Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: June 1, 2004
Indians who believe White is right
may be shocked to learn that as the June 17 deadline for finalising the
European Union constitution approaches, the continent stands ruptured over
God. Europe is deeply divided over whether its constitution should include
a reference to its Christian heritage, a major impact on its history and
culture. Secular France has refused to admit religion into the draft, but
seven member-countries (Italy, Portugal, Poland, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia
and the Czech Republic) are demanding a reference to the Christian roots
of Europe.
They call it a priority issue for
their respective Governments and millions of European citizens. Though
these nations say they only seek recognition of a historical truth and
mean no disrespect to the secular nature of European institutions or other
religions and philosophical systems, it is no secret they are backed by
Pope John Paul II.
Were Ms Sonia Gandhi to take up
cudgels on behalf of secularism in her native land, she would be hounded
out of the public square. It is only in India that she has the luxury of
defending the nation's secular foundations, whatever that means. For in
the view of ordinary Indian citizens, India is a living civilisation with
a spiritual foundation based on dharma (way of life, righteousness). This
spiritual ethos embraces all without distinction; secularism is its natural
by-product, not foundation.
Given such fundamental flaws in
her understanding of the Indian tradition, it is just as well that Ms Gandhi's
prime ministerial ambitions were checkmated by powerful, though as of yet,
incompletely known forces. Not withstanding the fawning media adulation,
it is clear that something tripped her transit to 7 Race Course Road.
In fairness to Ms Gandhi, it may
be said that she has only continued the Nehruvian tradition of pitting
secularism against India's civilisational ethos, thereby denying the latter
legitimacy and space in its own homeland. Like others in her marital family,
she has sought political advantage from communal faultlines. She has evaded
the issue of foreign-funded evangelisation and the cultural genocide it
involves. She has been close to orthodox Islamic groups such as Deoband,
and was, soon after the Godhra carnage, invited to speak at the Bin Laden
family funded Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies. Here she famously lambasted
the Hindu community, but failed to utter a single word on Islamic fundamentalism.
Ms Gandhi has, quite legitimately,
sought to benefit from the non-nationalism of the intellectual-media circuit
and the pusillanimity of the erstwhile ruling coalition. It is scandalous
that the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution,
funded by the public exchequer for two long years, failed to furnish a
single worthy recommendation, and that the NDA Government allowed Mr PA
Sangma to resign rather than let the Commission consider barring foreign-born
naturalised citizens from constitutional posts. It would be worthwhile
to emphasise that the law does not specifically permit a naturalised citizen
to aspire for constitutional office; this lacuna is being misused to claim
that Ms Gandhi is legally entitled to such posts.
That Ms Gandhi intended to be Prime
Minister is evident from the way she garnered support for herself from
Congress and the alliance partners from May 13 till her abrupt withdrawal
on May 18. Interestingly, the Airports Authority of India had instructions
to clear an early morning flight to Sriperumbudur on May 19, the day of
her purported coronation, which was cancelled after some allegedly uncomfortable
noises emanated from Rashtrapati Bhavan. According to the Marathi daily,
Tarun Bharat, a Presidential missive through a special envoy brought about
Ms Gandhi's volte face-cum-grand renunciation act.
Competitive sycophancy of the media
notwithstanding, it is foolish to blame Ms Sushma Swaraj, Ms Uma Bharati
or the RSS for this development. The two ladies had merely launched some
verbal salvoes; the BJP is still in post-election stupor. The RSS does
not act precipitately. Surprisingly, among non-political public figures,
it was the guru of the swish set, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who asked friends
to draft a statement opposing a person of foreign origin as Prime Minister.
He later developed cold feet and refused to sign the statement, though
many of us were misled to believe that he had.
I believe Ms Gandhi's elevation
as Prime Minister would have tarnished our ancient civilisation. Her Indian
nationality is of very recent vintage, and is conditional and subject to
revocation. Senior journalist A Surya Prakash has established that Ms Sonia
Gandhi was still an Italian citizen when she broke India's electoral laws,
entering the voters list years in advance of her application for citizenship
(very much like the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, for whom her party
has so much sympathy). I have been given to understand by friends studying
the issue that the reciprocity clause in citizenship applies to holding
representative office, such as being an MP or cabinet minister. A naturalised
Italian of Indian-origin is not eligible for even the municipal office
in Italy. Hence, it is likely that Ms Gandhi is not entitled to be even
an MP in India.
Yet, the possibility of her becoming
Prime Minister cast an immediate shadow over law-enforcing agencies. The
friendly media has glossed over the fact that a CBI team on a four-nation
tour in connection with the Bofors payoff scandal, returned without completing
its job in the wake of the defeat of the NDA Government. It is well-known
that investigations have proved that Bofors made payments to Mr and Ms
Ottavio Quattrochi, close friends of Ms Sonia Gandhi. I understand that
despite public denials, the defence establishment has serious reservations
about the lady. Former Defence Minister George Fernandes probably articulated
this fear when he spoke of a sensitive file and the nuclear button. Certainly
it is no secret that the armed forces were upset with Ms Gandhi's conduct
during the Kargil War, and her graceless opposition to Pokhran II.
In conclusion, all reservations
about Ms Gandhi's eligibility remain live concerns in the minds of nationalist
citizens, as she has not permanently renounced her ambition to the office
of Prime Minister. Many view her present withdrawal as a tactical retreat
since the Congress lacked the numbers to force the issue. That she intends
to be a locus of political power can be seen from the amendments made to
the Congress constitution immediately after she withdrew from the prime
ministerial stakes. To begin with, she became the all-powerful chairperson
of the Parliamentary Party (elected by Congress MPs in the Lok Sabha and
Rajya Sabha), with the power to nominate the leader for each House, besides
the deputy leaders and whips.
It was under these new provisions
that Dr Manmohan Singh was nominated Prime Minister. This development,
which former Speaker PA Sangma felt was not in good taste, has put a question
mark over constitutional government in India. Little wonder that the new
regime had already lost much of its sheen by the time Dr Singh was finally
sworn-in on May 22. The induction of defeated candidates and unsavoury
personalities in the Cabinet, tantrums over portfolio distribution, maltreatment
of the Samajwadi Party, and backseat driving by Left parties, have taken
the gloss off the new administration. While the BJP/NDA will no doubt grant
Dr Singh the promised honeymoon period, it remains to be seen if the Governments
allies will give it the same consideration.
