Political Dynasties and Intra Party Democracy

What is the problem?

Most Indian political parties tend to become dynastic, they turn into a fiefdoms, usually run by one chieftain, who promotes his kith and kin, promotes nepotism, and does not practice democratic practices within the party, chooses MLA candidates who are subservient, whereby the MLA feels he/she is more accountable to the chieftain than to the people who elected him/her.

Why do most political parties in India tend to become political dynasties?

Many political parties in India, small regional parties and even large national parties, have turned into political dynasties.  This tendency is all pervasive.  The reason for this is that while India as a nation is democratic, the inner workings of a political party in India is not democratic.  The leader of the party is not elected, and if he/she is elected, those elections are mostly sham exercise.  The MLA candidates are handpicked by the chieftain, based on allegiance, loyalty, nepotism, caste equation, and many other attributes, AND NOT elected by the party members of that constituency.  

Without a regulation or a legal mandate, political parties in India are thus free not to practice intra-party democracy.  This is the fundamental problem. 

Only few political parties have been able to instil and practise a small degree of democracy within the party, examples being BJP and the Communist Party.  Most other parties in India, including national parties like Congress and most regional parties in India, have turned into dynasties.

What is the Solution?

Many political parties in various countries have either practiced intra-party democracy voluntarily (like in US), or have mandated it (Germany, Portugal).  Clearly Indian political parties have not practiced it voluntarily.  Therefore mandating it is the solution. 

Like how electoral reforms have been brought, or how RTI was brought about, through an Act of Parliament, political party intra-party democracy can be mandated through an Act of Parliament.  This could also be tied to legalized political party financing to further incentivize.

With that reform, a huge change can be brought into Indian political party functioning. 

What is Intra-Party Democracy?

Intra-party democracy has three essential attributes.

1. Chief Minister candidate should be democratically elected by the elected legislative members.
2. Elected legislated candidate should be democratically elected by the registered party members.
3. Registered party members can be enrolled through free and fair process subject to scrutiny. 

These reforms will substantially put an end to fiefdoms and political dynasties in India. 

Creation of States in India

Download PDF

With the announcement for creation of Telangana, similar demands for separate states have erupted from various other regions in India. One is from Gorkhas, currently in West Bengal, who have been asking for a separate state for nearly hundred years now. The other is Vidarbha from Maharashtra which was proposed by NDA government but was kept in cold storage. Mayawati proposed breaking Uttar Pradesh into four new states. 

Lot of people in India, especially those who are not exactly entangled in Telangana and Andhra issues, are asking one question – when will these divisions end? Will it result in breakup of India? Did Telangana open a Pandora’s Box?

Your vote does not count 2: Internal Party Democracy

[This follows: Your vote does not count.  The related articles are, ‘You did not vote!’, ‘You did not vote!’: Part II]

Republic of India has had valuable experience of nearly sixty years working as a representative parliamentary democracy.  The experiences have shown the strengths of its political system, while clearly exhibiting its weaknesses.  One of the key weaknesses is that Indian political parties do not necessarily follow internal party democracy.  And unless this is legislated and enforced through an external watchdog like Election Commission it can be safely surmised that political parties of India would not implement it voluntarily.  Already a majority of Indians show disenchantment with Indian political system while the faith in the governance is eroding. 

Indian political parties have escaped scrutiny of their inner workings and trappings, thereby undermining Indian democracy.  Indian political parties’ method of selection of candidates and election of its leaders is not transparent, and in fact has all the features of autocratic machinations that are rooted in the very antithesis of a democracy.  These selection methods promote nepotism, sycophancy, promotion of mediocrity, suppression of diverse point of view, unilateralism, apotheosis of certain individuals or families, idolization and veneration of leaders beyond what is considered respectable and reasonable.

The role of political parties in India now stands ambiguous, escaping accountability while getting away with undemocratic methods in choosing the candidates and electing the leaders.  It is generally assumed that ‘primary function of political parties was to link the citizens with the government’ [Sartori].  Yet, a common man in India finds himself disconnected with the government essentially because the political party is acting as the barrier.  Instead of facilitating that link, Indian political parties are monopolizing the access to government denying the common man his participation in the governance of the country.

Your vote does not count

[This follows the previous two articles that I wrote, ‘You did not vote!’, ‘You did not vote!’: Part II]

 

Once again its election time (in Karnataka) and there is a lot of hoopla from Indian media, Election Commission and various outfits, like ‘Volunteer for Better India’, who are urging people to come out and vote in large numbers.  Times of India, 5 May 2013, writes ‘it’s time to get out and vote’, and has started a campaign called ‘Vote Maadi’.  The Election Commission has set itself a target of achieving 75% turnout (from the previous 65%).

 

One Kannada Actress writes in Times of India, 6 May 2013: 

 

Felt like a responsible citizen after casting my vote.  People should vote for better leadership and government, and stop complaining about bad governance.

[Shweta Srivastav, Kannada Actress]

 

And a film director writes: 

People who haven’t voted have no right to complain about the new government.  In fact, they have missed out on a great opportunity to bring about a change in the administration.

[Kavitha Lankesh, Film Director]

 

There is a misconception that is being propagated wildly in India that voting in huge numbers will somehow bring good governance.  And therefore the myth, that to be a responsible citizen one has to vote.  I argued in the first two articles that every citizen has a right to criticize the leadership and the government, and that includes those citizens who have not voted.  In fact, democracy cannot be just about elections that come every five years, but it should be seen as a continuous process where the citizen continues to play a role – not limiting it to voting on the election-day. 

Bengal leads India into abyss

The report card is out.  Mamata Banerjee, the new love of Bengalis worldwide, is far more Left than the Left.   Mamata Banerjee is not only more Left, she is far less democratic than the communists of India.  She is autocratic, averse to criticism, and does not tolerate dissent.  It is unfortunate that Bengalis are now thrown from frying pan into fire.  But it is not just Bengalis who should be worried.  In fact, whole of India should be concerned.

What happens in Bengal could happen to India.   Bengal is the place where Great Britain installed their first capital city to create the Indian Empire.  Bengalis then led India into our own version of enlightenment, if there is one.   When most of us in the hinterland lands of India were still dwelling in forests, Bengalis were discussing Aristotle and Socrates.  The sun first shone in Bengal and then over the rest of India, literally and figuratively.  Bengalis were one of the forerunners of Indian National Movement contributing many great men and women to the cause.  During the 19^th century, Bengal’s stars shone the brightest in the sky.  It produced many authors,  artists, and scientists.  Rabindranath Tagore won Asia’s first Nobel Prize. 

Scrap Rajya Sabha

The recent jokes surrounding introduction of the film actress Rekha to Rajya Sabha thereby creating Silsila, an old Indian movie about a triangle love story right inside the Indian Parliament (because Jaya Bhacchan was already there), and then other debates on whether Sachin Tendulkar, the prominent cricket sportsman, should spend his time in Rajya Sabha instead of a cricket field throw open some hard questions on the relevance of Rajya Sabha. 

The debate is no longer about who should be allowed or what qualifications one needs to have to enter into Rajya Sabha.  The debate is far more fundamental.  Do we even need Rajya Sabha?

Telangana 84: Political parties are not representatives of the people

The current UPA political leadership has completely distorted Indian democracy and misinterpreted Indian Constitution, the consequences of which are dire for the future of this nation.  There is an urgent need to correct the wrong perceptions that have been floated in the last two years – there are many of them.  One such instance is where the political parties are being recognized as legal democratic representatives of the people.   For the last two years, UPA political leadership has cited lack of unanimity or consensus within recognized political parties in Andhra Pradesh to stall any decision making on Telangana. 

Repeated references to apparent division of opinion within political parties, that there should be consensus within each political party, that not all political parties are in agreement, comes from our wrong understanding of role of a political party in Indian democracy.   Because of this wrong understanding, we tend to address the issue by looking for wrong solutions which are not even required in the first place.   Trying to get unanimity amongst all political parties is a foolish endeavor to start with, and it can be achieved only in dictatorships or on those issues which are considered universally applicable, but is never possible on contentious issues where people are starkly divided.  If we seek unanimity on all contentious issues, no bill will ever be passed in the Parliament, and no decision will ever be taken.

Such wrong understanding of Indian Constitution and Indian democracy has to be combated expediently.  Many Telanganas are falling prey to this argument right now.  Instead of rejecting the questions posed to us, and instead of exposing the utter chicanery in the underlying assumptions, Telanganas are trying to defend themselves by answering the questions. 

Telangana 83: Political Movement has failed

Know thy adversary

For a long time now, we in Telangana believed that the sole reason why Telangana is not formed is because of the opposition from Seemandhra leaders supported by Samaikhyandhra movement. Therefore, we expressed our ire and anger at these bodies and institutions.   We continue to do so even now.  However, there is a gradual realization that the most important reason why Telangana is not formed is because of the apathetic and obdurate Central Government in New Delhi. 

It is the UPA political leadership which is the main reason why Telangana is not formed.  The notion that Seemandhra leaders and Samaikhyandhra agitators are throwing the spanner in the works is being meticulously exaggerated and used as a pretext to drive something what UPA political leadership wants – to keep the issue in the storage, if not cold, but in lukewarm status, till a time arrives when a massive political mileage can be obtained from resolving the issue (or from non-resolving the issue). UPA political leadership has no sincere interest to resolve the issue now.

Nixon, Indira and Lokpal Bill

Indians should know about Watergate Scandal, because it is an interesting story, with lot of lessons to be learnt.  It is a story of a country and its people which fought to defend its democratic institutions from various encroachers; sometimes the encroacher was the President of the country. 

Richard Nixon

In the early 1970s, United States of America was rocked by Watergate Scandal.  On 17 June 1972, few men were arrested for breaking into Democratic Party’s office in Watergate Complex. These men were there to plant bugs in the opposition party’s office with the consent of President of United States, Richard Nixon. These men were later convicted for attempted interception of telephone and other communications against wiretapping laws.

When the complicity of the President of United States was discovered and published by sagacious and committed journalists of Washington Post and New York Times, the people of United States, who were educated to value and defend their democratic institutions rose up in genuine anger.  Nixon tried to stall the proceedings by invoking special privileges of a President.  The court ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes which established his involvement.  The eventual prosecution and hearings found Nixon guilty of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.  When the House of Representatives started formal procedures to impeach Nixon, he resigned.  His political career was over.  That’s how Nixon paid the price for subverting the much cherished institutions of United States of America.  He remained a disgraced President (though later day historians feebly attempted to resurrect his former image). 

Venal Journalism in India

Modern secular democracies who define themselves as ‘free’ nations have not come about just like that.  It was a tortuous journey of nearly thousand years where the common man fought against the powerful regents and institutions who believed they had a divine mandate and hence divine right to rule over the people with absolutism.   Regents or the Religions manifesting as the State was the most powerful enemy of the common man for millennia, ready to strip him of his rights at the pretext of protecting him from imagined threats. 

 A modern nation defined and built institutions to protect the common man from the tyranny of the state, ensuring there were enough checks and balances to protect democracy from being subverted by the State or the powerful groups.   The role of independent media was crucial to ensure democracy was protected from being hijacked by these vested groups. 

And yet, we see an ominous trend in India where the media houses, instead of making an independent investigation, instead of conducting a free debate, instead of checking the powerful groups from usurping the freedoms of the common man, have start aligning themselves with the State and the powerful lobbies, acting as their mouthpieces, engaging in subversion of democracy.

Managing States in India

[This follows the post titled ‘When will these state divisions stop?’ Here I discuss some recommendations and other observations.  You have to read the previous post before you read this.]

There are two initial conditions for the current set of problems we are facing where many regions are clamoring for new states.

Problem 1: The center was averse, reluctant and sometimes downright opposed to formation of new states in India equating it to balkanization of the country.

Problem 2: India being a weak-federal strong-central country, the incumbent states like to remain big so that their bigger strength in the Parliament gives them better negotiating terms.

These two problems form the premise for most of the problems that we are facing with various neglected regions in India.   There are two ground realities that emanate from the diversity of this country.

Reality 1: Though there are many states in India, we do not recognize various kinds of identities in India.  While some identities got statehoods, others did not.   Many states have one majority identity clubbed with few or many minority identities. 

Reality 2: All individuals and all identities work with self-interest.  If unchecked, a majority and privileged group could inadvertently dominate and marginalize the minority and underprivileged group within a state, even when no preset agenda or a plan exists.

Over a prolonged period of time, the above two problems combined with above two ground realities could result in the following situation.

Situation

Imagine a state where region A forms the majority and the privileged while region B forms the minority and the underprivileged.  Reality 1 and Reality 2 suggests that there should be safeguards, protections, guarantees and reservations to protect people of region B.  In most states of India those safeguards and protections do not exist because of shortsightedness and reluctance of India to recognize those identities as valid constituents. 

And where those safeguards and protections exist, like in Andhra Pradesh, the region A could still flout them with impunity using the clout of majority; and there is nothing the region B could do other than complain, protest, agitate, and in the worst case scenario ask for separate statehood. 

When the region B clamors for separate statehood, the incumbent state will be unwilling to let go of this region no matter what, because of Problem 2 – they don’t want to become smaller.  All efforts by region B to get attention from the Center will be snubbed, because of Problem 1 – center doesn’t want to create more states.  

So how do we get out of such situations? Here I propose some of the possible methods.

To Caste or not

When the current population census in India for 2011 got underway, I was really sad that it did not include information on caste.   India has been recording the data on SC/STs but not on OBCs.  The last census on OBCs was done in 1931 by the British.  

Indians have tumultuous relationship with caste.  While caste continues to dominate one’s life, decide one’s food habits, select one’s spouse, and determine one’s access to education and opportunity, the elite and modern Indians do not like to discuss about it.   Though it is a dominant identity, sometimes more dominant than religion or sex, that determines the fate of an individual in nearly 75% of India, most of us living in cities like to believe that caste is a shameful identity of the archaic past.  

In reality, one cannot escape caste so easily even in cities.  Though there are Tamils, Telugus and Malayalee in my apartment complex, close family relationships are maintained along casteist lines. So how did these people discover other’s caste?  They do so by many means, by one’s food habits, one’s last names, and sometimes through the maids who seem to be the conduit for such information disclosing the caste of other families to the curious minds.

While we are quite OK to gather official information on language, religion, and sex, why are we reluctant to gather information on caste, especially when the socio-economic status of an individual has such strong correlation with one’s caste, more so than with any other identity?  When caste is such an important identity why shy away from collecting scientific data on castes in India?

Women’s Bill in the Parliament

Usually I refrain from writing about topics on which I have not made up my mind.  Here’s one topic where I have not made up my mind but still decided to write about.  It is about Women’s Bill in the Parliament.  With passing of this bill, India is going to reserve 33% of the seats in Parliament and State Assemblies to women. 

At the outset, I am happy that such a bill is coming into existence.  We are going to set a great example in the world if we have many women parliamentarians and ministers. India has emancipated some of its women through series of steps, started during British Empire where sati was banned and women were allowed into schools through Independence Movement where we saw women standing shoulder to shoulder with men. 

When will these state divisions stop?

Once P Chidambaram set the ball rolling for separation of Telangana state on 9^th December 2009, there were similar demands coming from various other regions in India. One was from Gorkhas, currently in West Bengal, who have been asking for a separate state for a long time now. The other is Vidarbha from Maharashtra which was proposed even by NDA government but was kept in cold storage. Mayawati proposed trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh into Bundelkhand, Hitesh Pradesh, and Purvanchal.
 

Lot of people, especially those who are not exactly entangled in Telangana and Andhra issues, are asking one question – when will these divisions end? Will it result in breakup of India? It looks like Telangana has opened a Pandora’s Box.
 

Doubts about India

Many British politicians including Winston Churchill prognosticated that India will instantly break up into hundred pieces because they will fight each other and go separate way. Many other observers of those times felt the same. Just look at India of 1947. It had so many religions, so many cultures, so many languages, and so many kingdoms. It looked similar to multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual Europe. How could such a continent live as a country?
 

And yet it looks like we have disproved many pundits. India is going strong in economy, human development, science and technology, industry, agriculture, military, etc. India remains a vibrant, strong and united nation even after sixty years.
 

On Caste Politics in India

Mayawati represents the exact anti-thesis of how I want a leader to be. Yet, she spearheads a political party that gives political power to the untouchables of India. Should I be sad or should I be happy that we have such a leader?

Indian lower caste groups act in two contradicting ways when it comes to dealing with their caste identity vis-à-vis India’s upper castes.

As groups, they continue to fight the upper caste and hence would like to identify themselves as different from the upper caste. In this respect, they would like to play the victim card to bargain for the maximum number of sops and benefits to uplift the lower caste. But as individuals, they like to move up the social and economic scale, and this apparently means emulating and behaving more like upper castes.

At an individual and family level, as Indian lower castes become prosperous, they would start becoming more like upper castes of India. Their rituals become similar to upper caste Hindus. Though the leader of untouchables, Ambedkar, urged them to renounce Hinduism to take up Buddhism, the present generation of Dalits would like to upgrade themselves to look and feel more like upper caste Hindus. The lower caste families that are well-off now start going to the Hindu temples, become extremely devout, invite the priest to conduct their rituals, and have deities at home the way an upper caste person would have. They would go through the same ceremonies that were denied to them for ages, with aplomb and satisfaction. At an individual level, a lower caste Hindu is trying to become upper caste though he denies that accusation at a group level.

India has a history of castes moving up and down the hierarchy. The founders of Maurya dynasty were lower caste, but once they became the rulers, they were given the status of upper caste. In the course of Indian history, many kings and noble families have moved up the hierarchy and thus elevated their own groups ranking.

The same trend continues, but now, there is a vested interest for lower caste to remain lower caste, at least in the legal system – because of sops like reservations, scholarships, etc. Therefore the lower castes will retain their lower caste labels, while the individuals and families will compete against each other to act and behave more and more like upper caste. Not all caste groups move up at the same time. Not all groups wield power and access to opportunity the same way. There is a race amongst these different lower castes on who is going to get to the upper caste status first. We will see different lower castes behaving differently during their upward mobility.

Caste-based Political Parties

When the lower caste parties, who woo their lower caste vote banks, come to power they start behaving exactly similar to other political leaders who preceded them. One cannot see the difference between the two. They start acting like the very masters they toppled.

Once the points on their victim card start running out, in an attempt to consolidate their position and to garner more votes, they affiliate with most unlikely caste groups. For example, in UP, we see lower caste groups in alliance with Brahmins and Rajputs, the very upper caste masters they came about to topple.

Emancipation of lower castes of India is a long journey. It may take few generations. It will involve many mechanisms and tools – it will involve reservations, sops, scholarships, free meals, and also the major social movements including formation of political parties dominated by caste affiliations. This is a journey for all of us, from an origin which is quite distasteful, surfeit with ill treatment of fellow human beings, discrimination, ostracism, persecution to a destination which promises utopia, where a man is judged not by his caste but by his character.

One of the sad aspects of such journeys is that it will throw up leaders who are not actually qualified by their character, but more by their affiliation.

One of the outcomes of these journeys is a future when each caste group would have almost similar access to political power (and hopefully opportunity). In theory, it is a time when every group is equally capable of coming to power.

I hope that such events and trends, not going the wrong way, would help Indians come to an understanding that we are all equal. Once we reach a stage where almost every group is represented adequately, our people may start looking for certain traits in a leader other than the mere affiliations to a certain group or identity. Hopefully, we may then learn to choose those leaders who are not just symbols of our identities but capable of delivering on basic expectations of equal citizens.

Indian middle class

Indian upper middle class and the elite news and media abhor and detest leaders like Lalu and Mayawati. When they do that, they are apparently scorning that lower caste Indian who these leaders represent. Such distancing and abhorring will in fact help these leaders in their cause. It’s exactly what these leaders want – a disapproval from the elite society of India. Their popularity soars because they will show to their vote banks once again that they are victimized by the elite and upper caste (not very different from how Narendra Modi plays his sympathy card that he is being targeted by the mainstream media and secular parties).

Lower caste will behave like upper caste

My observation is that with upward mobility, more and more of the lower caste would become equals to upper caste in terms of political and social power. While that is being achieved, the families and individuals of the lower caste will start behaving more and more like upper caste Hindus- even if that means going against the same tenets that actually spurred their revolution.

This also means they will identify more and more closely with upper caste Hindu behaviors and sentiments. They will detest and decry conversion of their fellow lower castes (who are poor) to other religions. They will identify themselves more with Vedas, the grand Indian history, and will try to seek their own place in that pantheon of ancient achievements. If needed, they will reinterpret the events of the pasts to condone the extremities meted out to them with some flawed and distorted logic.

They will make a U-turn to oppose and criticize the reservations-based-on-caste because it reminds them of their lowly origins. They would like to detach and disassociate with all the crutches and helping hands, special provisions and sops, the way a cripple who got a new leg would spurn his erstwhile crutch. They like to roll back those reservations which helped their fathers to get a jumpstart. They would like to deny these benefits to others who have not yet received them yet.

They will fight for preservation of Bharat Sanskruti more vehemently and vociferously – by joining the parades to denounce Miss Universe pageants and Valentine Day celebrations. In effect, they will become more ritualistic, superstitious and irrational just to prove to themselves (and others whom they are competing against) that they are equal to upper caste Hindus.

This would also mean a resurgence of Hindutva Movement on an unprecedented scale, where the middle class now comprises a huge lower caste community, where neoconverts are actually more fanatic. The enemies – Muslims, Christians, Communists, the intellectuals - would be hated with more fervor and passion.

These are some of the trends I disapprove of. Now, just because the upward mobility of lower castes of India would lead to resurgence of the movements I dislike, should I discourage that upward mobility?

Of course not!

That brings me back to Mayawati. Am I happy or sad? I am both happy and sad looking at leaders like that. But I would not stop her from taking up her cudgels against those who she thinks are her masters. If she wants to topple her masters, let her do it, in her own way. I may not subscribe to her methods, but as long as they are legal, and within the framework of Indian Constitution, I am not against her.

President Drama in India

We are poised to get a new President. UPA (led by Congress Party) has proposed Pratibha Patil, NDA (led by BJP) has proposed Bhairon Singh Shekawat, while the rest (comprising many regional parties, which formed a new front called UNPA) proposed Kalam once again.

The newspapers and media are having a field day, the blogs and forums are filled with many opinions. What is my take on this?

First, I don't think we need a President. We have had so many presidents. Of what use were they to us? Other than the fact that we remember their names for the sake of answering exam questions and quiz tests, we don’t really associate them with anything remarkable. What did KR Narayanan do? Can we name a single worthwhile act? What did illustrious Kalam do?

The worst punishment you can give to a very dynamic and effective individual in India is to make him/her a President. Once he or she becomes a President all action stops. That is the worst thing that can happen to someone who believes in action. He becomes a rubber stamp, a ‘face’, a mannequin in a window of a big shop. He smiles, shakes hands and throws some clichés in speeches. Whatever Kalam did, he did before he became the President of India. Once he became the President, his actions stopped. These five years were such a waste of time for him.

Why do we need this figurehead anyway? It’s such a waste of time and resources, time and money. I believe strongly that we don't need a President of India. Instead, the Prime Minister post can be combined with this post, and he/she could be elected directly by the people (instead of intermediaries who seem to hijack the will of the people).

Merit and President of India

On one of the forums that I was discussing, one commenter suggested that the contest between Kalam and Pratibha Patil will be a contest of merit and quota politics.

Now if Kalam accepts, then this will be a contest between merit and quota politics.

I don't know what is so meritorious about Kalam? Is being an engineer and heading a missile program a necessary qualification to become a President of India? Or being a bachelor or Muslim a qualification to become a President of India? What is merit got to do with becoming President?

If ever there is any qualification, I would assume that it would be some experience in politics of India- its administration, its elections, being accountable to a democratic institution- which Kalam fails on all counts. On the other hand, this lady - Pratibha Patil - is actually 'meritorious' compared to Kalam on all counts. She was a lawyer, an administrator, a politician, an elected people's representative, and a governor (acting as caretaker of constitution).

Indians grow up NOT knowing what merit is all about. They want to associate it with everything including elected leaders of India. Since they are used to writing exams, getting ranks, they think that Indian leaders should also go through the same process. The yuppie urban Indians who get educated in protected environs would rather select their MPs/MLAs through an entrance test. That way they can attend some tutorial schools, mug up for the exam to become the legislators of this country.

Come to think of it, Indians CANNOT have Bill Gates or Steve Jobs EVER because we will always measure a person by his degree, which school he went to in kindergarten, which college he attended, how many certifications he passed, what was his rank in IAS, etc.

Sonia Gandhi Contests Again

Today's news says that Sonia Gandhi will contest elections from Rae Bareli on May 8.

Why did Sonia Gandhi resign in the first place?

She did so, because there were some allegations regarding her holding an office of profit. Which office was this? It was NAC (National Advisory Council)- don't even know what that office is all about. Anyway, if she was offended or affected by the allegations, she should have resigned from NAC, which she did. But why the hell did she resign from the position of MP (Member of Parliament)? Wasn't this complete betrayal of people who have voted her into power in the first place? Were there any allegations regarding her misconduct as an MP? I don't think any one was talking about it. Is giving up the position of responsibility an act of sacrifice? Imagine, I am a General in defending army. My people and my leaders put faith in me to defend the nation better. And suddenly I resign and call it 'act of sacrifice'. I don’t think I will get away with that. It is usually called 'desertion', or 'betrayal' or 'cowardice'. That's what Sonia Gandhi actually did by resigning from the position of MP.

Now, why is she contesting again?

Did she not say that she is not interested in power, and that she is only there to serve the people and the nation? If that was a good reason to resign from the position of MP, why is she contesting once again?

Do we really need this election?

I mean, people had already voted her into power. For no apparent reason, she resigned, and for no apparent reason, there is another election to get back into power. What is this game all about? Did the elections become so trivial? It takes lot of money, lot of time from many officials, and lot of energy on part of people to actually vote.

Why all this drama? And why are the intellectuals of our nation (that includes our Prime Minister) call her a ‘tall leader’?

Juanita Gandhi resigns again

I am taking you forward by 30 years. The date is March 24, 2036. Here’s the news column from that time.

Putting an end to the recent spate of allegations, Juanita Gandhi has offered her resignation from the post of MP from Rae Bareilly. This de facto leader of the nation has in the recent past already ‘sacrificed’ the post for PM and refused to become the leader of Congress Party resulting in massive popularity for her in this nation. Now, in response to new allegations regarding undisclosed assets in Colombia, her native nation, Juanita Gandhi has resigned from the post of MP, once again causing mass hysteria and protests across the nation which may bring Congress party back to power after the recent dismal defeat in the elections. Most of the analysts predict that she may not take up the position of PM (once gain) and instead would pave the way for her 27-year old son’s future (just like what Sonia Gandhi did for Rahul thirty years ago). The son, Arman Gandhi (whose purported actual name is Armanno, just like the way his dad’s was Raul and aunt’s was Bianca) grew up in Colombia since his mother spent most of the time in that nation.

There are many parallels to story of Sonia and Juanita. Rahul and Juanita met in Harvard while studying and got married in 2005 in a very closely guarded wedding ceremony held in Colombia. Though she spent her first three years in India while Rahul was canvassing for the next election, she decided to move to Colombia with her newly born son Arman. Rahul stayed back in India, won the sympathy of people by ‘sacrificing family life for the sake of the nation’, to become the next PM continuing the grand lineage of Gandhi family. Juanita was least interested in Indian politics and spent most of her time in Colombia away from her husband. There were many reports of her lavish life style where each of her trips to India resulted in a transfer of plane-full of goods. Rahul practically lived as a single man in India. Due to a sudden and massive cardiac arrest, Rahul died in 2031 plunging the nation into a mourning state. This event prompted Juanita and her son to come back to the country to attend the funeral during which the people of India (especially the Congress Party) requested and pleaded Juanita and her son Arman to embrace this country and lead it. They called her ‘Choti Bahu’ (since ‘Bahu’ was already taken up her mother-in-law Sonia Gandhi) and the history kind of repeated once again here. In the elections that followed Rahul’s death, the Congress party won by a huge majority resulting in beeline of Congress Party leaders at 10 Janpath, ancestral home of Gandhis, urging, lamenting and requesting Juanita to become the PM of the nation. In a major act of ‘sacrifice’ which closely resembled what Sonia did many years ago, she declined to lead the nation citing her ‘inner voice’ as the reason. That immediately led people to equate her to Mother Teresa, Annie Besant and her own mother-in-law Sonia Gandhi (now popularly revered as ‘Bahu of the nation’). She however stayed back in the country and ‘pledged to restore the greatness of Gandhi family’ and strove to work ‘for the betterment of the nation’. In the whole course of these proceedings, swept by the bereavement of the whole nation at the loss of its leader, nobody bothered to verify if Juanita was an Indian citizen. It was discovered that she never took up the Indian citizenship and she was practically an alien when she was offered the post of the PM. However, in a hush-hush affair, her citizenship was granted by passing a new ordinance in haste, which entitled a spouse automatic citizenship without voluntarily asking for it. Therefore, Juanita became the citizen of India long ago, when she married Rahul- without actually asking or applying for it. Having solved the legal issue of her citizenship, which haunted her mother-in-law long ago, she became the icon, the leader and champion of the Congress party. While Juanita and her newly formed coterie ruled the party and the politics Rajashekar became the puppet PM.

Her refusal to take up the role of PM is very similar to the first few sacrifices made by Sonia thirty years ago and it looks like Juanita has understood the pulse of Indian people much like her mother-in-law. She has refused to give any interviews and spoke from well-rehearsed and written speeches. She took on a low profile while promoting Arman for different cadre positions. She cited ‘her inner voice’ as explanation to many questions without ever having to be accountable or responsible for any decision or action of hers. This seems to have worked well for her mother-in-law and now it is working for Juanita Gandhi as well.

The present controversy, which alleges that Juanita has funneled funds into her native country, that she led a lavish life style where she owned palaces and estates, drove Ferraris and expensive cars, that she has one of the biggest jewelry collections in the world was swept aside by the power of ‘sacrifice’. Yesterday, she burst out in tears on TV while announcing her resignation of MP position saying that she was ‘hurt deeply by these accusations’ especially when she is still mourning her dead husband. She said that she was ‘deeply anguished’ by the ‘false allegations’ and that the only thing she could do was resign. When asked why she has resigned instead of facing the charges to clear her name using legal methods, she said that she has ‘listened to her inner voice’ and that she ‘cannot stoop to the level of the those who are giving bad name to Gandhi family’. She added that she 'would continue fighting for her family and for her nation’. Many analysts feel that she would contest when the allegations are swept under the carpet.

To those who were present during the Sonia Gandhi's ascendancy to the power 25 years when she nominated her son to the post of PM, this comes as complete playback. It looks like Juanita has mastered the art of seducing Indians just the way her mother-in-law has done using the power of ‘sacrifice’. Arman Gandhi is just waiting on the sidelines to get into the arena that her mom prepared.

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!