Italian Gandhi voted Indian of the Year – Part I

In the year-end viewers pole hosted by NDTV 24x7, one of India’s leading news channel, Sonia Gandhi was awarded with the ‘Indian of the Year 2005’ trophy. This is probably the most satirical event of the year where an Italian lady (by birth), who became an Indian citizen 15 years after her marriage with an Indian, received the 'Indian of the year' award. Imagine, she took 15 long years (after she started living in India) to decide whether she should take up Indian citizenship. Now, that's certainly one tough decision!

Forget being an Indian citizen by birth, a person doesn’t take up Indian citizenship after getting married to an Indian? And she didn’t just marry any ordinary Indian citizen whose only contribution goes as a vote in the general elections. She married the son of India’s then Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Indira Gandhi, who was the daughter of a freedom fighter and who also was the first Prime Minister of the country. Long story short, this young Italian lady got married into a patriotic Indian family, a family that was loyalist to the Swadeshi freedom struggle movement. Having married into the first family of the country (considering the fact that American's refer to their President's wife to be first lady!), it’s intriguing how did they not object this lady not relinquishing her Italian citizenship. Strange but true huh...

Now, I am pretty naïve in terms of my knowledge about active politics. Common sense suggest that it does not come as a wise idea to have a person of foreign nationality to live with the family of the Prime Minister of India. Even surprising, the country didn't object as well!

For a foreign national in India, it is understandable that one would like to keep his/her original citizenship in-case things go wrong in India some day; Something like a third world war, or perhaps another Pakistan war, it would be better to have access to go back to the homeland, than to take refuge in some other country. This line of thought makes perfect sense for a foreigner who is forced to live in India for some reasons. Since Sonia was a foreigner being forced to live in India, what she did was justified; to safe guard her own interest. Obviously, remaining an Italian gave her more comfort. Or maybe she was just too patriotic to take up Indian citizenship. I admire and respect this line of thinking.

But 15 years later "something" suddenly happened that made her change this decision. Is that not really strange? What was that something that triggered such a drastic change that happened after 15 long years? It just can’t be that one fine day she woke up in her bed in India and suddenly felt less patriotic about being Italian and decided to want to become an Indian citizen instead? Did the Gods shine on her that day and enlightened her with ‘today onwards India would be the heaven that the world shall desire, so you better take up Indian citizenship lady’. Naah... this happens only in fairy tales, right?

So what made Sonia change her mind and apply for Indian citizenship? The reason was merely political. (Monetary and selfish, if I can be blunt) She realized, or was made to realize that since she being part of India’s most influential family had the best chance or opportunity to establish herself in India like no equal. That Indira Gandhi’s successor would naturally be her son, Sonia’s husband. The only obstacle for him would be his wife’s foreign nationality. So she weighed the pros and cons, and finally decided that it was now the right time to take up Indian citizenship. The pros must have far outnumbered the cons. The comparison was to become the wife of Prime Minister of India (First Lady or First Citizen) or hold on to the Italian citizenship as a daughter of an ordinary Italian. Wise choice she made! Ms Sonia is definitely smart, ain't she!

This is a point worth pondering. I do not wish to politicise this issue, and thus do not want to brag about the same things that are known to many, yet not acknowledged by the larger community. But this I feel is an issue of simple ideology and logical thinking. Any ordinary human being capable of thinking level headedly will and should think about this.

The only feeling that I have towards Sonia is that of pure envy. She was indeed born with a golden spoon. Her gamble to take Indian citizenship paid off well; her husband did become the next Indian Prime Minister. Unfortunately he died early in his career. Some even go to the extent of linking Sonia to her husband’s death. But that’s a different story, another day.

Her stars continued to shine bright as ever; just as she started learning Hindi, the national language of India, the Congress party choose her as their President! She won huge sympathy of the Indian masses. She was even praised for the high sacrifices she had to make! Makes one wonder what sacrifices did she make! Maybe in India they consider giving up bread in return for a cake a sacrifice! But surely not elsewhere...

2004, when the Congress won the elections, she also got an opportunity to become the Prime Minister of the India herself. That would perhaps have been the brightest day in her life and the darkest day in India’s history. Fortunately, yielding to the Presidents insight, for the clause of reciprocity in the Indian constitution, or heeding to the death threats for her children, or due to other various shady secrets that the ordinary citizens of the country never come to know, her dream remained only a dream.

As a consolation to her desire, thanks to the NDTV 24x7 vote, she beat some very prominent Indian’s (from amongst all other streams like Sports or the IT Industry, or Cinema Industry for that matter) and managed to get the award for ‘Indian of the Year 2005’!

Interesting facts (or fiction) on Sonia Gandhi

Please read thru the following letters/post on the background of Sonia Gandhi, as stated by the author (Subramanian Swamy). I certainly do not know if that's a pile of cooked up or whatever..

http://www.sysindia.com/forums/General_Discussion/posts/49247.html

Whatever, it definitely makes up for an interesting reading....

Reasserting boundaries or justifying isolation!

Recently, there has been growing unrest amongst a certain sect of people of Maharashtra. Their dissent being, the non-Maharashtrian’s taking away the jobs of the local people of Mumbai and Pune. Perhaps these claims are not entirely wrong, or perhaps they are a result of an emotional outburst, having lost their patience. Or maybe they are in-fact, wrong! It’s not a matter of being judgemental and providing justification to blame the locals or the non-locals.

It is very much true, that if one visits Mumbai, she or he would find people from all parts of the country, working in the cohesive crowd of Mumbai. After all that is what metropolitan cities are meant to be like. Yes, traditionally Mumbai being in Maharashtra had Marathi majority. But, countries grow; places evolve, cities metamorphose. That’s life.

In a diverse country like India, it is but natural that people from all over the country would like to come to the land of prosperity, or endless opportunities. Mumbai in India is perhaps the combination of Los Angeles and New York in the Unites States. People in Mumbai have their own way. Any person from any discipline would find a way to make money in this city. From the poorest of poor to the Ritchie rich, everyone is well accommodated to the best of their capacity. Anyone in the country who dreams of making it big lands up in this city. Shah Rukh Khan, the hottest actor in Indian cinema, is a glorifying example. Then there are countless Shetty hoteliers running small food stalls to big restaurants, thousands of bhaiya’s running small business, the pioneers of the business community, the traders from Gujarat. The scores of small retail/grocery stores run by the Marwadi’s. Every community has a sizable amount of presence in Mumbai.

All these people from various communities and different places have given Mumbai its own charm. The Mumbaiya language commonly known as Hindi is in-fact a hybrid mix of Marathi and Hindi, plus tastemakers of Gujarati, Bihari, and numerous others. If it were to be decided to send back all the non-Marathi people from Mumbai back to their native places, the whole Mumbai charm would be all but gone.

To end this dispute what is required is to find out the root cause. And once identified, finding solutions to tackle that cause. So, let us try to dwell into the matter.

Having lived amongst the Marathi people, I feel they are for sure not an aggressive and closed community. Contrary to that belief, they are forward thinking, non-violent, contained and a welcoming race. This would probably be the reason why the British choose Mumbai to make their base in India. Some of you might suggest am being a biased author, but believe my word, having seen different people, I can say for sure that Marathi’s are the least aggressive of the lot. Aggression is born out of passion, lust, selfish yearnings, insecurity and greed. The Mumbai in the 1800’s was primarily comprised of Marathi Brahmin’s migrated from the Konkan ghats and others from the interiors, which were the intellectuals or the learned people and native fishermen.

If the city of Mumbai has grown, changed and evolved as the financial capital of the country, the residents of Maharashtra should taking this as a compliment to their virtue. Its true, Mumbai enjoyed the blessing of being a port city, and thus became the point of contact for the seafarers of the past. But definitely there has to be something besides just being the port city, for tens of cities along the entire western coast of India, Gujarat to Kenyakumari would have been a potential candidate. That’s beside the point. That’s before independence.

Post-independence, the central government, or the Indian government, has miserably failed in creating a Mumbai in every state of the country. They have let the lone Mumbai grow uncontrolled. While it is true that every Indian should have the free way to work and settle in any part of the country, it is also a fact that the city of Mumbai cannot contain the entire Indian population, with or without the good will of the Mumbaites.

While Mumbai is the financial capital of the country, it is probably the single largest contributor to the central Tax department. Also still, a litre of petrol is costlier in Mumbai than that in Delhi. This translates to a hidden fact that the people of Mumbai are being taxed more just so that the less able people of the country could be provided with free electricity, cheaper petrol and what not.

In world’s second largest populated country, if only a few cities are attracting people from the entire nation, then these cities are naturally going to get out of control. It should be the government’s topmost priority to create a city as prosperous and congenial as Mumbai or Pune in every other State. It’s a harsh reality that many people from Bihar are coming to Mumbai and Pune, seeking better opportunities. And that is absolutely ok, for if a deserving Maharashtrian can enjoy the benefits so should the others. But then why is it that there aren’t even 1/10^th of that many Maharashtrian’s going to Patna or Bihar for better job prospects? Answer: Patna is not that lucrative, safe and congenial! It would be applicable to UP, MP, Assam, Kerala, et al.

Imagine every State of India having a couple of cities like Mumbai and Pune. Imagine a country with well-distributed inter-state migrations. That would be a superlative example of ‘unity in diversity’ in its true spirit.

It would be much more constructive and wise, if people start asking the State governments to work towards such initiatives than creating unions and organizations to counter these patience tried people’s outcries.

For the political leaders of Mumbai or Pune, giving tall speeches with a ‘kick them out’ flavour would only give rise to hatred and create a further divide. Not to mention, it would also tarnish the good deeds that have done so far. It would be helpful if they guide the leaders of the other States, giving them tips and advice, of what would it take to create a Mumbai in their own state. Or indulge in a positive criticism at most. This would be very constructive and result in a win-win situation for all. It will also help them in their own political growth where people would recognize them for their entrepreneurial skills. And at the same time create a better India!

Jai Maharashtra, Jai Hind!

India secular, or is it.

Unity in diversity. Sounds great! This statement however seems to be set to lose its integrity. India, a relatively young nation, formed 50 years back, is still long-way from making its roots firmly hold-on to the ground. The conception of India, which itself is a controversy for some to keep on the abysmal debate on its legitimacy. India was not just born free of a foreign rule, but was born out of a partition. The partition that was so cleverly orchestrated by the foreign rulers; it is doing wonders even today. But we can give them the benefit of doubt. For how would those simple brains have had the capacity to envision the hell that would break loose after the partition?

There were other thinkers who did not think the partition to be the right way going forward to solve any crisis. But as history has shown time and again, the goods are always out weighted. As a result, the efforts to keep the country undivided didn’t yield fruits. There were lots of angry protests demanding the partition. To end the turmoil that had thus spun, the decision was made to finally execute the partition. This decision was sub-consciously going to become the first step in entering the ‘Chakra viewe’ (a spiral like formation in old time war strategies that you can enter easily, but have no way out; and thus get trapped). The partitioning of Hindustan into India and Pakistan though intended to solve all the problems backfired. More sadly, it didn’t back fire in all so evident manner, but in a more subtle and dispersed manner. Worst, it backfired more in the land that was parent to the partition.

The decision to proclaim the partition, when viewed today the experienced eyes, appears like another example where four wise pundits wandering in the wild discovered a skeleton of a tiger and decided to bring it back to life using their knowledge. But only to be killed by the new reborn hungry tiger, who once getting his life back, preyed on the four pundits with his natural instinct. Conclusion? Well, having enormous knowledge is a good thing only when it is supplemented with enough wisdom of knowing where to and, where not to apply it.

And yet, this is exactly what happened to the holy nation. Things were not bad even then. But no, they decided to make yet another blunder. The partition had happened because the Muslims, who were in minority, demanded a separate country where they could exercise their…. whatever. Now, when it is said Muslims were in minority, it implicitly meant that the Hindus were in majority. But as this was so damn obvious and implicit, the wise men (and the women) decided to ignore this fact. One nation was named rightly as a Muslim country. But not so evidently enough, the other nation was not named a Hindu country. Why? I think the reason behind this lies in the history, both the written and the un-written. The reasons we shall dwell upon at a later moment. The second nation, which had majority of Hindu’s, was named secular. Wow. Any sane person would think that if one were declared a Muslim nation, the other would be declared a Hindu nation!

The definition of that magic word ‘secular’ is spiritually speaking of higher values. But, the wise men on that committee did not realize the difference between ruling a bunch of holy spiritual men and that of ruling a few billion ordinary, illiterate, power and cash hungry, starving men and women. (This is not the definition for Indians alone, but this is what all the people on this planet are collectively best described as.) The rulers of the country, or the men in the parliament, or whatever and however they are comprised, stupidly believed that the masses would accept the term secular and live by its true meaning. Forget expecting the nation to accept and live with the definition of secularism. There own congressmen, members of the parliament, rulers of the states, used, misused and abused the term ‘secular’ for their own selfish benefits. There are thousands that are saying secular India is a joke, another thousands are so naive as to be resorting to blame certain political parties as threat to secular India.

It is indeed very good to treat people of all religions and castes as equal, presenting them equal opportunities. That’s being secular. And that’s being very nice and developed, and praiseworthy. But, ha ha ha! Indian politicians and lawmakers are not even close to deserve this kind of praise. They are men of lesser virtues, filled with worldly desires, selfish fetish, disgrace to being Hindus, less Indians, less humans. The country has different law for the majorities as to that of the minorities. Look at the irony, in a secular country they have managed to define terms of majority and minority based on their religions. 50 years past independence, and the country still does not have one uniform law for anybody and everybody. They have reservations for minorities; they have reservations for people from lower caste. Well, they still continue to distinguish between two people based on their caste.

What more, they even continue to and use terms like ‘upper caste’ and ‘lower caste’. How can you have an ‘upper’ and a ‘lower’, ‘major’ and ‘minor’ if you are secular?

Media hooligans!

Readers, kindly visit the blogspot at -

http://mediamenace.blogspot.com/

The media in India and world over country is going unabashed. There were times when the country’s leaders or politicians used to show the right directions to the countrymen; or maybe at times the clergies or priests had their turn to lure the masses with their rhetoric’s. These days it is the turn for the media. They decide, they create, they hype and they destroy. And they do so unchallenged. Its high time the governments of the world kerb these mis-adventures, make them more answerable, and hold them accountable.

In fact thanks to their frenzies, there is a blog entirely dedicated to them.

Ironic India

A tribute to all the freedom fighters of the pre-partition India

Mahatma Gandhi - The leader of the nation, was really one of the most successful leaders of the pre-partition India. A lot has been written and said about his greatness that no further justification or praise is required to emphasize his camaraderie. Its good to see that 50 years post independence there are still some filmmakers who think of basing a film on his principles.

While I fully agree with the vast majority of Indians in praising and remembering the greatness Mahatma or Bapuji as he was fondly called by the close ones, a thought passes my mind - are we being unjust to the thousands and more of other freedom fighters who made sacrifices to the best of their capabilities for just the same cause? Should we not instead have a plaque titled “Father’s of the Nation”, or if the plural is objectionable, then maybe “Founders of the Nation”?

By pronouncing only one of the many freedom fighters with the title of “Father of the Nation”, I think we are being very gender biased or male chauvinist or impractical. Either we have managed to weigh each individual’s sacrifices or some other measurable criteria and come to a conclusion that Bapuji’s were the most, or have we just let our emotions take over, thus sidelining all the other great men and women. Also, on a lighter note, if we were to have a father of the nation, should not rightly have a mother and a uncle and a grand father for the nation as well!!! ....hmmm…

The worst irony is; pause; we have to go a little back-date to better understand the point; to the era of Pre-independence; when we had a united India, or an undivided Hindustan, prior to the partition. That time as we know, for numerous reasons, or maybe fewer, a two nation theory was conceived. I think if we really try to trace for the reasons behind this theory, it will not be easier than figuring out the origin or birth of Hindu civilization or the so called ‘Hindu religion’ lately (By ‘lately’, I am referring to the AD era of English calendar; for the ‘Hindu’ existed a long before that. The depths and intricacies of the word ‘Hindu’ are beyond the scope of a couple of pages of explanation, and thus differed for now).

If we were to take the gist of it, the reasons and forces behind the two nation theory would be –
Firstly, the British or the English, because we have this mind-set, after being ruled by ‘them’ for over decades to give importance and superlative priority to the fair skins aka. whites or the not so racist term, the Westerners. That’s just on the lighter note, but yes, since they were the rulers of the country, they would probably be the right candidate for the numero uno reason for tearing down Bharat, India.

Secondly, would be the extremist, not just the Muslim extremist, but certain sect of Hindu extremist as well. Now, whether the Hindu extremist reacted as a response to the Muslim extremist demands, or vice versa, or no co-relation at all is a different debate all together.

Thirdly, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, also known as “Quaid-e-Azam” or “the Greatest Leader” or “Leader of the Nation” (Of-course by the term nation, it is meant the Pakistan) in history, or at least in the Pakistan history.

Fourthly, Jawaharlal Nehru, The son of prominent Congress leader Motilal Nehru.

A lot of people would object the third or the fourth reasons, or their order, or both, but these were indeed some major influential forces behind the partition.

Whatever may be the reasons behind the partition, the partition did happen, not so peacefully as some envisioned, in-fact in a much brutal manner others may say. But it did happen for good or for bad, maybe for worse.

Now, if we apply a little common sense; One thing is broken into two by someone, maybe the father or the creator of two parts, and yet, only one child-part refers to the creator as the ‘Father’. Now, if 2 nations were created by breaking an existing single nation, those two nations should both have a common and the same father. But its not quite so. Now, if Indians decide to refer Mahatma as “Father of the Nation”, so should the Pakistanis. And this is where lies the biggest irony. Only one child decided to title Mahatma as the father, not the other... Now, why did the other nation refuse on accepting Mahatma as the father of their Nation as well. Well, I wouldn’t know any better.

Its like two siblings but not a common father. Now that’s shameful indeed. But ironic nevertheless.

Yet another irony; After partition, one nation gets declared as a Muslim country. Fair enough, but then logic suggest the other half should be declared as a Hindu country. But some think tanks with better reasoning decided to name the second nation, India that is, as a secular nation. The meaning of the term secular is as dubious as the country itself. If all religions are same, if the country does not recognize any particular religion as superior or majority, they still coined the term ‘minority’. Not surprising, this term is majorly used to categorize the Muslims living in India. It damns me every time why in the first place if we had to have a minority community pre dominantly being Muslims, did they not simply name this nation as Hindu nation.

There is another chauvinist face to the secular definition of the country. There is this reservation for the lower castes! On one hand we are secular, meaning everyone is similar. And on the other hand we still distinguish between something like a ‘upper caste’ and a ‘lower caste’, and then, for doing justice to the ‘lower caste’ we declare special reservations.

Are we really secular? Are we proud of what we are? Do we know for real who and what we really are?