The Case for Sonia Gandhi!
Dost Mittar March 7, 2004
#1 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on March 8, 2004 6:40:04 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#2 Posted by Faruk on March 8, 2004 6:40:05 am
Re : Article
I would love to vote for someone other than the BJP. But the congress has to do more than quote its role in history. It has to paint a better picture for the future and it’s not even close.
Regards,
Faruk
I would love to vote for someone other than the BJP. But the congress has to do more than quote its role in history. It has to paint a better picture for the future and it’s not even close.
Regards,
Faruk
#3 Posted by sunlight on March 8, 2004 6:40:05 am
But given its record, this NDA government needs to be defeated if India is to remain a secular or even a tolerant society in which all citizens can feel to have a safe and secure future.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This may not be the only way to look at the issue. Another way to look at it is that the BJP is made up of two factions: the moderate faction and the hard-liners. Currently, the moderates are in power in the Center and admittedly, they failed to ensure the maintenance of law and order in Gujarat. However, the defeat of the BJP would be seen as a defeat of the moderate faction within the BJP and may lead to the rise of the hard-line faction. My point is that voting the NDA government back into power may be seen as an endorsement of the moderate faction and their strengthening and not as an endorsement of Hindutva. Gujarat has been a major failure of the NDA and hopefully we would not see a repeat.
The major problem with the Congress is the current uncertainty regarding what it stands for. Sonia Gandhi has taken some intelligent decisions, such as sacrificing the Chief Ministership of Kashmir in the national interest. On the negative side, she has been less successful than BJP and Vajpayee in building coalitions. Also, Congress has created uncertainty on its stance on economic reforms, and with regard to foreign policy, I think most people are more confident with Vajpayee. George Fernandes is also well thought of as Defence Minister.
I do not think the current election will lead to a radical change in the position of the BJP and Congress, which is good, since the Congress is needed as an effective opposition. This may give the Congress a chance to change itself to be less dependent upon a single leader, project a clearer message, and provide a future alternative if the BJP takes a sharply communalistic turn.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This may not be the only way to look at the issue. Another way to look at it is that the BJP is made up of two factions: the moderate faction and the hard-liners. Currently, the moderates are in power in the Center and admittedly, they failed to ensure the maintenance of law and order in Gujarat. However, the defeat of the BJP would be seen as a defeat of the moderate faction within the BJP and may lead to the rise of the hard-line faction. My point is that voting the NDA government back into power may be seen as an endorsement of the moderate faction and their strengthening and not as an endorsement of Hindutva. Gujarat has been a major failure of the NDA and hopefully we would not see a repeat.
The major problem with the Congress is the current uncertainty regarding what it stands for. Sonia Gandhi has taken some intelligent decisions, such as sacrificing the Chief Ministership of Kashmir in the national interest. On the negative side, she has been less successful than BJP and Vajpayee in building coalitions. Also, Congress has created uncertainty on its stance on economic reforms, and with regard to foreign policy, I think most people are more confident with Vajpayee. George Fernandes is also well thought of as Defence Minister.
I do not think the current election will lead to a radical change in the position of the BJP and Congress, which is good, since the Congress is needed as an effective opposition. This may give the Congress a chance to change itself to be less dependent upon a single leader, project a clearer message, and provide a future alternative if the BJP takes a sharply communalistic turn.
#4 Posted by harimau on March 8, 2004 6:40:05 am
Dost-Mittar Sahib writes, ``She has now also recognized the need for cooperating with other parties and has built successful coalitions with regional parties, including bringing back the likes of Sharad Pawar and Chidambram who had left the party earlier because of differences with her. ``
She also opposed -- and successfully scuttled -- the candidacy of PC Alexander, a long-time Nehru family retainer, for President of India. Because she felt that she may not be able to become Prime Minister if the President was also a Christian. So much for loyalty toward those who have been loyal to her.
She also opposed -- and successfully scuttled -- the candidacy of PC Alexander, a long-time Nehru family retainer, for President of India. Because she felt that she may not be able to become Prime Minister if the President was also a Christian. So much for loyalty toward those who have been loyal to her.
#5 Posted by soundmeister on March 8, 2004 6:40:05 am
Interesting enough article. Maybe the question you should ask yourself, dostmittar, is that GIVEN the BJP`s spotty record with communalism, starting with Ayodhya in `89 culminating in the horror that was Gujarat, isn`t it strange that the Congress still looks nowehere close to coming to power?
Whther you like it or not, the Congress today stands for chaploosgiri and a corrupt, apathetic feudal/dynastic rule. It has ceased to be a grassroots political party anymore and no longer even pretends to represent the masses. It`s hard to swallow the electorate supporting Sonia when so few of her own party members do (``I will respect the decision of the CWC`` is NOT support)
It must be hard for die-hard Congresswalas like you to swallow this fact. Eventually you too will see the writing on the wall. By then perhaps the BJP will have imploded into yet another Congress and someone else will have donned the mantle of ``the clean alternative``. Would be supremely ironical if that were the Congress!
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
Whther you like it or not, the Congress today stands for chaploosgiri and a corrupt, apathetic feudal/dynastic rule. It has ceased to be a grassroots political party anymore and no longer even pretends to represent the masses. It`s hard to swallow the electorate supporting Sonia when so few of her own party members do (``I will respect the decision of the CWC`` is NOT support)
It must be hard for die-hard Congresswalas like you to swallow this fact. Eventually you too will see the writing on the wall. By then perhaps the BJP will have imploded into yet another Congress and someone else will have donned the mantle of ``the clean alternative``. Would be supremely ironical if that were the Congress!
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
#6 Posted by gujjubania on March 8, 2004 6:40:05 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#7 Posted by ferozk on March 8, 2004 6:41:36 am
Re: Dost-Mittar
I think that Sonia`s origins will always be an issue. If not, it will be made into an issue for the sake of political mileage. On the whole, a very interesting article on India from a ``foreign-native`` perspective.
Ciao
I think that Sonia`s origins will always be an issue. If not, it will be made into an issue for the sake of political mileage. On the whole, a very interesting article on India from a ``foreign-native`` perspective.
Ciao
#8 Posted by Romair on March 8, 2004 6:54:51 am
From a distance, here is what I can see:
India is facing a dilemma Pakistan faced forty years ago. It has to decide between social cohesion and economic progress. If it votes for one, it loses the other.
Pakistan from the late fifties to around 1990 (four decades), averaged a 6%+ rate of economic growth. During the same time, India averaged an economic growth of 3.25%. During the decades of the 60s, Pakistan`s economic growth rate shot upto an average of 6.7%. (Shahid Javed Burki). It was during this time, that Pakistan went from being the Afghanistan of South Asia to being the wealthiest country in South Asia, at a per person level, with the best infrastructure. All of Pakistan`s major hotel chains, plazas, dams etc. were established during this time. In fact, Pakistan was actually able to build a whole city, Islamabad, from scratch, which is still rated as the best place to live in South Asia, (ahead of Bangalore, which is second). This was despite the fact that it was facing an eight times larger adversary, on its Eastern border. This economic growth is a fact, reluctantly, recognized by Indians, also. Pakistan`s success was taught as a case-study in Harvard in the late 60s, as Pakistan was considered the country primed to come out of the third-world.
However, Pakistan never made it out of the third world. And still remains stuck in it. In fact, during the 90s, Pakistan`s growth rate fell to a dismal 3-4% average. Interestingly, at a point where Pakistan`s economic growth rate was peaking (late 60s), Pakistan suffered a massive civil war, in which it lost half its country.
During the 90s, the tables were turned. India, a country which even till the late 80s was being written off as an economic basketcase by Western journals, all of a sudden found its economic footing. As Pakistan`s growth rate plummeted, India`s shot up to an average of around 5.5-6%. Now all of a sudden, people have started saying the same things about India, that they were saying about Pakistan in the 60s - economic tiger, rising giant, infrastructure, bypasses and overpasses etc.
Yet India`s growth seems to be coming at the expense of a social shism, that is similar to Pakistan`s social divide of the 60s. Pakistan`s growth sidelined a major ethnic group, i.e. Bengalis. They became second class citizens, even though Pakistan was generally a religiously secular country during that phase. In case of India, the same thing seems to be happening to the religious minorities - specifically the Muslims.
The West Pakstanis got wealthy, while the East Pakistanis got poorer, or remained in the same state. The Indian Hindus are getting rich, while the Indian Muslims are sidelined. I did a statistical comparison once, between the percentage of Bengalis in Pakistani govt. positions, in the 60s, and the percentage of Indian Muslims in Indian govt. positions now (info from www.muslimgazette.com). The ratios are strikingly similar, and completely disproportionate to their respective populations.
Even now, the South Asian Muslims one sees in the US IT industry, are nearly all from Pakistan. One rarely sees any from Bangladesh, perhaps indicating that Bangladesh has still to recover from the pre-70s situation. But what is even more strking is that that, while one sees hundreds of Indians in the US IT industry, barely 1-2% of them are Indian Muslims. I must have come across three to five hundred or more Indias here in IT. I can count on my fingertips the number that were Muslims. Perhaps five to eight.
In the long run, I think social cohesion is more important that economic progress. Though ideally both should occur simultaneously. India, due to its size, will eventually achieve economic progress. Its size acts as an asset in this area. However, its size is a great liability, when it comes to social cohesion. If India ends up becoming a socially incohesive country, under the BJP, its consequences will be far worse than what Pakistan suffered in 71.
The BJP is riding high. Even Indian film stars like Hema Malani, Shatru, Vinod Khanna, Poonam Dhillon etc. are its members (film actors are usually the most liberal and secular sections of a society). Vajpayee is even popular in Pakistan, now. However, BJP has yet to enforce its own agenda fully in India. This agenda is visible on its website, though not visible totally in its policies. It is completely anti-Muslim and pro-Hinduvta. If the BJP ever wins an outright majority, what will it do? Once Vajpayee goes, and Advani comes into power, what will it do?
This is the million dollar question. If the BJP waters down its communal stances, then India will be fine, and will become an economic giant, someday. If it doesn`t water down its philosophical stances, and wins an outright majority and actually enforces them, wihtout having to worry about the NDA, then I think social incohesion will dominate over economic progress in India. Much like what happened to Pakistan in the late 60s.
India is facing a dilemma Pakistan faced forty years ago. It has to decide between social cohesion and economic progress. If it votes for one, it loses the other.
Pakistan from the late fifties to around 1990 (four decades), averaged a 6%+ rate of economic growth. During the same time, India averaged an economic growth of 3.25%. During the decades of the 60s, Pakistan`s economic growth rate shot upto an average of 6.7%. (Shahid Javed Burki). It was during this time, that Pakistan went from being the Afghanistan of South Asia to being the wealthiest country in South Asia, at a per person level, with the best infrastructure. All of Pakistan`s major hotel chains, plazas, dams etc. were established during this time. In fact, Pakistan was actually able to build a whole city, Islamabad, from scratch, which is still rated as the best place to live in South Asia, (ahead of Bangalore, which is second). This was despite the fact that it was facing an eight times larger adversary, on its Eastern border. This economic growth is a fact, reluctantly, recognized by Indians, also. Pakistan`s success was taught as a case-study in Harvard in the late 60s, as Pakistan was considered the country primed to come out of the third-world.
However, Pakistan never made it out of the third world. And still remains stuck in it. In fact, during the 90s, Pakistan`s growth rate fell to a dismal 3-4% average. Interestingly, at a point where Pakistan`s economic growth rate was peaking (late 60s), Pakistan suffered a massive civil war, in which it lost half its country.
During the 90s, the tables were turned. India, a country which even till the late 80s was being written off as an economic basketcase by Western journals, all of a sudden found its economic footing. As Pakistan`s growth rate plummeted, India`s shot up to an average of around 5.5-6%. Now all of a sudden, people have started saying the same things about India, that they were saying about Pakistan in the 60s - economic tiger, rising giant, infrastructure, bypasses and overpasses etc.
Yet India`s growth seems to be coming at the expense of a social shism, that is similar to Pakistan`s social divide of the 60s. Pakistan`s growth sidelined a major ethnic group, i.e. Bengalis. They became second class citizens, even though Pakistan was generally a religiously secular country during that phase. In case of India, the same thing seems to be happening to the religious minorities - specifically the Muslims.
The West Pakstanis got wealthy, while the East Pakistanis got poorer, or remained in the same state. The Indian Hindus are getting rich, while the Indian Muslims are sidelined. I did a statistical comparison once, between the percentage of Bengalis in Pakistani govt. positions, in the 60s, and the percentage of Indian Muslims in Indian govt. positions now (info from www.muslimgazette.com). The ratios are strikingly similar, and completely disproportionate to their respective populations.
Even now, the South Asian Muslims one sees in the US IT industry, are nearly all from Pakistan. One rarely sees any from Bangladesh, perhaps indicating that Bangladesh has still to recover from the pre-70s situation. But what is even more strking is that that, while one sees hundreds of Indians in the US IT industry, barely 1-2% of them are Indian Muslims. I must have come across three to five hundred or more Indias here in IT. I can count on my fingertips the number that were Muslims. Perhaps five to eight.
In the long run, I think social cohesion is more important that economic progress. Though ideally both should occur simultaneously. India, due to its size, will eventually achieve economic progress. Its size acts as an asset in this area. However, its size is a great liability, when it comes to social cohesion. If India ends up becoming a socially incohesive country, under the BJP, its consequences will be far worse than what Pakistan suffered in 71.
The BJP is riding high. Even Indian film stars like Hema Malani, Shatru, Vinod Khanna, Poonam Dhillon etc. are its members (film actors are usually the most liberal and secular sections of a society). Vajpayee is even popular in Pakistan, now. However, BJP has yet to enforce its own agenda fully in India. This agenda is visible on its website, though not visible totally in its policies. It is completely anti-Muslim and pro-Hinduvta. If the BJP ever wins an outright majority, what will it do? Once Vajpayee goes, and Advani comes into power, what will it do?
This is the million dollar question. If the BJP waters down its communal stances, then India will be fine, and will become an economic giant, someday. If it doesn`t water down its philosophical stances, and wins an outright majority and actually enforces them, wihtout having to worry about the NDA, then I think social incohesion will dominate over economic progress in India. Much like what happened to Pakistan in the late 60s.
#9 Posted by arjun_m on March 8, 2004 7:18:14 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#10 Posted by arjun_m on March 8, 2004 7:18:14 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#11 Posted by harimau on March 8, 2004 7:18:15 am
Ref 12-Head #1
[Are these hindu Indians friend of muslims . No!
Why muslims of India and muslims of muslim countries need hindu Indians?
Why indeed the whole world needs hindu Indian professionals?]
If Hindu Indians aren`t the friend of Muslims, you should ask yourself whether for 1000 years Muslims were friends of Hindus.
While your people forcibly converted Hindus, destroyed our temples, killed, raped and pillaged at will, was that a sign of friendship?
If so, then by the same token, the demolition of Babri Masjid is a token of friendship from Hindus to Muslims.
The question is NOT if Muslims of India need Hindu Indians.
The real question is do Hindu Indians need Muslims.
Search your heart for the answer.
PS. Here is a clue. We did pretty well without you guys before Mohammad bin Qasim bin Camel showed up in Sindh.
[Are these hindu Indians friend of muslims . No!
Why muslims of India and muslims of muslim countries need hindu Indians?
Why indeed the whole world needs hindu Indian professionals?]
If Hindu Indians aren`t the friend of Muslims, you should ask yourself whether for 1000 years Muslims were friends of Hindus.
While your people forcibly converted Hindus, destroyed our temples, killed, raped and pillaged at will, was that a sign of friendship?
If so, then by the same token, the demolition of Babri Masjid is a token of friendship from Hindus to Muslims.
The question is NOT if Muslims of India need Hindu Indians.
The real question is do Hindu Indians need Muslims.
Search your heart for the answer.
PS. Here is a clue. We did pretty well without you guys before Mohammad bin Qasim bin Camel showed up in Sindh.
#12 Posted by harimau on March 8, 2004 7:18:15 am
Ref sunlight #5
[The major problem with the Congress is the current uncertainty regarding what it stands for. Sonia Gandhi has taken some intelligent decisions, such as sacrificing the Chief Ministership of Kashmir in the national interest. On the negative side, she has been less successful than BJP and Vajpayee in building coalitions.]
The Congress had NO chance of getting elected in Kashmir. It was always the preserve of Sheikh Abdullah`s National Conference. So there was no sacrifice by Sonia in Kashmir.
On the other hand, she sacrificed Pondicherry where the Congress is in power. Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion allocated this Congress stronghold to PMK and Sonia couldn`t/wouldn`t do squat about it. To this day, the Pondicherry Congresswallahs are thinking of running their own candidate there and several have resigned from the Congress over this issue.
Sonia will mortgage everything including the honor of Congress for electoral alliances. The question in everyone`s mind is what else will be mortgaged and to whom if she gets into power.
[The major problem with the Congress is the current uncertainty regarding what it stands for. Sonia Gandhi has taken some intelligent decisions, such as sacrificing the Chief Ministership of Kashmir in the national interest. On the negative side, she has been less successful than BJP and Vajpayee in building coalitions.]
The Congress had NO chance of getting elected in Kashmir. It was always the preserve of Sheikh Abdullah`s National Conference. So there was no sacrifice by Sonia in Kashmir.
On the other hand, she sacrificed Pondicherry where the Congress is in power. Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion allocated this Congress stronghold to PMK and Sonia couldn`t/wouldn`t do squat about it. To this day, the Pondicherry Congresswallahs are thinking of running their own candidate there and several have resigned from the Congress over this issue.
Sonia will mortgage everything including the honor of Congress for electoral alliances. The question in everyone`s mind is what else will be mortgaged and to whom if she gets into power.
#13 Posted by arjun_m on March 8, 2004 7:20:35 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#14 Posted by fuzair on March 8, 2004 7:32:41 am
Romair:
One major problem with your analysis/comparison of Bengalis and Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims have mainly themselves to blame for not getting an education, discarding some of their more ridiculous ways (e.g., insisting on Muslim family law--the Sara Bano case), not integrating better with the rest of society and, finally, having umpteen children per family.
While there certainly is some bias/discrimination against Muslims in India, it is NOT the main reason why they are so far behind the rest of Indian society as a whole.
One major problem with your analysis/comparison of Bengalis and Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims have mainly themselves to blame for not getting an education, discarding some of their more ridiculous ways (e.g., insisting on Muslim family law--the Sara Bano case), not integrating better with the rest of society and, finally, having umpteen children per family.
While there certainly is some bias/discrimination against Muslims in India, it is NOT the main reason why they are so far behind the rest of Indian society as a whole.
#16 Posted by Romair on March 8, 2004 7:49:37 am
fuzair #14: ``While there certainly is some bias/discrimination against Muslims in India, it is NOT the main reason why they are so far behind the rest of Indian society as a whole.``
This maybe true. I do not have access to the information explaining why the Indian Muslims are so far behind, in India. I only have access to the results and statistics (from Indian sources) pointing to the fact, that they are way behind. If the problem lies in the Indian Muslims themselves, then it is an even bigger problem to solve for India. At the same time, the actions and policies of the BJP are certainly not going to help the cause. They will furthur alienate the already alienated Muslims.
At the same time, I have tough time believing that the Indian Muslims, themselves, are to be blamed completely. This is exactly what West Pakistanis used to (and still) say about Bengalis, i.e. Bengalis don`t work, they can`t fight, they look wierd etc. One could actually put some statistics behind this to justify it. Bangladesh, even after its freedom, is still extremely poor. Perphaps as poor as it had been with Pakistan. Many Pakistanis (including me) think it is good for both countries that it separated (I actually think it should have been a separate country from 47).
But, the above comments need to take into account the generational development of the areas. Have the Bengalis recovered from a genaration of discrimination? Maybe that is why they are still poor(er). Maybe their next generation of Bengladeshis will be better of than us West Pakistanis. Similarly, why is it that only Indian Muslims are caught in, ``more ridiculous way?`` Why not Pakistanis Muslims? After all they are literally our first cousins (even brothers and sisters in some cases). Why did West Pakistani Muslims end up being the most upwardly socially mobile group in South Asia, from 47 to 90 (this is a fact, even though us Pakistanis have a habit of cynically putting ourselves down all the time)? While the Indian Muslims ended up being one of the least socially mobile groups?
Could it all have been their ridiculous ways? After all, we share many of those ridiculous ways. Would you and I have had the same chance of sitting in the USA, well-off, had we been Indian Muslims? And would we have been scared of the BJP targeting us?
This maybe true. I do not have access to the information explaining why the Indian Muslims are so far behind, in India. I only have access to the results and statistics (from Indian sources) pointing to the fact, that they are way behind. If the problem lies in the Indian Muslims themselves, then it is an even bigger problem to solve for India. At the same time, the actions and policies of the BJP are certainly not going to help the cause. They will furthur alienate the already alienated Muslims.
At the same time, I have tough time believing that the Indian Muslims, themselves, are to be blamed completely. This is exactly what West Pakistanis used to (and still) say about Bengalis, i.e. Bengalis don`t work, they can`t fight, they look wierd etc. One could actually put some statistics behind this to justify it. Bangladesh, even after its freedom, is still extremely poor. Perphaps as poor as it had been with Pakistan. Many Pakistanis (including me) think it is good for both countries that it separated (I actually think it should have been a separate country from 47).
But, the above comments need to take into account the generational development of the areas. Have the Bengalis recovered from a genaration of discrimination? Maybe that is why they are still poor(er). Maybe their next generation of Bengladeshis will be better of than us West Pakistanis. Similarly, why is it that only Indian Muslims are caught in, ``more ridiculous way?`` Why not Pakistanis Muslims? After all they are literally our first cousins (even brothers and sisters in some cases). Why did West Pakistani Muslims end up being the most upwardly socially mobile group in South Asia, from 47 to 90 (this is a fact, even though us Pakistanis have a habit of cynically putting ourselves down all the time)? While the Indian Muslims ended up being one of the least socially mobile groups?
Could it all have been their ridiculous ways? After all, we share many of those ridiculous ways. Would you and I have had the same chance of sitting in the USA, well-off, had we been Indian Muslims? And would we have been scared of the BJP targeting us?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #182 you even sound... How real is your
- MatloobZaman: Re: # 180 Did he... How real is your
- MatloobZaman: Re: # 32 yeah! only... Faith and Religion
- einsteinwallah: Our countries need establishment... Educational Practices in Private
- satya100: Pandit Mandarji, Let me know... In Memory of Ahmed
- satya100: Pandit Mandarji, Let me know... In Memory of Ahmed
- Regards: #31 Matloob, Message is... Faith and Religion
- tahmed32: Mr. Masadi: Like you,... How real is your
