Sunday, May 16, 2004
20 themes from the Indian election
(Via Rajesh) Jivha has one of the best blogs regarding all things India. Today, he has outdone himself by detailing twenty broad lessons to be learned from the Indian elections. These include Sonia's foreign origins, rural India, exit polls, dynastic polls and so on. In particular, I agree with his take on the ruckus surrounding Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin. After all, the usual mailing lists and websites are already buzzing with the pseudo-Hindu (that's my term for people who are perverting the great traditions of Hinduism in the worst sort of manner) crowd fighting each other to hurl vitriol at her. Some of the invective is so vitriolic that it actually tells you more about the person hurling it (more than one accused her of being a "lower middle-class social climber") rather than Sonia Gandhi herself. These feudal, pseudo-Hindus forget that the Indian constitution was actually written by someone born into the "untouchable" class. Anyway, here's Jivha's take.
There are four ways to approach the issue of Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin - the patriotic/jingoistic, the constitutional/rational, the practical/unbiased and the realistic.
1. Patriotic/jingoistic: As per this logic most of us cannot comprehend how a lady who was born in Italy can get to preside over all of us. We get all charged up and start talking about what a shame it is that a country of more than a billion people cannot find a “home grown” prime minister and about how the Gandhi dynasty treats India as its personal fiefdom. Some of these very same patriots would also wonder how a woman, whose place should ideally be inside the house in a kitchen, can hope to be PM. Some will wonder how people born into a lower caste can study in the same college with them. Some will still wonder how a mother can love an adopted child the same way as her biological child.
2. The constitutional/rational: I must confess I belong to this category. I believe in not just the words but the spirit of the Indian constitution which ensures that all its citizens are equal before the eye of the law. To me the cornerstone of “equality” for all is the primary idea that powers a democracy. All talk to create a second class of citizens based on various factors like place of birth, religion, sex, caste etc. goes against the very grain of our polity. Either you don’t grant someone citizenship, or if you do then treat him/her the same way as you would treat any other citizen. And please don’t talk about how the USA or some other country doesn’t allow this etc. etc. because I don’t believe in looking towards others to establish your own values!
3. Practical/unbiased: I fall into this category too. This set of people believe that Sonia Gandhi does not have the requisite education, experience or ability to head a country. Fair enough. What about Laloo Prasad Yadav then? What about Mayawati? What about the semi-literate Uma Bharati? Are we to condemn them to a lower level of citizenship because they aren’t educated enough? Further, who’s to decide that? The voter? Or do we envisage a two-level democracy where the masses have a lower voting power than the intellectuals and the elite? Because they aren’t mature enough to know what’s good for them?
4. Realistic: This set of people understand that if a majority of voters in India have given their mandate to the Congress Party knowing fully well that Sonia Gandhi was the party’s leader, then thats what the writing on the wall is. Sonia Gandhi has the mandate of the majority, and in a democracy thats what counts. The Congress Party has the right to elect anyone it chooses as its prime ministerial candidate(provided the person meets all constitutional obligations) and if it selects Sonia Gandhi (and it looks like it will), then Sonia Gandhi will be our prime minister.
Most of the people who’re criticizing Sonia’s prime ministership wouldn’t obviously have voted for the Congress in the elections too. So please try to understand that your candidate/party hasn’t won - get that into your head. A democracy is a rule of the majority, not of everyone. Remember and respect that.
If Sonia Gandhi does become PM, that would mean India has a muslim president and a christian prime-minister in a country that is mostly Hindu, though admittedly neither President Kalam nor Sonia are religious. Where the pseudo-Hindu crowd sees some dark X-Files type conspiracy by the Abrahamic faiths to take over India, I actually see a celebration of the tremendously inclusive and tolerant nature of Hinduism. This example of a truly pluralistic and diverse society should be something for other democracies to aspire to, not something for Indians to be embarassed about.
There are a lot of reasons to be wary of a Sonia Gandhi government, least of which is her competence to rule. Fact though is that she won the election and therefore the Indian constitution gives her the option of becoming prime minister. Perhaps she will screw up totally. We will all know in a little while. But there is nothing in the Indian political system that suggests that only a right-wing government has the right to rule. If Sonia screws up, as her critics insist she will, the Indian voter will toss her out just as efficiently as he/she tossed the NDA government out.
There are four ways to approach the issue of Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin - the patriotic/jingoistic, the constitutional/rational, the practical/unbiased and the realistic.
1. Patriotic/jingoistic: As per this logic most of us cannot comprehend how a lady who was born in Italy can get to preside over all of us. We get all charged up and start talking about what a shame it is that a country of more than a billion people cannot find a “home grown” prime minister and about how the Gandhi dynasty treats India as its personal fiefdom. Some of these very same patriots would also wonder how a woman, whose place should ideally be inside the house in a kitchen, can hope to be PM. Some will wonder how people born into a lower caste can study in the same college with them. Some will still wonder how a mother can love an adopted child the same way as her biological child.
2. The constitutional/rational: I must confess I belong to this category. I believe in not just the words but the spirit of the Indian constitution which ensures that all its citizens are equal before the eye of the law. To me the cornerstone of “equality” for all is the primary idea that powers a democracy. All talk to create a second class of citizens based on various factors like place of birth, religion, sex, caste etc. goes against the very grain of our polity. Either you don’t grant someone citizenship, or if you do then treat him/her the same way as you would treat any other citizen. And please don’t talk about how the USA or some other country doesn’t allow this etc. etc. because I don’t believe in looking towards others to establish your own values!
3. Practical/unbiased: I fall into this category too. This set of people believe that Sonia Gandhi does not have the requisite education, experience or ability to head a country. Fair enough. What about Laloo Prasad Yadav then? What about Mayawati? What about the semi-literate Uma Bharati? Are we to condemn them to a lower level of citizenship because they aren’t educated enough? Further, who’s to decide that? The voter? Or do we envisage a two-level democracy where the masses have a lower voting power than the intellectuals and the elite? Because they aren’t mature enough to know what’s good for them?
4. Realistic: This set of people understand that if a majority of voters in India have given their mandate to the Congress Party knowing fully well that Sonia Gandhi was the party’s leader, then thats what the writing on the wall is. Sonia Gandhi has the mandate of the majority, and in a democracy thats what counts. The Congress Party has the right to elect anyone it chooses as its prime ministerial candidate(provided the person meets all constitutional obligations) and if it selects Sonia Gandhi (and it looks like it will), then Sonia Gandhi will be our prime minister.
Most of the people who’re criticizing Sonia’s prime ministership wouldn’t obviously have voted for the Congress in the elections too. So please try to understand that your candidate/party hasn’t won - get that into your head. A democracy is a rule of the majority, not of everyone. Remember and respect that.
If Sonia Gandhi does become PM, that would mean India has a muslim president and a christian prime-minister in a country that is mostly Hindu, though admittedly neither President Kalam nor Sonia are religious. Where the pseudo-Hindu crowd sees some dark X-Files type conspiracy by the Abrahamic faiths to take over India, I actually see a celebration of the tremendously inclusive and tolerant nature of Hinduism. This example of a truly pluralistic and diverse society should be something for other democracies to aspire to, not something for Indians to be embarassed about.
There are a lot of reasons to be wary of a Sonia Gandhi government, least of which is her competence to rule. Fact though is that she won the election and therefore the Indian constitution gives her the option of becoming prime minister. Perhaps she will screw up totally. We will all know in a little while. But there is nothing in the Indian political system that suggests that only a right-wing government has the right to rule. If Sonia screws up, as her critics insist she will, the Indian voter will toss her out just as efficiently as he/she tossed the NDA government out.
