RE: sonias as house maid .....FROM A REDIFF.COM

[Guest guest]

a senior bureaucrat, who had 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 the 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 Jayalalitha 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 all constituencies 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 the 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 elections 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 Europen Union constitution is a

highly emotive issue. 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.

Second, foreigners who settle down in another country and acquire its

citizenship. There are, to my knowledge, only three examples and all of them

ended in disaster — Miss Hope Cook in Sikkim, who married the chogyal,

acquired local citizenship, and got recognised as the queen of Sikkim; Alberto

Fujimori, a Japanese citizen who migrated to Peru, acquired Peruvian

citizenship, and got elected president; and Mahendra Chaudhry, an Indian who

migrated to Fiji, acquired its citizenship, and became prime minister.

Indira Gandhi herself suspected Hope Cook of being a CIA agent and asked Indian

intelligence to keep her under surveillance. Ultimately, a public uprising

brought down the chogyal and Hope Cook fled Sikkim. Fujimori was overthrown in

a public uprising. He fled to Japan and re-acquired Japanese citizenship. The

Japanese government has refused to extradite him to Peru, on the ground that he

is a Japanese citizen, to face trial in corruption and other cases pending

against him. Mahendra Chaudhry was overthrown in a military coup and native

Fijians have since amended the Constitution to prevent a similar contingency in

future. Native Fijians suspected Chaudhry of being an Indian agent who was

promoting Indian interests.

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. But in how many of them have

citizens of foreign origin succeeded in becoming the prime minister or

president? Two. Peru and Fiji. Are Indians proud to be in their company? Have

we carefully examined their bitter experiences after choosing a local citizen

of foreign origin as the president or prime minister?

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 influence exercised on the decision-making apparatus in India

by his wife's relatives. If the Italians could exercise such influence when the

prime minister was hundred per cent Indian, what guarantee is there that they

will not exercise similar or greater influence when the prime minister is of

Italian origin?

John Aldrich

[johnaldrichinc ]Monday, May 17, 2004 11:00 AMTo:

Subject: Re: sonias as house maid

........BJP/VHP/RSS learn a lesson.Dear Harish Trivedi Ji,I fully agree with

you. I also am amazed by themisinformation that the various political parties

arespreading. At the time when Sonia Gandhi was Marriedto Rajiv Gandhi, the

Indian Citizenship act did notprovide for obtaining Indian Citizenship for any

womanon account of marriage. And hence Sonia Gandhi couldnot obtain the

citizenship.It was in the year 1987 when Rajiv Gandhi was thePrime Minister ,

he moved this bill in the Parliamentto allow foreign woman married to Indian me

to obtaincitizenship. The moment this amendment was madewherein a foreign woman

married to an Indian citizencan now opt for Indian citizenship, the first woman

todo so was Sonia Gandhi.It is unfortunate that the politicians are

takingadvantage of the silence that Sonia is keeping totheir Ravings and

Rantings and are misinforming thepeople that she did not want Indian

citizenship tillher husband became PM.Those who make these kind of comments,

please go backto the Indian Citizenship Act and check as to when theamendments

were made and as to who was the very firstperson to have obtained the Indian

Citizenship afterthe amendment in 1987 and you will find that it isSonia

Gandhi.Lastly, all those so called patriots had a greatopportunity to win over

the electorate and get anIndian as a leader. But when you could not do so in

ademocratically conducted process, why now behavehypocritically when the

majority has elected her. Itis not that the Congress did not propogate that

shewill ot be the PM. In fact, the entire allinace ofCongress did mention that

Sonia will be the PM if theyare going to be elected to power. When this

commitment has been made to the electorateand the citizens of India have chosen

to vote for theparty to make her the PM, why now again createproblems. This only

shows the contmept that one hastowards the democratic process and do not want

torespect the sentiments of the majority.While all over the world there are

Indian origin/Indian born people, namely in Singapore, (The PM isIndian origin)

Indonesia ( The president was born inOrissa in India), Mauritius, Fiji,

Trinidad, and mostof Caribbean Islands, South Africa US and UK that havebecome

presidents, PM's Parliamentarians, Senators,Ministers etc and we have been

proud of it, But whenour own majority has chosen her, why are we notwilling to

accept the majority opinion. Who are we to make judgemental statements that

themajority is wrong. The more we start opposing the moresympathy is what she

will get. Look at Tamilnadu.Jayalalitha went on casting personal aspersions

andresorted to Character assasination of Sonia and thepeople ensured that every

congress candidate exceptone, won with over 1 lakhs vote majority.So, if we

beleive we are right, then let us worktowards highlighting the leadership

qualities ofIndian born nationals and work towards the nextelection, without

casting aspersions on poor haplessSonia.Regards, --- chaturth_kaal

<chaturth_kaal > wrote:> > > Dear Friends,> It pains me so much when

politicians , > who have lost mandate,> Who have lost face,> Who have lost self

esteem,> who have lost everything > > Have taken up FOREIGNNESS of Smt.Sonia

Gandhi.> In olden days, Kings married queens from different> countries.>

Dasharatha was married to Kaikeya Kings daughter and> Koshal Kings > daughter.

Present day princly states marry their> daughters to prince > of Nepal etc and

they all accepted foreign queens> as Rajmata and > their children Rama, Bharata

etc were accepted.> In fact Rama was the plank of BJP and VHP on which> they

fought > electionswhose mother was a foreigner in Ayodhya.> > Very same people

are not ready to accept Sonia> Gandhi as PM?> In such a case, Advani is a

Foreigner being born in> Sindh.> All sindhis have Greko Roman blood in them.

They are> the decendents > of the army of Alexander and Selucus. If He can>

become deputy prime > minister. Then why not Mrs.Sonia Gandhi be Prime>

Minister?> > Which of the present day BJP leader has sacrificed> their husband,

> mother in law, to terrorism ?> I pity Sushma swaraj and Her husband (and>

Govindacharya). Nothing > but stark opportunism is evident in their refusal

to> attend Rajya > sabha.Their threat to resign is a political gimmick.> They

want to rise the ladder in BJP with future> rewards in view.> > When are they

going to understand that Religious> fanaticism of the > brand of Toghadia and

Mody has been rejected by> people.> Any more antics by them and people will

rise in> revolt.> I do not speak this as a congress worker. In fact I> do not

belong to > any party.I have written this as a person who has> seen India being

> fractured on religious grounds.> Lets create a country of tolerence and

unity.> Rgds> HT> > > > ,>

"parvatishankar" > <parvatishankar> wrote:> > Like Inderji says Sonia has

politics not just in> family but in her > > stars! For all you know the stars

conspired to> bring her to India > and > > to make her the head of an old

ancient nation! > > > > And yes, the law is not the same in India as in> the

US...And as an > > Indian, I am proud of the fact that Indian> constitution is

more > > secular and democratic than any other country in> the world! Even if >

> she was a housemaid in UK, she has every right to> be the Prime > > Minster of

India (that's what the constitution> says and so does the > > voters' mandate)!

> > > > And as for the dynastic bit, if people can inherit> purva punya or > >

karma (it's right there in your chart, see) what's> wrong in > carrying > > on

the tradition of your family! For all you know,> it's not even > > purva

punya...it's probably her duty - karma,> she's doing it for > her > >

children...one should respect her for the amount> of effort she's > put > > in

preserving an old party...when she stayed out> of the Congress, > the > > party

actually started disintegrating...it's only> now that it's > > reviving.> > > >

....and if the choice is between fanatics who kill> in the name of > > religion

(read BJP past history) and the widow of> an assassinated > >

prime-minister..???? well, if it helps, the> Italian can tie a saree > > better

than most women of India, including me:)> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

SBC - Internet

access at a great low price.http://promo./sbc/~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE,

THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~