi Divas’ and about 1200 “dil hai Hindustani” hearts made their way from 61 countries to hold forth on the issues regarding their place of birth. A sprinkling of Lords, lobbyists and lightweight movers and shakers from foreign shores spoke about where India could go. With their investments being a mere 3.78 per cent of the Indian economy, they were discussing where we were going wrong.

They also tell us about exit policies, about Gujarat, about Hindutva, about secularism. The BJP government is talking about giving them voting rights. Lord Meghnad Desai went to the extent of saying that this is not about emotionalism. His mantra was, “Let’s talk business.”

By this logic, Ms. Gandhi is doing precisely that. If she became a citizen of this country years after her marriage, the expatriates are not even that. If we wish to permit them to cast their vote, knowing full well that they will do so only on the basis of what they get ‘materially’ out of the deal, then why not a person who lives here?

Let us examine the arguments against her:

1. She is a foreigner.

She was. Her Hindi is bad but then her English is even worse than Uma Bharati’s. Besides, India is not merely the Hindi belt. This is the country where the ‘bahu’ is co-opted and made to adhere to the in-law’s culture. She has adopted Indian ways. And when we are flaunting a Praveen Togadia, who came in from the cold, and who is shoving Hindu heritage down our throats, why must we have a problem with a woman who talks about ‘Bharatiya parampara’, Indian culture?

2. She has no experience to take over as PM.

True. But a post is merely that: it is the person who makes of it what s/he will. Rajiv Gandhi came straight from the cockpit of an aircraft to the hot seat. We have several people in charge of portfolios they have no clue about. When Manmohan Singh, who revolutionised the liberalisation movement, took over as finance minister, he had no ‘political’ experience and had not contested elections or worked at the grassroots level. There are people with police cases against them who are ministers.

There is the insinuation that with Sonia at the helm the defence of the country could be endangered. We will have to go back to Tehelka and see who has been caught with their hands greasy and in situations where the security of the nation could be at risk. And can we forget the Indian patriot George Fernandes and his infamous coffin deal? In the film ‘LOC Kargil’, it is amusing to hear Bofors being praised several times. “That Bofors is a damn good gun,” is the refrain. Irony or more?

3. She has not encouraged a second-rung leadership.

Unfortunately, those of some merit like Madhavrao Scindia and Rajesh Pilot are no more. The dissenters are essentially rebelling for their personal gains. Besides, what second-rung does the NDA have? There are smart and savvy politicians like Arun Jaitley, Arun Shourie, Pramod Mahajan, Sushma Swaraj, Uma Bharti, but put them up as PM candidates and watch what happens. The BJP has only Vajpayee as their USP.

The Congress may not think Sonia is a great selling point, and they have conveyed it. I personally do not think she is worth it, but we need to see the options. Especially when the fight this time might turn ugly. There was a report in the papers that someone had filed a case against Rahul Gandhi under the Immoral Traffic Act, because he was with his girl-friend at a Kerala resort together with his sister and brother-in-law!

This is nasty and hypocritical when leading ministers of the ruling party are running roughshod over these same moral values. What happened to Gopinath Munde and his tamasha artiste affair? To Pramod Mahajan and the Shivani Bhatnagar murder case? To the defence minister who permits a special lady to accept bribes in his house? To the open live-in arrangement in Uttar Pradesh? And we will not even get into the qualified rumours about many others. These are private matters and public figures must look into the mirror occasionally.

(And, since Nehru is not the main subject I will only provide you with a link: Redicovery of Nehru)

Farzana Versey sahiba

Democracy needs to be flourished with regular consecutive elections. Static democracy leads to monarchy, which is the homicide for true democracy. 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?

Yes, we can never have an ideal democracy,but even if, it is true only more than 40% I will buy it at any cost.

It is not necessary to live in some country to grasp the root cause of the issue. Democracy is an internationally recognised virtue for the people and by the people by the process of constant ultrafiltration called elections to filter bad apples for good ones. Democarcy is to show sincerity for the people and by the people.

Now, who are the people? Yes, people are you, people are me, people are they. People are us. People are people, neither rich nor poor. True democracy doesn`t judge people by their HEIRARCHY.

At the end, my main stand is generations of Exclusive political clans are death for democracy. Either choose privileged clans or democracy. Both are each other`s opposites. opposites.

Thank you for your nice interaction # 49.

#48 Zeena

Your nice long interact has me completely floored. Your energy and enthusiasm need to be commended by one and all. Your arguments contain a freshness which markedly contrasts with the tired-old arguments being used here (both by writers and interactors) for the last one thousand years or so!

You make many points - too many for me to cover in this interact. But you must hold those thoughts! And keep up the hope.

There is a brighter tomorrow.

Just Around the corner.

And let nobody - especially nobody over thirty - make you think othrwise!

They are no wiser - they simply put on the airs!

Re: # 49, Farzana:
Thanks for parting company with understanding!

Inspite of Sonia Gandhi`s disqualifications, she has established herself as an Indian and has shown her desire and work to strengthen India.

It is upto India to give recognition to a foreigner who truly converts to India and I am happy that Indian Electorate has honored a person who has so far been operating for the improvement of Indian Democracy.

I would like to express my support to you for actively controlling the quality of interactions at Chowk. Yes Chowk is not the Civil Lines, nor is it desired to be, but some interactors just do not have either the desire or ability to conduct a civil - if not, sophisticated - dialog.

Like Nehru you are faced with the dilemma of either allowing only civil people in Chowk or letting the incivil have chance to show their colors and ultimately be at least exposed to a possible improvement. I hope like him you may be able to climb some rungs of success!!!!

PS: It might be useful for understanding if we introduce indications of age of an interactor. May be there could be an identifier like: A for 1925-1950, B for 1950-1975 and C for 1975-2000. Pretty soon a D may be needed for 2000-2025!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, such identification will lead to greater understanding among the interactors.

Ref Zeena various posts:

Sonia Gandhi is being propped up by people such as Kapil Sibhal, Ambika Sony, Jairam Ramesh, Mani Shankar Aiyar (just to name a few) who on their own merit won`t get elected dogcatcher. They hoped to -- and did -- ride her coattails to ministerial positions. If these chamchas were to be shot dead, there would be no dynastic rule in Delhi. If the punishment for being seen near Sonia Gandhi and her despicable brood of half-caste cretins is death, you could be sure that Sonia would be sitting inside her house not daring to show her face outside. If she is loved by all Indian people as the idiots on Chowk claim, why does she need Category Z protection? She would be blown to bits just like her worthless husband Rajiv G@ndu or her mother-in-law who met her just fate at the hands of brave Sikhs.

There are 25 states (give or take a couple) in India. There are people who get elected to various positions based on stuff other than family connections. Dynastic rule is peculiar to stupid North Indians and the Masanamuthus of Tamil Nadu. Sonia Gandhi has allowed Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion to try to pass on Tamil Nadu to his son so that her son could become Prime Minister of India one day. Even Biharis had the brains to throw out Lalloo Prasad Yadav in recent elections and elect Nitish Kumar in his and his cow of a wife`s place.

Re: # 45, D-M:
Are you related to Purshottam Das Tandon?

Your mention of PD Tandon is very interesting. I am sure you would have a different interpretation of what I am going to say. But let me present it.

PD Tandon was one of the most revivalist figures in the Indian Freedom Movement. He was almost single handedly responsible for foisting the biggest problem that free India has faced. He had engineered the passage of the Congress resolution recommending Hindi as as the Official Language of India. This was done by actively opposing Nehru`s policy of developing all languages equally. As one can infer, it meant an internal challenge to the leadership of the Congress and the Nation. Hindi was adopted by the Congress Party by 78 for to 77 against. It is universally recognized that this foolish act of Congress which was unanimously adopted by the National Constituent Assembly has led to division of Indian People and what is more unfortunate of Hindus. Thus Tandon hurt his own cause more than anyone else!

I always wondered how a lightweight like Tandon could exercise such a powerful influence . Now from your post I have the satisfaction that he was fully justifiably at least punished even though he succeeded in in doing irreparable damage to Free India.

Ref Dost-Mittar various posts:

It should be obvious to any student of history that India was dragged kicking and screaming to economic reforms by the IMF and the World Bank. When India`s foreign exchange reserves were down to cover just two weeks` worth of imports, Rajiv G@ndu asked for a $5 billion loan from the IMF. The IMF imposed stiff conditions. Having got his nuts in the iron grip of the IMF, Rajiv had no choice but to agree. If he had a little bit more leeway, he would have continued to follow the socialist policies of his mother and grandfather and bankrupted the country. Pretty much the position then of the US was similar to their position with respect to Pakistan today: they couldn`t allow a country with nukes to go bust, though they didn`t quite phrase it that way.

You could still see that idiot Jairam Ramesh spouting socialist nonsense today.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 20

dost-mittarji:

I seem to have missed this...

[I would like to address something that you wrote to another interactor re. Rajiv Gandhi and his gucci gang. I think that they get less credit than they deserve. I have said it before that the foundation of economic reforms were indeed laid during the Rajiv period. The economic reforms were started by none other than his ``socialist`` finance minister, V.P.Singh, who dramatically reduced the income tax rates and reversed the earlier socialist tax regime.]

We forget that he got booted out because he spoke about accountability. We forget what happened to the suave Arun Singh when he opened his mouth. It was the Satish Sharmas, the Lalit Suris, the Kamal Naths who ruled.

[The gucci crowd brought in by Rajiv included World Bank economists Montek Ahluwalia and Shankar Acharya who have played important role in the reform process. I was at that time a visiting Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Punlic Finance and Policy in New Delhi and was aquainted with some of these people. Another of the gucci crowd was Sam Pitroda who initiated the reforms in the telecom sector, which laid the foundation for the IT sector in India.]

True reforms cannot lie static. I do admire Sam Pitroda, but his contribution was restricted to a small segment. India is not a mere urban haven. Our fight with WTO is a constant, and let us not make this STD booth revolution seem more important than farmers` suicides. (Btw, he had left in utter frustration a few years ago.)

[The Indian media is all ``page 3`` even on front pages these days. Uma is certainly a celebrity but I dont think that she can be a power by herself.]

I agree with the Page 3 cult, but don`t we accuse the media of pseudo-secularism? I did not say she can be a power by herself. I talked about parallel tracks; you do not wish to see it. Hum dekhenege....

- - -
Inquirer:
I have not yet parted ways...

- - -
harimau:
It is heart-warming that you are learning Hindi. There are words other than those that require symbols in them...anyway, some good points in your posts.

Inquirer#55:

No, I am not related to PD Tandon, nor do I relate to his obscurantist views. This does not, however, take away from the fact that he had democratically defeated Nehru`s favourite candidate, the socialist Kripalani, for the post of the Party President and his dismissal was not a democratic act. It also shows Nehru`s disdain for the views of the ordinary Congressmen as he went on and imposed his socialist model on the country.


harimou#55

I think that you are missing your timing by a few years. While India`s financial situation was not good during the Rajiv period, it became desperate only during the time of the VP Singh govt. when the Finance Minister Dandavate declared that the cup was empty and the Reserve Bank had to mortgage its gold reserves. The conditionalties were imposed by the Bank during the Rao-Manmohan period which resulted in reformation. As an aside, the people in the World Bank were in cahoots with the Finance Ministry people in India and basically prescribed what the Finance people wanted to do but could not force their prescription on their political masters.

BTW I have met Jairam Ramesh as well as read the columns he wrote under the name Kautalya in India Today. I dont think he is ideologically on the opposite end of Mani Ayer in the Congress and not a socialist by any means.

(This is a sanitized version of what was expressed earlier in #58 and promptly processed by the ever-watchful chowk staff.)

#54 Dear Harimau,

This concerns your earlier posting #54 to Ms. Zeena.

Your posting in my view amounts to a wholesale degradation of several classes of people – which appears unmatchable in its intensity – even considering the high threshold of tolerance that chowk displays on such matters! You quote a few long-ago names from ages past and label them all “chamchas” – and exclaim, like a traveling magician:

“Look Ma, here is the problem!”

Your prescription is to get rid of them all – shoot them all, as you say – and lo and behold, all problems solved!

It is a bit like saying – shoot a few individuals on this website (some may consider you eligible (not I, though)) and all hate will dissipate. It is very simplistic and highly unrealistic. Hate is endemic to the psyche – it needs to be cured – not shot at! Shooting the patient does not get rid of the disease – the germs merely get transmitted.

Plus, there is always quite a large pool of fresh supply available from where “willing to please” individuals come from – for example, go ask Kaura – he will tell you a thing or two about what he calls the “kanjarpana inhabiting the souls of all desis” (as he defines desis – which appears to exclude himself). So this pool will replenish itself faster than you can diminish it! The only real casualty is your argument.

Sonia may have a legitimate need for category Z protection perhaps of the same reason that any high-profile individual would – if one were to show up in public without the same – just imagine what hell will break loose!

Therefore, I recommend you return to conducting sober reflection over that cup of coffee and partaking that rasam (I can even visualize you with your hand dipped into the pot while licking all the way from the bottom of the wrist to the top tip of the middle finger (a practice we Biharis are absolutely unfamiliar with)).

Respectfully submitted!

Ref bjkumar #58

The difference between Rajiv Gandhi -- whom you seem to worship -- and the politicians on the state level is that while the state level politicians are willing to take their cut in Indian rupees, Rajiv Gandhi wanted it in US dollars, witness Bofors. Obviously, he needed dollars to support the lifestyle of his ill-educated wife and children.

The utter stupidity of North Indians can be seen in that they ordered the Bofors guns but never thought that the ammunition would run out! Instead of also ordering a factory to produce the shells, they bought the shells too from Sweden.... and promptly ran out of then during the Kargil war!

As Inquirer pointed out in his post #55, you idiots also imposed Hindi as the ``National`` language of the country. It was and remains an excellent idea. We need a couple of hundred million of you guys to swab our floors, wash our clothes, cook our meals and take care of our children while we work at high-tech jobs available to us because we learnt English. And we can learn enough Hindi to deal with Hindi-speaking workers. After all, if Sonia Gandhi can do it, we can too and do it better!

Ref bjkumar #61

[Therefore, I recommend you return to conducting sober reflection over that cup of coffee and partaking that rasam (I can even visualize you with your hand dipped into the pot while licking all the way from the bottom of the wrist to the top tip of the middle finger (a practice we Biharis are absolutely unfamiliar with)).]

That would be because you North Indians would have your middle finger up your nose or perhaps another orifice. I have no wish to visualize this, having seen enough of it in trains running the length of Northern India.

#62, #63 Harimau

Sir, you have an uncanny ability to turn every topic into a North-South encounter of the adversarial kind. Kindly allow me to refresh your (perhaps aging) memory cells with a simple fact of geography.

If you care to hold the map the right way, the north always comes out on TOP of the south.

A simple concept – and there is precious little you can do about it! Unless you prefer to do all your viewing of the world from the sheershasana mode!

As far as the national language is concerned – I am astonished at how little confidence you show in the ability of South Indians to adapt to a wide variety of different conditions from their native habitat. The south Indians within India – just like the South Asians within the USA – have been able to prosper on account of that ability.

They have broken many barriers – overcome all kinds of obstacles – and left all competition far behind in dust!!

What is an extra language or two for individuals blessed with such prolific sharpness! Mere pieces of cake to be lapped up in nanoseconds!

Why, some of my best Tamil friends are more proficient in Hindi than I.

Such is life. It is full of seeming contradictions. Yet, when all is said and done, it is full of turmoil and toils. In the end, we all pay our tolls.

As does the south Indian CODE coolie, who can only communicate through small syllables of English spiced up with large chunks of C-plus-plus floating in a puddle of his native language, who sits on (a possibly oversized) posterior on a cushy chair and does the bidding of foreign masters!

As does the REAL north Indian coolie who earns an honest living on Patna platforms through the sweat of the bro, who works like a dog all day, and needs no sleep medication when the day is done – for he is dog-tired from his real work!

It is meaningless to ask who the better of the lot is!

#64 (continued)

And dear Harimau, as far as the Kargil war is concerned, need I remind you that the Indians WON that war?!!

Re: # 59

Farzana & Dost-Mitter:

Regarding Sam Pitroda, I have personal knowledge of his contribution in C-DOT and Telecommunication industry in India. I know several people with whom he has worked in the U.S.. He launched the program of to develop Indian PBX, and Indian telephone exchanges. These were not only disastrous, and rarely worked. He protected Indian telecommunication market for these C-DOT products at a critical time in the global telecommunication development. India lost time to China in telecom, only several years later Narsimha Rao decided to allow major players to supply telecom gears. He completely misread India did not need local PBX technology. India needed telecom infrastructure, Narsimha Rao fixed this policy several years later.

Anil

Farzana,
Your attempt to study the motives behind the acts of sacrifices is laudable. But seriously, Uma is a small fish in the same pond where in sonia is a shark. Uma can rave and rant but she`ll be nowhere near in dramebaaji as sonia has all of the congress to picth in and cheerlead her act.
Adios

bjkumar # 64,

You are trying to have an intelligent discussion with a simpleton. He`s Dubya`s chela. Sees the world in B&W. TamBrams good- all else suck. All problems in india are due to Naarthies. The only smart ones in india are the southies etc.
If you were to live in the southern part of India, you`ll realise that Tamilians are tolerated and sometimes despiesd in Karnatka, Kerala and AP. I should not generalise, but then the only time there were riots in bangalore were between tamils and kannadigas. No one else in South has issues with Hindi or north indians in general. People in these states know Hindi and yet nurture their local languages with enthusiasm. People from these states are self confident in their respective cultures and don`t feel threatened by outside influences.
So my unsolicted advice to you is to ignore his ramblings on chowk.
Adios

Re: # 66
Anil
There was one good thing about C-DOT though. It allowed a whole generation of Indian engineers to understand the complexities of developing a telecom infrastructure and its associated products. That helped later on . Quite a few people associated with C-DOT did do good work later.

S

``As does the south Indian CODE coolie, who can only communicate through small syllables of English spiced up with large chunks of C-plus-plus floating in a puddle of his native language, who sits on (a possibly oversized) posterior on a cushy chair and does the bidding of foreign masters!
``

Only a technical ignoramus with no concept or clue of information technology would make such a sweepingly idiotic statement.

``As does the REAL north Indian coolie who earns an honest living on Patna platforms through the sweat of the bro, who works like a dog all day, and needs no sleep medication when the day is done – for he is dog-tired from his real work!

It is meaningless to ask who the better of the lot is``

If you really have to ASK such a question, then yes, I suppose it is useless.


Inquirer: Just because PD Tandon was a reactionary does not justofy his being yanked. Nehru did more harm than good to India and shoulda been killed along with Gandhi. Would have been a huge favor to India.

#70 Stuka

Stuka, my darling,

Just like Harry Moe, you miss the point completely! (At least he can plead old age and possible senility, what’s your excuse, bud?)

The comparison was symbolic – the