Ideology vs. debate

Sadanand Dhume complains in a recent article on WSJ.com that “[o]paque family rule is no way to run a political party, let alone a major economy and aspiring great power.”  In response, I posted the following comment:

Mr. Dhume describes the Congress party as “utterly amorphous” and as a “motley crew.”  The same adjectives can describe India and that too in a positive vein.  It is only appropriate that India’s largest political party shares the country’s characteristics of diverging views and vigorous debate.  In bemoaning the lack of “adherence to a coherent ideology” Mr. Dhume is implying a preference for the regimented and ideological RSS/BJP combine, which was thoroughly routed in the past election.  It is interesting that India’s articulate “chatterati” is complaining of the Gandhis’ inaccessibility in a Western newspaper.  That India does not care is also reflected in the verdict of the last election, when the Gandhis’ were as visible and accessible to the electorate as any other political party.

Sonia Gandhi and her politics

Vir Sanghvi, whose writing I have admired since his days as editor of India’s Sunday magazine in the early 1990s, has written an excellent profile of Sonia Gandhi.  He begins with a brief historical introduction but focuses on the source of Gandhi’s power, her role in running the country, and some of her ideological views, especially on the economy.  Must read.

An e-mail from 2004: Democracy vs. non-issues

These are excerpts from an e-mail I wrote following the Congress-led UPA victory in May 2004:

I find the debate on Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin amidst India’s elite and NRIs amusing, if not humorous.  I wonder if all of us know that an electorate of 500 million has expressed their desire and unlike California, signing petitions, forwarding emails, and compiling views is not going to “recall” the verdict.  I am nevertheless compelled to add a few thoughts although the issue has been so effectively neutralized by Sonia Gandhi.

My first argument is that I find it ironic that the outcome of the defining characteristic of our country – democracy and elections – should make some of us ashamed of being an Indian.  If the outcome of a constitutional process that we ordinarily think of as pride-worthy produces an outcome (that is fully compliant with our constitution) that shames some of us, those shamed people should also think of the process (i.e. democracy) as flawed.  If so, what is the alternative?  A tin pot dictatorship like India’s much maligned neighbor?  I’d much rather have a foreign-born Sonia Gandhi as an elected Prime Minister than an India-born (sic) Indira Gandhi as a dictator like during the emergency in 1975-77.

Those of us who are shamed at the outcome of this election should reconcile this fundamental dichotomy.  They need also declare their positions on democracy, and not just the outcome of the democratic process because the Indian constitution is clear that (1) foreign-born people are not barred from the PM’s post and (2) the elected MPs of the majority party elect their leader and thus the Prime Minister.  This dichotomy is very important to me because all of us, particularly NRIs, never stop in expressing pride about Indian democracy.  In fact, the arguments advocating stronger Indo-US ties have always included the assertion that India and US are natural allies because of their fundamental beliefs in the practice of democracy.  We cannot have it both ways – if we want to believe in Indian democracy, let’s also accept its constitutionally acceptable outcomes with grace and dignity (unlike some of our political parties!).

Now that I have addressed this issue on a philosophical level, I want to present my second argument which is at the operational level.  During the election campaign, two “star” NDA campaigners, Narendra Modi and J. Jayalalitha, raked up Sonia’s foreign issue at every meeting they addressed.  Please see The Hindu of May 8 to see what levels Modi stooped to while raising Sonia’s foreign issue (I wonder if that would shame those who are shamed at Sonia’s election?).  How did people react to the nasty personal campaigns of these two politicians?

Jayalalitha won zero out of 39 Lok Sabha constituencies in Tamil Nadu.  All of them went to Congress and its allies (DMK, PMK, MDMK, and the Left parties).  In Gujarat, Modi who swept the last assembly elections, was considered politically invincible, and had promised the BJP 22-26 Lok Sabha seats in Gujarat, was able to deliver only 14-the lowest number of seats for the BJP in Gujarat in 20 years!  Congress won the remaining 12 seats.  There can be no more compelling evidence that these two pieces in support of the assertion that the people of India have rejected the foreign origin of Sonia as an issue.  This, in addition to the excellent performance of the Congress across the country.

Finally, I’m frankly very disappointed that we should be debating the above non-issue.  The meaning of this electoral verdict is much more profound than the country of birth of a political leader.  After all, the NDA called for early elections firmly secure of a verdict in their favor.  Yet, the people of India have responded with a resounding slap in NDA’s face strongly endorsing the numerous critical problems (e.g., job creation, agriculture, health care, water, electricity, and reduced social and economic disparities) that continue to afflict the nation but were never considered important enough to be addressed by the authors of “India Shining.”  This is just one example of the kind of issues we need to think about.

P.S.  Two facts: (1) The Indian Supreme Court decided a little after 1999 when Sonia Gandhi was elected from Amethi as an MP that constitutionally she was perfectly eligible for the positions of both MP and PM.  (2)  Sonia Gandhi received her Indian citizenship in early 1983 and not after Rajiv became PM in October 1984.