Sonia Gandhi and the Coming of Age of the Indian Nation
Deepak Sapra May 18, 2004
#24 Posted by ijaz_gul on May 19, 2004 6:55:47 am
Its all about mind games initiated by BJP. If all of a sudden,she has buckled under pressure, then BJP has a point to prove. I agree that it is contrary to her decision to become the parliamentary leader.
The think tank of BJP is imaginative and innovative. I feel Congress cannot beat them in the mind game over Sonia.
Cheerios
The think tank of BJP is imaginative and innovative. I feel Congress cannot beat them in the mind game over Sonia.
Cheerios
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#23 Posted by harimau on May 19, 2004 6:55:47 am
Ref nazarhayatkhan #14
[Jay. The illetrate of the country have as much right to exercise their choice as the educated and the rich.]
Jay, along with others, was questioning their judgment, not their right to vote.
[Their urgent need may be water and not a cellular phone.]
Actually, it may even be a cell phone. Some fishermen of Kerala are given a cellphone by the boat owner. At the end of the day, the owner calls them and tells them which port they should head to to sell their catch. He has spent the day finding out market prices along the coast and directs his boat to the town with the highest prices for fish. That works out better than landing the fish at the boat`s home port only to find that either you have to sell it at a cheaper price or you have to transport the catch by truck.
[Jay. The illetrate of the country have as much right to exercise their choice as the educated and the rich.]
Jay, along with others, was questioning their judgment, not their right to vote.
[Their urgent need may be water and not a cellular phone.]
Actually, it may even be a cell phone. Some fishermen of Kerala are given a cellphone by the boat owner. At the end of the day, the owner calls them and tells them which port they should head to to sell their catch. He has spent the day finding out market prices along the coast and directs his boat to the town with the highest prices for fish. That works out better than landing the fish at the boat`s home port only to find that either you have to sell it at a cheaper price or you have to transport the catch by truck.
#22 Posted by sparchus on May 19, 2004 6:55:47 am
It`s a relief that HRH sonia gandhi has decided to be out of the reckoning and listen to her `inner` voice.As far as mandate is concerned she never was projected as the next PM by the congress during elections.Yes i agree thet she was involved in a lot of campaigning but that was the role that she played.She visited some 50 odd constituencies, but that does not at all imply that the populace ever saw her as their country`s next leader.This would be like saying that all those persons who were used for campaigning and projecting the congress such as shakti kapoor were looked upon as the next PM of the nation by the electorate.
Annie Besant was an important member of the indian national congress but i do not think Mr.Gandhi would have ever have regarded her as a prime ministerial candidate!The majority of our population lived under the British without much of a violent struggle.There were few nationalists like chandrasekhar,Subhash chandra bose etc whose voice the congress suppressed.Had the world wars not happened the so called successful Non-violent struggle of ours could have come to nought.
The point to be noted sadly is that we as Indians are to bogged down with being goody goody in the eyes of outsiders and are willing to even sacrifice our individuality for this.
I just cann ot seem to digest the fact that the congress party could not pull out one true Indian from a 100 crore to lead them.
The fact that the congress party has to look to a foreigner for leadership just goes to show the level of intellectual bankruptcy that they have fallen to!
Annie Besant was an important member of the indian national congress but i do not think Mr.Gandhi would have ever have regarded her as a prime ministerial candidate!The majority of our population lived under the British without much of a violent struggle.There were few nationalists like chandrasekhar,Subhash chandra bose etc whose voice the congress suppressed.Had the world wars not happened the so called successful Non-violent struggle of ours could have come to nought.
The point to be noted sadly is that we as Indians are to bogged down with being goody goody in the eyes of outsiders and are willing to even sacrifice our individuality for this.
I just cann ot seem to digest the fact that the congress party could not pull out one true Indian from a 100 crore to lead them.
The fact that the congress party has to look to a foreigner for leadership just goes to show the level of intellectual bankruptcy that they have fallen to!
#21 Posted by avkrishna on May 19, 2004 6:55:47 am
Turmoil in Congress/Indian politics
Whatever may be the motives of Sonia`s decision to withdraw, the sycophantic, flowery articles written all over the psuedo secular Indian media as well as by some people here is sad. Just as sad as the vicious personal attacks on Sonia by some in BJP and it`s allies.
Rejecting power when it is given it you is indeed a noble deed, but is Sonia really giving up power? In the spineless, leaderless Congress party, she will always be the de-facto leader, whether she is the P.M. or not. And look who`s being nominated for the post of P.M. (Manmohan Singh and Pranab Mukharjee), persons of probably flawless integrity ( I dont know much about Pranab) but without a mass following and a support base.
Their stay in power is dependant on the whims and fancies of Gandhi family. In fact, Sonia`s staying out of power creates a third power center at the Federal level (PM, Sonia and Left). The PM and his cabinet will never have complete independence to frame policies. We have seen such extra- constitutional power centers in the States (notably Bihar), but never at the Federal level.
Sadly, this is not at all good for India.
What I find more ridiculous is comparision of Sonia with Mahatma. Mahatma/JP Narayan/Vinoba bhave and many other such great leaders not only gave away power they would have had, but also withdrew totally from politics and dedicate themselves to social service.
I would have liked to give Sonia the benefit of doubt for now, but as I said before it is difficult to imagine she completely gives up her power. Let`s wait and watch whether she really renounces political power and only focuses on what she claims to be the social legacy of Nehru. Till then, please dont go either extremes.
- Avkrishna
Whatever may be the motives of Sonia`s decision to withdraw, the sycophantic, flowery articles written all over the psuedo secular Indian media as well as by some people here is sad. Just as sad as the vicious personal attacks on Sonia by some in BJP and it`s allies.
Rejecting power when it is given it you is indeed a noble deed, but is Sonia really giving up power? In the spineless, leaderless Congress party, she will always be the de-facto leader, whether she is the P.M. or not. And look who`s being nominated for the post of P.M. (Manmohan Singh and Pranab Mukharjee), persons of probably flawless integrity ( I dont know much about Pranab) but without a mass following and a support base.
Their stay in power is dependant on the whims and fancies of Gandhi family. In fact, Sonia`s staying out of power creates a third power center at the Federal level (PM, Sonia and Left). The PM and his cabinet will never have complete independence to frame policies. We have seen such extra- constitutional power centers in the States (notably Bihar), but never at the Federal level.
Sadly, this is not at all good for India.
What I find more ridiculous is comparision of Sonia with Mahatma. Mahatma/JP Narayan/Vinoba bhave and many other such great leaders not only gave away power they would have had, but also withdrew totally from politics and dedicate themselves to social service.
I would have liked to give Sonia the benefit of doubt for now, but as I said before it is difficult to imagine she completely gives up her power. Let`s wait and watch whether she really renounces political power and only focuses on what she claims to be the social legacy of Nehru. Till then, please dont go either extremes.
- Avkrishna
#20 Posted by mog on May 19, 2004 6:55:46 am
It is so typically for the Congress, that a person to select, doctor Manmohan Singh, that never won a choice, before yet any idea of the politics, to be has the figurehead. What is more badly has for indian then a dummy or have a Mammi?
#19 Posted by soundmeister on May 19, 2004 12:42:18 am
``Vox populi is of course vox deo``
Translation- The voice of the people is to use more deoderant.
Oh well, what`s reproduced below is probably the best explanation for ``Madam```s sudden self-sacrificing mood. Enjoy:
Whose inner voice?
Pioneer News Service/ New Delhi
Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because her ``inner voice`` suddenly told her to do so? Why did this ``voice`` speak now, despite her being elected Congress Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of support from all allied parties?
Apparently, it was not the ``inner voice`` but certain queries that could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name.
Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her eleventh-hour retreat as a ``personal decision`` spurred by her children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink. The President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject her candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so, he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by legal luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok Sabha election results.
That probably explains why Ms Gandhi`s decision to opt out came only after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That could also explain why she did not allow the entourage of allied parties to accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom.
According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised, he would need some more time to examine the matter. Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May 19 - a date unilaterally announced by Left leaders and enthusiastically endorsed by Congressmen on Monday without consulting the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the basis of various petitions submitted to him, the President could have sought to clarify a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said to have informally communicated to her on Monday evening that certain queries needed to be answered, even as he invited her to have a discussion on Government formation.
On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj against any person of foreign origin occupying a top constitutional post, and the legal advice that he had obtained from top constitutional experts, the President could have sought three clarifications from Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience for Ms Gandhi. The BJP leaders had already declared that they would continue to support any form of agitation on the foreign origin issue.
The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought relates to Article 102 of the Constitution that says: ``A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament`` on any or more of five possible grounds. Clause(d) of the same Article says ``... or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state``.
The term ``adherence`` had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi in her affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli parliamentary constituency had stated that she owned ancestral property, namely portion of a house, in Orbassano, Italy, the country of her origin. This fact of ownership, legal experts say, makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be interpreted as ``adherence`` to a foreign country. Since this portion of the ancestral property was apparently bequeathed to her by her father in his will, she inherited it only after his death. Consequently, the property was not her`s when she filed her 1999 nomination affidavit.
Article 103 states that ``if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to disqualification mentioned in Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision to the President and his decision shall be final``. Clause 2 of the Article says: ``Before giving any decision on such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.``
This means that the President is required by the Constitution to undertake an elaborate process of examining the legal and constitutional issues involved. Thus, Ms Gandhi`s swearing-in could not happen before the matter was fully clarified and resolved.
Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity provision whereby citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign origin is circumscribed by the rights that particular country confers upon foreigners seeking citizenship there.
The crux of this provision of ``reciprocity`` is that a person of foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that particular country.
While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal luminaries pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the issue of her surrendering Italian citizenship. It is believed that while acquiring citizenship through registration in 1983, she surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Ambassador in New Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the Italian Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled.
This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few days, but it would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch of the campaign once the citizenship issue returned to the fore.
Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma Swaraj pointed out that as the Supreme Commander of India`s Armed Forces, the President should examine a key issue. It referred to the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj`s petition demanded to know.
Translation- The voice of the people is to use more deoderant.
Oh well, what`s reproduced below is probably the best explanation for ``Madam```s sudden self-sacrificing mood. Enjoy:
Whose inner voice?
Pioneer News Service/ New Delhi
Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because her ``inner voice`` suddenly told her to do so? Why did this ``voice`` speak now, despite her being elected Congress Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of support from all allied parties?
Apparently, it was not the ``inner voice`` but certain queries that could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name.
Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her eleventh-hour retreat as a ``personal decision`` spurred by her children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink. The President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject her candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so, he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by legal luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok Sabha election results.
That probably explains why Ms Gandhi`s decision to opt out came only after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That could also explain why she did not allow the entourage of allied parties to accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom.
According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised, he would need some more time to examine the matter. Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May 19 - a date unilaterally announced by Left leaders and enthusiastically endorsed by Congressmen on Monday without consulting the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the basis of various petitions submitted to him, the President could have sought to clarify a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said to have informally communicated to her on Monday evening that certain queries needed to be answered, even as he invited her to have a discussion on Government formation.
On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj against any person of foreign origin occupying a top constitutional post, and the legal advice that he had obtained from top constitutional experts, the President could have sought three clarifications from Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience for Ms Gandhi. The BJP leaders had already declared that they would continue to support any form of agitation on the foreign origin issue.
The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought relates to Article 102 of the Constitution that says: ``A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament`` on any or more of five possible grounds. Clause(d) of the same Article says ``... or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state``.
The term ``adherence`` had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi in her affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli parliamentary constituency had stated that she owned ancestral property, namely portion of a house, in Orbassano, Italy, the country of her origin. This fact of ownership, legal experts say, makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be interpreted as ``adherence`` to a foreign country. Since this portion of the ancestral property was apparently bequeathed to her by her father in his will, she inherited it only after his death. Consequently, the property was not her`s when she filed her 1999 nomination affidavit.
Article 103 states that ``if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to disqualification mentioned in Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision to the President and his decision shall be final``. Clause 2 of the Article says: ``Before giving any decision on such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.``
This means that the President is required by the Constitution to undertake an elaborate process of examining the legal and constitutional issues involved. Thus, Ms Gandhi`s swearing-in could not happen before the matter was fully clarified and resolved.
Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity provision whereby citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign origin is circumscribed by the rights that particular country confers upon foreigners seeking citizenship there.
The crux of this provision of ``reciprocity`` is that a person of foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that particular country.
While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal luminaries pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the issue of her surrendering Italian citizenship. It is believed that while acquiring citizenship through registration in 1983, she surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Ambassador in New Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the Italian Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled.
This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few days, but it would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch of the campaign once the citizenship issue returned to the fore.
Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma Swaraj pointed out that as the Supreme Commander of India`s Armed Forces, the President should examine a key issue. It referred to the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj`s petition demanded to know.
#18 Posted by tahmed32 on May 19, 2004 12:15:20 am
The chinese curse ``May your wishes come true`` just fell upon the BJP. INC has emerged stronger as a result of the BJP`s attempt to overrule the will of the Indian majority!! The chinese curse works particularly well with bloody minded, racist fools it seems.
#17 Posted by gujjubania on May 19, 2004 12:15:19 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#16 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on May 19, 2004 12:15:19 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#15 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on May 18, 2004 9:40:18 pm
Gajjubania # 13
A political leader does not have to be a specialist in technical fields - he can hire the best by dozens for advice.
A political leader has to have a feel of his society, the direction to be taken and the confidance of the people.
Carter was a far more qualified and number expert than Reagon - but Carter failed and a generalist like Reagon succeeded.
Even the big Corporations have generalists on the top and not technologists or the financial wizards.
#14 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on May 18, 2004 9:22:28 pm
As a nuetral observer:
Sonia, by rejecting to become the PM, you have won the elections once over again.
It was wise of you not to become a controversial PM.
Meanwhile, you scored points on your integrity and selflessness.
You have made Kangress strong and strengthened the democratic traditions of India.
You also have made a case for moving Rahul & Priyanka up the ladder sooner than later.
You may also have avoided getting killed yourself.
Jay. The illetrate of the country have as much right to exercise their choice as the educated and the rich. Their urgent need may be water and not a cellular phone. If you do not factor them into the equation, they have the ability to create a much bigger mess and distort the socity.
#13 Posted by gujjubania on May 18, 2004 9:19:53 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#12 Posted by rsridhar on May 18, 2004 8:55:59 pm
re: This article
Deepak,
I am with you here.
Sonia Gandhi should become the PM. It is the democratic tradition. She was the one who the masses voted for. She carries the mandate. But the latest news is: she has declined and thereby saved the congress from constant attack fromt he Right wing Hindu fundamentalist party of ABV. With ABV gone, this party will be slowly wiped out. It stands for only the rich and has completed neglected its social obligations towards the poor. Sonia Gandhi`s stature has grown manyfolds after she declined to be the PM. This is a rarity among powerhungry Indian politicians. Sonia Gandhi is a real gem. Rest belong to the gutter.
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=334652
Sridhar
Deepak,
I am with you here.
Sonia Gandhi should become the PM. It is the democratic tradition. She was the one who the masses voted for. She carries the mandate. But the latest news is: she has declined and thereby saved the congress from constant attack fromt he Right wing Hindu fundamentalist party of ABV. With ABV gone, this party will be slowly wiped out. It stands for only the rich and has completed neglected its social obligations towards the poor. Sonia Gandhi`s stature has grown manyfolds after she declined to be the PM. This is a rarity among powerhungry Indian politicians. Sonia Gandhi is a real gem. Rest belong to the gutter.
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=334652
Sridhar
#11 Posted by rsridhar on May 18, 2004 8:55:59 pm
re:#8 by sri
ABV as a leader had become an embarassment for his party due to his old age and poor memory. He constantly forgot the names of the candidates he was endorsing, even the dates of elections. He is there because he is popular. Other than pen a few lines of poetry in HIndi, the guy does not know much about economics. As far as foreign policy is concerned, he has brought India shame by making it a satellite state of USA, where now foreign policies are being dictated. We know that after so much talk about ``strategic partnership``, US upgraded Pak`s status to non-NATO without even informing India. What kind of strategic partnership are we talking about.
Then, there is this Israel. India needs to reassess its special relationship with Israel. Latter was gvien total access to India`s security details by LK Advani. How can one do this? It is one thing to learn or modernise one`s weaponry or fighting capabilities, it is another thing to completely surrender one`s strategic defense planning to Israel, which is what India seems to have done. This needs reassessment.
This election is a reminder that the focus for any poor country should be to reach out to the poor masses with a broad social agenda even while generating money through a ``free market`` policy. BJP set its sights high and forgot to lookd at the teeming millions below. Its wings have now been clipped by the masses. I, for one am glad that BJP will have time to think and introspect what happened. We may yet see better days for BJP if it does this serioulsy.
Sridhar
ABV as a leader had become an embarassment for his party due to his old age and poor memory. He constantly forgot the names of the candidates he was endorsing, even the dates of elections. He is there because he is popular. Other than pen a few lines of poetry in HIndi, the guy does not know much about economics. As far as foreign policy is concerned, he has brought India shame by making it a satellite state of USA, where now foreign policies are being dictated. We know that after so much talk about ``strategic partnership``, US upgraded Pak`s status to non-NATO without even informing India. What kind of strategic partnership are we talking about.
Then, there is this Israel. India needs to reassess its special relationship with Israel. Latter was gvien total access to India`s security details by LK Advani. How can one do this? It is one thing to learn or modernise one`s weaponry or fighting capabilities, it is another thing to completely surrender one`s strategic defense planning to Israel, which is what India seems to have done. This needs reassessment.
This election is a reminder that the focus for any poor country should be to reach out to the poor masses with a broad social agenda even while generating money through a ``free market`` policy. BJP set its sights high and forgot to lookd at the teeming millions below. Its wings have now been clipped by the masses. I, for one am glad that BJP will have time to think and introspect what happened. We may yet see better days for BJP if it does this serioulsy.
Sridhar
#10 Posted by Romair on May 18, 2004 6:18:57 pm
Anybody who willingly gives a Prime Ministership, for no visible ulterior motives, has show character. Generally, desis do not even give up a green card, on the basis of principle, much less Prime Ministership.
In Pakistan, there are only a few examples I can think of. Altaf Hussain, head of MQM, never participates in elections. So he is not even interested in being an MNA. He leads his party as a common citizen. Ayaz Amir resigned as an MPA, of Nawaz party, when he got fed up with Nawaz`s politics. However, he did not leave the party, when Musharraf became President to join the Q League, when every other PML person was leaving. And fought this election as a PML(N) member.
The biggest example is, of course, Imran Khan. He refused a Senator seat offered to him by Zia. He refused top leadership positions offered to him by all top parties, any of which would be ready to make him President. He gave up thirty seats offered to PTI, by Nawaz Sharif. And recently, rumor has it, that Musharraf wanted him to be the PM, as the head of the Q coalition. But he went into opposition.
Interestingly, the PM of Pakistan, should have been Chaudhry Shujaat. He is the head of PML(Q), and would have unanimously been voted PM, by his party. But he has not taken any post, nor even Chief Minister or Federal Minister of any ministry. He is just an MNA.
So both the heads of the winning parties, in India and Pakistan, have decided not to become PM........
In Pakistan, there are only a few examples I can think of. Altaf Hussain, head of MQM, never participates in elections. So he is not even interested in being an MNA. He leads his party as a common citizen. Ayaz Amir resigned as an MPA, of Nawaz party, when he got fed up with Nawaz`s politics. However, he did not leave the party, when Musharraf became President to join the Q League, when every other PML person was leaving. And fought this election as a PML(N) member.
The biggest example is, of course, Imran Khan. He refused a Senator seat offered to him by Zia. He refused top leadership positions offered to him by all top parties, any of which would be ready to make him President. He gave up thirty seats offered to PTI, by Nawaz Sharif. And recently, rumor has it, that Musharraf wanted him to be the PM, as the head of the Q coalition. But he went into opposition.
Interestingly, the PM of Pakistan, should have been Chaudhry Shujaat. He is the head of PML(Q), and would have unanimously been voted PM, by his party. But he has not taken any post, nor even Chief Minister or Federal Minister of any ministry. He is just an MNA.
So both the heads of the winning parties, in India and Pakistan, have decided not to become PM........
#9 Posted by Romair on May 18, 2004 6:16:40 pm
Anybody who willingly gives a Prime Ministership, for no visible ulterior motives, has show character. Generally, desis do not even give up a green card, on the basis of principle, much less Prime Ministership.
In Pakistan, there are only a few examples I can think of. Altaf Hussain, head of MQM, never participates in elections. So he is not even interested in being an MNA. He leads his party as a common citizen. Ayaz Amir resigned as an MPA, of Nawaz party, when he got fed up with Nawaz`s politics. However, he did not leave the party, when Musharraf became President to join the Q League, when every other PML person was leaving. And fought this election as a PML(N) member.
The biggest example is, of course, Imran Khan. He refused a Senator seat offered to him by Zia. He refused top leadership positions offered to him by all top parties, any of which would be ready to make him President. He gave up thirty seats offered to PTI, by Nawaz Sharif. And recently, rumor has it, that Musharraf wanted him to be the PM, as the head of the Q coalition. But he went into opposition.
Interestingly, the PM of Pakistan, should have been Chaudhry Shujaat. He is the head of PML(Q), and would have unanimously been voted PM, by his party. But he has not taken any post, nor even Chief Minister or Federal Minister of any ministry. He is just an MNA.
So both the heads of the winning parties, in India and Pakistan, have decided not to become PM........
In Pakistan, there are only a few examples I can think of. Altaf Hussain, head of MQM, never participates in elections. So he is not even interested in being an MNA. He leads his party as a common citizen. Ayaz Amir resigned as an MPA, of Nawaz party, when he got fed up with Nawaz`s politics. However, he did not leave the party, when Musharraf became President to join the Q League, when every other PML person was leaving. And fought this election as a PML(N) member.
The biggest example is, of course, Imran Khan. He refused a Senator seat offered to him by Zia. He refused top leadership positions offered to him by all top parties, any of which would be ready to make him President. He gave up thirty seats offered to PTI, by Nawaz Sharif. And recently, rumor has it, that Musharraf wanted him to be the PM, as the head of the Q coalition. But he went into opposition.
Interestingly, the PM of Pakistan, should have been Chaudhry Shujaat. He is the head of PML(Q), and would have unanimously been voted PM, by his party. But he has not taken any post, nor even Chief Minister or Federal Minister of any ministry. He is just an MNA.
So both the heads of the winning parties, in India and Pakistan, have decided not to become PM........
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- SR: Deepak Chopra on Mumbai... Pleas For Sanity as
- SR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cIG80dlUHA&feature=related http://www.y outube.com/watch?v=WACjyXfBD_I&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/wat ch?v=nvf2GP2XzVY... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: Re: # 154 Beena, Yes, but... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- MaheshG: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/world/asia/03mumbai.html?hp U.S. and India See... Pleas For Sanity as
- majumdar: Cobes, They did indirectly and... The Future of Indo
- KaalChakra: "Only time will tell." No,... Terror in Mumbai.....and also
- BJ2: Hamidm2 miaN, when the... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- hamidm2: Re: # 3 kaal mian, ...... Pleas For Sanity as
