Cases Against Sonia

[Saradhi]

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/may/17spec4.htm



A senior bureaucrat, who served Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi and is now retired, argued passionately against Sonia Gandhi's candidature for the prime minister's post.



The following were the points he raised, which also sum up the objections of those who are against a foreign-born head of government:



a. When India became independent, those who framed our Constitution felt that those Indians who had migrated to countries such as Mauritius, Fiji, etc during British rule and acquired the citizenship of the country of adoption should have the right and opportunity to aspire to the highest office if they chose to renounce their foreign citizenship, returned to India, and resumed their Indian citizenship. Hence, they did not put a bar on an Indian citizen of foreign origin aspiring to any office. They did not visualise the possibility that one day a foreigner who became an Indian citizen by virtue of marriage might benefit from this provision to become prime minister.



After this loophole surfaced, we should have tried to amend the Constitution. Unfortunately, our politicians did not do it and now they cannot do it because of the fact that since 1989 no political party by itself has had the requisite majority.



Does it mean we have to accept this as an unpleasant reality and live with it, instead of raising it and drawing public attention to it? No. The fact that something cannot be changed does not mean that one should not try to change it.



b. What is legal need not be correct and in the national interest. Till the First World War, women did not have the right to vote in many Western countries. Till the 1970s, women did not have the right to vote in many Swiss cantons. Many men and political conservatives argued that this was the law and women should accept it. Liberals refused, saying what is legal need not be correct. They repeatedly challenged the constitution till it was amended and they were given the right to vote.



c. The argument that in the recent election voters endorsed Sonia's right to become prime minister and rejected J Jayalalithaa and Narendra Modi who had opposed it is misleading. In an election to Parliament or a state assembly, many issues come up. Neither in India nor in any of the Western democracies is a vote interpreted as an endorsement of a candidate or party's stand on all the issues that figured during that election. The fact that Jayalalithaa's party was defeated in every constituency in Tamil Nadu does not mean the people have rejected her case against a person of foreign origin becoming prime minister.



Moreover, the Congress and BJP have won an almost equal number of seats and votes, the difference in favour of the Congress being very small. In other democracies, whenever a single issue assumes tremendous importance, a referendum is held to ascertain the people's views on that issue. In the Swiss cantons where women did not have the right to vote, male-dominated parties argued that since they were winning the election to the assemblies their victory meant the voters agreed with them that women should not have the right to vote. Women did not accept this argument and demanded a referendum on this issue posing a single question to voters: Should women have the right to vote? When the question was posed in this direct manner without confusing it with other issues, the majority voted in favour of giving this right to women.



Similarly, in the UK the country's stand on the European Union constitution is a highly emotive issue. British Prime Minister Tony Blair did not argue that since his party won an overwhelming majority in the last election, the people should be deemed to have supported his and his party's stand on this issue. He has called for a referendum where a single question on this subject will be posed to the voters and they will be asked to vote yes or no. Unfortunately, our Constitution does not provide for a referendum on such emotive issues.



d. There are many countries where persons of foreign origin can aspire to the highest office. Such persons fall in two categories. First, those who migrated from the country to another country, acquired citizenship there, then returned and re-assumed home citizenship, and won elections. Examples are the countries of Eastern Europe. During Communist rule, thousands of their citizens fled to the US, sought political asylum and acquired US citizenship. After Communism collapsed, they renounced US citizenship, returned to their homelands, re-acquired citizenship and contested and won elections. Some of them became presidents and prime ministers. The people accepted them as their own flesh and blood.



e. Whenever a foreigner settles down in another country and applies for local citizenship, he or she is subjected to elaborate enquiries and background checks before citizenship is granted. Sonia Gandhi was not subjected to such detailed checks and enquiries because she was the daughter-in-law of the then prime minister.



f. Even if the law permits it, appointing a person of foreign origin as the prime minister is an insult to our national dignity and pride. The constitutions of dozens of countries in the world do not bar a local citizen of foreign origin from aspiring to the highest office.



g. We may regard Sonia as an Indian citizen. But the Italians and the rest of the Western world look upon her as Italian and not Indian and remember only that her blood is Italian. Six out of 10 foreign newspapers have headlined her election as 'India's first Italian prime minister,' not as 'India's new prime minister.' Is this the way we want the prime minister of our country to be perceived by the rest of the world?



h. As prime minister, she will take decisions involving this country's destiny, war and peace, and will have her finger on the nuclear button. Would we be comfortable if these awesome powers are exercised by a person of foreign origin?



i. Army men and intelligence sleuths are taught the hard way to imbibe in their work culture the intense notion of national pride. Sonia Gandhi's Italian origin will come in their way while saluting her. Do you think the army chief will not hesitate even once while sharing his views with her on national security or the European Union?



j. We know little about her. But those who know her well claim that she is imperious in her behaviour and insecure by nature. Also, she is completely dependent on a durbari culture. Even her supporters agree that she doesn't have her own view on any important matter.



k. Rajiv Gandhi, an Indian by blood, came to office with tremendous popularity and a popular image as Mr Clean. He left office in 1989 discredited because of various scandals, Bofors being the most important. Rajiv himself was not a corrupt man, but he got the image of being corrupt because of his Italian marriage and the alleged influence exercised on the decision-making apparatus in India by his wife's relatives and friends. If the Italians could exercise such influence when the prime minister was hundred percent Indian, what guarantee is there that they will not exercise similar or greater influence when the prime minister is of Italian origin?

[sree]

the matter is settled as of now as she herself rejected the post.. but theres always a need for the constitution to be amended, so that foreign nationals cant hold high offices of the nation





most of the government servents including the civil services people r barred from marring foreign nationals...

[Habitual Perfectionist]

Saradhi....you made quite a few points that make sense. But my question, since a long time and still unanswered, is that when we're running so scared about the foreign hand, why do we forget that all the things that we're scared of a foreigner doing, can very well be committed by indians too.



A lot of people seem to be heaving a sigh of relief on MMS becoming the PM...but isnt it very much possible that the foreign hand, if it wants to, can still call the shots without even being responsible and accountable for anything? We've seen Bal Thackeray as a perfect case in point....Laloo Prasad Yadav is another....of extra-constitutional authorities running governments by remote control.



I'm sure everyone who has been waxing eloquent as well as obnoxious about the foreign origin issue must be thinking of himself/herself as a strong patriot. Its amusing to say the least. Not that I doubt the sincerity of anyone who is anti-Sonia due to the foreigner issue (I too am anti-Sonia but for different reasons). But a patriot would never look at anything with jaundiced eyes; which the people mentioned in this paragraph are.



I request everyone to look at the bigger picture for once. And consider the following points.



(i) Did Sushma Swaraj ever indulge in similar histrionics as now when the parliament was full of history sheeters? I think we have a larger threat to national security from people like Mohd. Shahabuddin & his ilk than Sonai Gandhi.



(ii) While talking about the BJP & Congress getting almost equal no. of seats, we must all agree that if not a mandate FOR Sonia, this was definitely a mandate AGAINST NDA.



(iii) As for background checks, should they exist only for persons of foriegn origin? I know that it'll be an additional burden on the exchequer, but i strongly feel that every candidate contesting elections should go through a background check. And as part of electoral reforms, the EC should also evolve a way wherein only serious candidates enter the fray.



It is not just a question of foreign origins. It calls for watershed electoral reforms. So let's be more mature than 5 year old kids who are scared just because their parents told them, "Shaitaani karoge to buddha baba aake le jayega!!".