Foreign-born as my PM

This is what I wrote in 2003-2004 when Sonia Gandhi was about to become Prime Minister of India. Fortunately, it was Manmohan Singh who became the PM. Whew!

I wrote the following on my white board in my cube. I was working at an Indian company in Bangalore back then.

**
CELEBRATION (Reason: India to be ruled by an Indian-born – for now)

This is purely apolitical (non-political) reason- its do with matters of sovereignty, of self-esteem & self-dignity, and of national security.

**

Some agreed with this message, some did not. Some said that I was a 'true patriot and a true Indian'. I am not sure what means. Such words are quite confusing sometimes. Are you a patriot if you support India and all its policies? If so, does a patriot speak up when some fellow Indians (like in Kashmir and North-east) are being ruled at gunpoint? I would rather not be labeled with any of those adulations. Most of those whom I met in my cube admitted plainly that they haven't given this issue much thought- they did not dwell on it mostly because they thought it was a ‘political’ issue. Indian media refers to it as foreign-born ‘issue’- giving it a political flavor. I think something is an issue when there are different versions to a story- like 'Bofors issue', 'Ayodhya issue', etc. where in people have a different take on it- some believe in it, some are opposed to it. I don’t understand why Sonia Gandhi being 'foreign-born' is an issue? Everybody knows where she is born. There is no contention on that. It’s not an issue, rather it’s a fact we have to deal with. 

Indian media quotes phrases from different constitutions of the world and says- '35 countries allow foreign-borns to be their country's leader'. Now, what about the rest-of-180 or odd countries? The news item should have read- '180 countries DO NOT allow a foreign born as their leader'. Lets look at some of these countries that do allow. Take for example, Belgium & Netherlands. While their constitution do not disallow any foreign born, will the people and political parties allow it? How many of Belgium's Prime Ministers were non-European, non-Belgian, non-white, non-Christian, non-Catholic? NONE! So, their constitution might not disallow, but people would not even dream or hallucinate of having a foreign-born individual as their Prime Minister. No constitution explicitly states that a person should not be mentally ill. It’s up to the people to make that judgment. Right here, right now, we are NOT judging. We are just accepting things as they come. US does not allow a foreign-born to become its President. Germany allows any German- he/she could be born anywhere. But to become a German, one of your parents has to be a German. No exceptions on that. Even the third-generation Turkish immigrants are not given German citizenship. They are born and then they die in Germany- but they are still Turkish.

Indians are all welcoming. That's a good trait. Anyone who is married to an Indian is eligible to become an Indian- any one living here for certain period of time is eligible to become an Indian. That’s good. Let Mother Teresa come to India, let Annie Besant come to India, let Katrina Kaif come to India, Let Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan come to India, Let Palestine study in India, let Nepalis work in India. Let Europeans set up Industry in India, let an American become a CEO in India. BUT PLEASE, make some one who is Indian-born our Prime Minister. Is that a lot to ask from our liberal-secular-multilingual Indian media and Congressmen? [Just for the kicks- here is a hypothetical question- would we have a accepted a black Nigerian as our Prime Minister if Rajiv Gandhi was married to one, or a Vietnamese? Think about it].

My opposition to foreign-born as our Prime Minister is simple.

Prime Minister is the supreme leader of India (whether we like to say it that way or not). She is the one who will represent India in all international forums. She will be the one who will be our messenger, our ambassador and our icon. She is the one who will have access to all vital secrets. She is the one who may have to vote against NATO countries (read Italy) in UN. She will be the one who will have to oppose a war led by NATO country. She is the one who will decide the fates of millions in case of a war.

She is raised in a different cultural setting with different value systems, different ethos and pathos. She can't be the one who doesn't know what it means to grow up as an Indian kid. She can't be the one who does not know what it is to be under colonial rule. She can't be the one who doesn't know what it means to be brown.

Some intellectuals reason that 'Sonia is more Indian than many other Indians'. Isn't she the one who ran for cover during Emergency? If I am more European than a European, will Europe allow me as one of their Prime Ministers? Does she know how an Indian mind reacts to an alien war, or a calamity, or an emotional issue?

Its gross ignominy that we had our independence just 50 years ago, and we are already clobbering on the floor to make another European-born as our head. Winston Churchill was opposed to Indian Independence. He said that we would not be able to rule ourselves. He thought that it was European responsibility to rule us. We may prove that he is right. Instead, why can't we celebrate our plurality and liberal attitude now because we have a Muslim President and Sikh PM? That's a great leap for a 50-year old democracy! That’s good enough for us in 50 years. We will have enough time to remove the boundaries of nations, mix all the races in a coffee cup, and throw caste system in to Indian Ocean. For now, I want an Indian-born to be my PM. Is that too much to ask?

PS: I can think of one country that made a foreign born their President. Peru made a Japanese-born their President. When things got tough, he took a plane with all cash, etc, went to Japan, and settled down as Japan's citizen :) So much for being more Peruvian than a Peruvian!