Gandhi Declines Premiership

[Perknose]

From the NY Times:

Sonia Gandhi, who led the Indian National Congress to unexpected triumph in India's elections, told her party's legislators tonight that she would "humbly decline" the post of prime minister.

In the six years since she had reluctantly entered politics, she told party members gathered in the central hall of Parliament, "one thing has always been clear to me and that is ? as I have often stated ? that the post of prime minister has not been my aim."

She had always vowed, she said, that were this situation ever before her, "I would follow my inner voice."

Mrs. Gandhi, the Italian-born widow of a former prime minister, added: "Today that voice tells me I must humbly decline this post."

She had been under "tremendous pressure" to reconsider, she said, "but I must follow my voice." She was not, she said, tempted by power.

She appealed to her party's legislators to respect her decision and recognize its strength, but there was no sign they would do so. The hall erupted as she spoke, and legislators began impassioned speeches begging her to reconsider.

"You cannot betray the people of India," said Mani Shankar Aiyar, a member of Parliament's lower house. "The inner voice of the people of India says that you have to become the prime minister of India."

Another member, Kapil Sibal, said, "Unless you are there our inspiration will not be there."

News reports said she would support Dr. Manmohan Singh, a former finance minister, as prime minister. A Sikh, he would be India's first minority prime minister.

The Congress is the largest party in India's new Parliament and is poised to form its government. Campaigning tirelessly across the country, Mrs. Gandhi had led the party and its allies to a dramatic upset over the Hindu nationalist-led coalition that had governed the party for the past six years.

Rajiv Desai, a longtime adviser to the Gandhi family, said Mrs. Gandhi had never wanted to be prime minister. Rather, she had wanted to revive the Congress party and defeat the Hindu nationalists, whom she saw as a threat to India's secular identity as it had been defined by her husband's grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru.

On Monday night, she told senior party members and allies that she did not want to be prime minister, but had been pressured to change her mind, Mr. Desai said. Today she changed it back.

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

I've been following this too, one thing stood out for me.

Why, having spent years in politics, did you stand for election in the world's largest particiaptory democracy if you didn't want to be prime minister. I hope she feels sufficiently stupid. I don't think she's apologised enough to the voters who will no doubt now get a different prime minister that they didn't vote for.

Time to introduce fines for time wasters me thinks.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Infohawk]

Fencer128, I think you might musinderstand their electoral system. Indians vote for a party. If they win a majority of seats or form a coalition, then they choose the head of the party as the prime minister. She wants to be a part of the party and even the legislature, but not the prime ministership. So her position is really not that inconsistent.

Her goals are very noble. She wants a stable secular government in India. She does not want what's happening here or in the Muslim world happening there. The Indian nationalists are getting hardcore. If they have a foreign-born leader, they will have more ammunition against her party.

I say good for her and it's not like she can't influence the government from the outside.

It's great to see any religious parties fail, and I'm glad the hindus failed too.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Fencer128, I think you might musinderstand their electoral system. Indians vote for a party. If they win a majority of seats or form a coalition, then they choose the head of the party as the prime minister. She wants to be a part of the party and even the legislature, but not the prime ministership. So her position is really not that inconsistent.

Her goals are very noble. She wants a stable secular government in India. She does not want what's happening here or in the Muslim world happening there. The Indian nationalists are getting hardcore. If they have a foreign-born leader, they will have more ammunition against her party.

I say good for her and it's not like she can't influence the government from the outside.

It's great to see any religious parties fail, and I'm glad the hindus failed too.

You are right - I didn't fully understand it. Thanks. Who is the head of the party? I *thought* it was her and so assumed that she was in place to be prime minister. Mind you, I keep hearing about a coalition government, so I guess that throws it wide open.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Infohawk]

Fencer128, I believe that generally the head of the party does become the prime minister, but I'm not sure. She probably thought she would not win a majority of the seats. You have a point. I guess it is a bit misleading to her voters. I know in many countries that you vote for a list of parties and you have list of people within the parties on the ballot. So in that light, it's not too misleading since they still voted for the Congress party first. Then again, I've also heard a lot of the indian ballots only have symbols since so many people cannot read! Wheel for Congress party, etc.

 

[civad]

Her goals are very noble. She wants a stable secular government in India. She does not want what's happening here or in the Muslim world happening there. The Indian nationalists are getting hardcore. If they have a foreign-born leader, they will have more ammunition against her party.

What do you mean by secular? Offering job and education - related reservations to Muslims and Christians ( "we work for the upliftment of minorities" cr*p) ? Or making sure that the majority population is made to feel second class and humiliated at each and every occasion? Half-day schools on Fridays statewide ( so that people of a certain community can pray)...state funding for certain religious groups that already get a tax break; whereas Hindu organizations have to file tax returns/ dont get any state funding? That academic institutions run by Muslim/Christian charities can prohibit admission to students of other religions; but a one run by Hindus cannot?
That countries like Saudi Arabia can publish advertisements in newspapers that say "Only Muslims need apply" and the govt doesn't do a sh!t about it?
Come on, you havent lived in that system anytime, or you simply are in a state of denial. -->nothing personal here.

 

[Infohawk]

civad, thanks for sharing that info. I didn't know about those facts. That said I think the appropriate response to anti-majority discrimination is not a party in the name of the majority. In the US, we have discrimination against caucasians. It is wrong. But I would not support a white party. I think it inflames the situations. I feel the same way about your situation. The preferences for minorities are wrong. That does not mean I would support a religious party. In my opinion, all religions should be equally discredited by the government. They should all file tax returns and not be allowed to discriminate based on religion.

Out of curiosity, do you think Indians in America should not be allowed to take office because they were born in other places? Do you think it's okay if we Americans began discriminating (more than we already do or don't) against Indians who immigrated here?

 

[civad]

That does not mean I would support a religious party.

In India, there are four options to choose:
a. BJP, etc: so-called right wing fundamentalist; *more or less* clear agenda on national issues.
b. Cong. (I) , etc: bunch of nitwits who did no good for the country during the 45 odd years when they were in power. Guided largely by socialist ( read: almost leftist) principles
c. The Left (communists)
d. A whole bunch of small, regional, single-digit MP (member of parliament) parties who see nothing beyond their short-term interests, at any cost.

What would be a sensible person's choice for a national government?

do you think Indians in America should not be allowed to take office because they were born in other places?

I am opposed to the idea of a foreign-born national taking up a high position (political) in a different country, no matter how long s/he has been a citizen of the latter country. Indians in America, provided they are AMERICAN citizens, should be allowed to take office, ( if an Austrian-born can be a governor/Czech (?) -born can be Secy. of state, then why not?) .

Do you think it's okay if we Americans began discriminating (more than we already do or don't) against Indians who immigrated here?

My opinion on this would be biased, because I am invariably questioned/asked for ID when I am working near water supply sites/ dams ( I'm a civil engineer).

 

[Infohawk]

civad, isn't Ghandi a citizen of India? (If not I completely understand your point). I assumed she was.

If she is, and if you think a foreign-born American citizen should be allowed to be a political officer, than shouldn't a foreign-born Indian citizen be allowed to be too? (If she is not a citizen than excuse my ignorance).

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
civad, isn't Ghandi a citizen of India? (If not I completely understand your point). I assumed she was.

If she is, and if you think a foreign-born American citizen should be allowed to be a political officer, than shouldn't a foreign-born Indian citizen be allowed to be too? (If she is not a citizen than excuse my ignorance).

They are allowed to be a political officers in the US. Only the presidency is limited to American-born.

 

[Michael]

Infohawk - She was born in Italy and is Christian.

These two points were being used to attack her and her party.

Michael

 

[RabidMongoose]

Wouldn't a better question be 'Should an Indian born person be able to be president of the US?'...not just any political officer, but the most influential in the country.

It seems to be that he is against an Indian born American being president of the US, but not being a governor or whatever.

 

[Infohawk]

Michael, I am aware she is born and Italy and is a Christian. My question was whether she is a citizen.

CanOWorms, I was not talking about what IS the case, I was asking civad what he thinks SHOULD be the case.

 

[CanOWorms]

She is a citizen since like 1983 or 1984.

 

[Michael]

It is against the law to be President of the USA and not be born in the USA. It is not to be Governor of California.

Michael

ps - As a Canadian who is used to a parlimentary system where you expect the leader of the party to become PM, I would be pissed if the leader suddenly stepped down after their party won. You easily could have voted for a local MP that you didn't like enough out of the desire to make someone PM.

 

[civad]

It seems to be that he is against an Indian born American being president of the US, but not being a governor or whatever.

If the person was born in India and is now an American citizen, then for President of the US, NO. If the person was BORN in the US, then he is no longer an Indian. He is as American as anyone else who is born in the US. Its as simple as that.

Sonia Gandhi is a DUAL Citizen (Italy/India) and she retains her Italian passport. Another reason for my opposition to her becoming the PM.

Canofworms is correct: she ALSO became a citizen of India in 1983. And I her religion is irrelevant in this case. After all, the President of India is a Muslim. And not the first one at that.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: civad

It seems to be that he is against an Indian born American being president of the US, but not being a governor or whatever.

If the person was born in India and is now an American citizen, then for President of the US, NO. If the person was BORN in the US, then he is no longer an Indian. He is as American as anyone else who is born in the US. Its as simple as that.

I can support that, but sometimes I think of young children that immigrated over to the US with their parents. For all they care, they're Americans. Sometimes I think it could be OK to let a foreign-born person achieve the highest office.

 

[Infohawk]

RabidMongoose, you are correct. If civad comes back he should answer that question: whether he thinks someone born in India who becomes an American citizen should be allowed to be President.

(Personally, I think foreign-borns should be allowed to lead countries. If they have superior allegiances to other countries, it should be for the electorate to sniff out.)

 

[Infohawk]

I guess the question has been answered.

 

[Michael]

Infohawk - Yes, she is a citizen and there is no law in India that insists that you be born in India to serve as PM.

Michael

 

[Infohawk]

Michael, is it really the law that an Indian PM has to be indian-born? I wonder how she was ever going to be able to become the PM then. Were they going to change the law?

Question for civad: The congress party is left-leaning, right?

 

[RabidMongoose]

He said that there is NO law that the PM has to be Indian-born.

 

[singh]

There may be certain legal reasons preventing her from becoming PM.

Link: http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1

 

[Infohawk]

RabidMongoose, thank you again for correcting me. My reading abilities must be deteriorating as I read more and more posts. My apologies.

 

[civad]

Question for civad: The congress party is left-leaning, right?

To tell you in brief, after India's independence in 1947, the Conress (I) was in power (without a break) till mid 1970s ( almost 30 yrs.) The first Prime Minister of India, Nehru, believed in Big Government. He believed in big State-Owned industries, and Organizations. Railways, airlines, telephone companies, you name it.... His daughter Indira Gandhi ( who later became the Prime Minister), was no different> She was responsible for "nationalizing" many private banks in the '70s.

After briefly staying out of power in the late '70's ( and later in the '80s) the Cong. (I) was in power again for a good part of the 1980s and 1990s. The party's views hardly differed from before.