American politics and religion
American politics and religionBarak Hussein Obama will be sworn in as America’s 44th president on the 20th of January 2009. There has been some unneeded controversy around his middle name ‘Hussein’ and if he will take oath using his full name including ‘Hussein’. And I am glad he took the dignified route of using his full name.
This incident made me think about the place and importance of religion in American democracy and politics. The current religious affiliations of members of the senate and house of representative show that they are all of a Christian denomination or practice Judaism. That’s it – No other religion!!.
America has achieved an important milestone by crossing the racial divide with Obama’s election. What about religious divide? When will America be ready to accept a Muslim or a Buddhist or an atheist as their leader – even as a senator or house representative? What is it going to take for Americans to mentally break-through this religious shackle?
And why are they not ready yet? And why has India been able to accept and elect leaders of various religions? Example – George Fernandez – a Christian elected multiple times and of course the current Prime Minister who is a Sikh (though one can argue that Sikh is just another derivative of Hinduism). We have had many non-elected Muslim leaders such as Dr. Abdul Kalaam as well.
Here is one theory – India, at various times has been ruled by Islamic rulers and has been colonized by Christianity affiliated countries such as England, France and Portugal. So, historically and culturally, we have been accustomed to being ruled by non-hindu leaders.
Or are we politically more mature as a country when it comes to politics? I highly doubt this. We would still blindly vote for anyone with ‘Gandhi’ or ‘Nehru’ as a surname.
As glad as I am about the religious tolerance that India has shown in politics, I am hoping that this is not just a surface level attitude but a deeper level understanding of politics and governance. Given that we have seen goondas and shady elements elected, I am afraid it is the former.
(Sidebar1: If Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today, he might have perhaps modified his “I have a dream” speech to include religion as well and here is my version – I have a dream that my daughter will one day live in a nation where she will not be judged by the color of her skin or the religion of her choice but by the content of her character.)
(Sidebar2: Of course, there has been no non-Christian American president yet. I do know that Mayor Bloomberg is a Jew. Could Mr. Jindal have become the governor of Louisiana if he had maintained his identity as a Hindu? Bobby Jindal claims that his conversion to Christianity was an intellectual process and the words in the bible “jumped out to him” and he felt as though they were just written for him. The cynic in me thinks that the dynamics of American politics made the words jump out to a savvy Bobby Jindal. 
)
Ganesh
Ganesh – Thought provoking post. It was really aggravating to see much ado being made about Obama’s middle name. If he does understand Islam, it can only be a good thing for the US of A now.
“Here is one theory – India, at various times has been ruled by Islamic rulers and has been colonized by Christianity affiliated countries such as England, France and Portugal. So, historically and culturally, we have been accustomed to being ruled by non-hindu leaders”
That’s very insightful. Its interesting that something negative – like invasion & occupation – has wrought something positive in the society.
America has to go a long way before accepting a non christian president but Indians are way ahead of them in that aspect.
On the contrary, there is hardly any discrimination based on religion in the American society (public) , but Indian people have to change a lot in this regard.
Priya, Thanks.
Rajesh – Interesting. Why do you think that is so? When Indians do not care about the religion of their leader, why do they care about it when it comes to their neighbor? Is it because they expect so little from their political leaders that they do not care about their religious affiliation or the morals/values these leaders derive from such affiliation? Is that why goondas and criminal elements also get elected? Or is it money power that gets these leaders elected?
I do think that populace in general is very tolerant regarding the religion of their leaders.
Ganesh
Interesting point. If we had elections like the US – where a PM candidate was chosen directly by the electorate, I doubt we would have elected a Muslim or a Christian. I don’t think any country has that ability. For Barack Obama to take oath as “Barack Hussein Obama” after being elected is a bit of a farce after fighting the elections stressing at every opportunity, that he was a Christian. Of course, he did what was required to win – and nothing wrong with that.
“Comic Project”,
Good point and I had the same thoughts too. But is’nt your theory disproved by the fact that we have Manmohanjit Singh as the PM today? It was know to the electorate that Mr. Singh would be the PM of the country if congress got elected and they did. Now, we can argue that the people voted for Sonia Gandhi and not the congress because of her surname and she would be the proxy PM anyway. Still, Indians did manage to overcome the foreigner bias.
Ganesh
Interesting Post Ganesh,
But I agree with Rajesh .We may be politically tolerant ,but then how can we say that majority is in favor of a minority leader when the voter turnout is 40 % and 60 %.We can only come to that conclusion when we have close 100 % voter turn out .
We have had 3 muslim presidents…but how many Muslim PM’s have had.I agree on Dr Singh,but he was more of a comprise candidate rather who was selected after the election.Dr Singh is not even in parliment on popular vote he is a Rajya Sabha MP from Assam.
They day India truely accepts and elects a Muslim/Christian PM then we can accept that we are -minority tolerant .
Rajiv Gandhi thgh born to a Muslim dad and married to Roman Catholic publicaly maintained his Hindu Stance .
Ofcourse our majority is far from relgious tolerance.My aunt was telling me an interesting story yesterday.On a crowed Monday moring in Mumbai local she managed to find a seat in a ladies compartment …the reason the seat was next to 3 burkha clad women and no one was ready to sit next to them…..
Thought provoking post Ganesh. The Comic Project has called the “posturing” of Obama correctly.
I agree with Karthik, i don’t think we will elect a muslim prime minister anytime soon. President is not really an executive job.
I think the main reason why the USA won’t vote a non-christian into the president’s job is because of the presence of a powerful right-leaning conservative party in the form of GOP. Similarly, India now has a powerful right wing party, the BJP. The right wing will not let a minority to take the top job. In India, the only reason Sonia isn’t PM is because of the ruckus created by the BJP ( i am told that there are constitutional reasons as well due to the fact that she is not a born-Indian. But i don’t think that is the main reason).
It takes a dominant liberal thinking to vote a minority into power. I don’t know which reasonably big country will fit that bill. USA has done quite a bit on this front by electing Obama. But voting a non-christian is tough. Bloomberg will have a tough time I am sure. But maybe the Obama presidency is the turning point. One hopes.
BTW Karthik. Rajiv Gandhi’s father Feroze Gandhi is a Parsi not a muslim. Right wingers of course have been doing false propaganda about Rajiv’s father being a muslim. That is not true.
@Ganesh: Dr.Singh is the PM but he was appointed to the post. He was not portrayed as the Congress’ PM candidate. Secondly, while Congress won the elections, they did not advertise Sonia Gandhi as the PM candidate either – not in the manner the BJP portrayed ABV as its candidate. A lot of people assumed it would be her, and of those, many hoped it wouldn’t be her (You could count me among those).
@rajagopal sukumar: “It takes a dominant liberal thinking to vote a minority into power. I don’t know which reasonably big country will fit that bill”. Rightly said. Obama’s win last year is a mix of lot of personal factors – very good marketing, sincere sounding, freshness of approach, soaring oratory, stark contrast to his opponents -, and external factors. The clincher, I believe, was the media. It was almost as if they were trying to exorcise their sins of supporting Bush’s war. Could that work in India? Unlikely but 5 years, who knows.
Very interesting post and as usual very engaging comments. A single accomplished individual who doesnt project much about his/her religious affiliations is one thing, real development of minority and their participation in politics at all levels is another thing. In that front, in spite of various pockets of prejudice, IMHO, USA is far ahead of many countries but there is large scope for improvement.
Ultimately I think Judaism is accepted in USA as much as it is now is due to the economic power. They seem to control both NYC and LA/SFO business landscape.
One small correction Ganesh- “When will America be ready to accept a Muslim or a Buddhist or an atheist as their leader – even as a senator or house representative?”
Keith Ellison ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison_(politician) ) is the first Muslim to get elected to US House of Representatives in 2006. Very impressive politician. We can watch him for future.
Nevertheless all the points you raised remain same.
@ Ganesh : There are hardly any Muslims in US (0.6%) as per wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States . US is a nation build on migrants frm a Christian Western Europe. The religion of the executive is generally a representative of the voters. The same hold true in India as well.
Good post Ganesh. I’m agree with you about our non-hindu leadership theory, we are good at that. I’m little skeptical about U.S.A congress and senate’s member’s religion finding, there is nobody other than Christians and Jews are participating in U.S.A political process. Most of the political leaders are from 2nd or 3rd generation immigrates, so obviously they are European, African and Spanish origin and they are all christians. Do you think a christian conservative candidate has more chance than a sikh liberal candidate in bay area or chicago metro? Overall U.S.A has all support to come forward minorities into political process and chances of winning also high in certain areas, it is up to minorities to decide to on board.
Ganesh,
Interesting and thought provoking post. In my opinion, this stems from our need to be unique. If you think about it, there are not many things that differentiates us from other fellow human beings. Nature given distinctions are – man and woman. We probably will be feeling pretty mediocre if we didn’t create further distinctions to make ourselves unique. That’s why race and religion survive and thrive so well in society. As an extension, that’s also why we have racial and religious clashes all over the world.
I doubt if we will ever be so tolerant to elect a leader irrespective of race and religion – we could become tolerant in mingling with others in society, but not electing a leader, in my opinion.
In the US leaders are very important. It’s the leaders who formed US as a country, leaders who prevailed against civil war, leaders who set the country apart through industrial revolution, leaders who made difficult decisions throughout her history. In India, I believe, we prefer “Hero” culture than leadership culture. “Hero” culture operates well when there’s a threat or mass-challenge – British rule, 1857 rebellion, salt tax etc. In times when there’s no challenge or threat, our heroes and heroines don’t have the vision to know how to be a leader and the country isn’t expecting one either.
If that sounds too cynical, I believe it probably has some truth to it. We don’t care what religion the person belongs to, because we aren’t expecting much out of the person. Of course, the person might become a hero just by belonging to a minority religion and we would elevate the person to an iconic level.
I wish we will have a day when we care for our leaders more so than we care for religion, race or social status.
Thanks all for commenting.
“Comic Project”,
Looks like I was wrong. I was reasonably positive that Dr. Singh was portrayed as the PM even before the election date. What about George Fernandez and Antulay? Both of them are elected representatives and I am sure did not get elected from a predominantly Christian or Muslim electorate.
The fact that US does not have a single non-christian and non-jew representative in the senate or the house is really shocking. And I believe that in India, we do have reasonable number of elected non-hindu members in the parliament.
Obama was very smart in projecting a non-black image to the general public while still maintaining his African Amercian roots. His weaving out of the Reverend Wright mess by making it a larger discussion on race was a masterpiece in mass manipulation.
Sukumar,
Well said that “It takes a dominant liberal thinking to vote a minority into power”. And in this regard India maybe regressing with BJP.
Karthik,
I do not see the relevance of voter turnout, unless we are saying that the folks who do not turn out to vote are predominantly from one or two particular religion. Can you please elaborate?
Subba,
You bring a good point about liberal places in the US such as New York City, Chicago Metro and the Bay Area. I believe these areas would certainly not give much heed to religion. Now, why cannot the same apply to liberals across America? Or is it that it takes an extreme left wing person to be religiously agnostic when it comes to their leaders. I think this may be it. US is still a prudish and religion oriented nation and it is probably going to take a long time to overcome this bias.
NK,
You make a good point about leaders and heroes. Something to think about. And your frustration with Indian politics shows in your statement about Indians not caring about the religion of a person they are electing because they do not expect them to do much.
Ganesh
Ganesh,
Reason whyI mentioned about voter turnout…unless you have 100 % turnout we never say that rulers represent majority.I mean most of cases have turnout of 60% and in winner even if he 60 % of polled votes it hardly represents the opinion of the majority of the population ,it just representative of the Voting population.
Karthik,
Thanks for the clarification. One would assume that 60% is enough of a sample to extrapolate the general nature/tendency of a population. Of course, it is representative of the voting population and not the *whole* population.
In US, it is even worse, general percentage of population that vote is much less than India, especially in local elections.
Given that there is no other foolproof mechanism, I would go with assuming that 60% is good enough representation for the rest 40% that did not vote.
Ganesh
Ganesh,
If we consider the whole world, it is america, which had spear headed the liberal values.
I did not understand, why is this question posted to only america, and NOT to arabia or australia or canada or russia etc..
America had been open enough to all sort of feedback, and is it because of that freedom, we question only to america and because such freedom is not available elsewhere that we dont care about other countries?
I believe, everything in this world is only relative, even good and bad.. and in this regard, i see obama’s rise as yet another feather in america, whereas, a similar attempt would be nailed in the bud in turkey (which is muslim majority but has considerable christian population) or in australia or russia which are hard core christian nations.
Btw, is there any one in this world who is without any bias?
Vamsi,
Thanks for highlighting Keith Ellison. And your comments on Judaism and their economic power and the corresponding influence is spot on. Economic power that a community wields plays a significant role in the influence they have on politics. Like a lot of things in US, it boils down to money eventually!!
Arby,
You are just highlighting the point I am trying to make. Why should the percentage of Muslim population matter? A person should be elected irrespective of their religion. Maybe I am just being naive.
Senthil,
Why did I raise this question about US? Simple, For similar reasons that you have mentioned – America being a beacon for liberal values (which I do not believe is fully true, just to some extent, but let us go with for now) and me being a US citizen, I expect more from America than any other nation. Why did I compare against India? I am an Indian by birth and know a both more about Indian politics that any other country.
And one is the largest democracy and another the oldest!!
Ganesh
@ Ganesh. Because there aren’t many Muslims arnd in the first place to be elected. btw, how many muslim PMs has India had, despite 13% of India being Muslims and the population of India being close to 4 times as populous than US? US have had a Catholic President (They do consider Catholicism as a different religion there) and now a black President. Let a Muslim leader come up in US. Then let us decide on whether they are open to the idea of having a Muslim leader. Also, it is far easier for ppl to join politics in US than India. Barack Obama was a nobody a decade ago and he has got where he is now purely on charisma and skill. That can’t happen in India.
Arby,
It does not have to be PMs in India or presidents in US. I am just looking for elected leaders (in lower/upper house in India and senate/house in US) from diverse religion.
And I think the whetting process for politicians/leaders in US is much stricter and more open as well. So, whoever raises to the top cannot do it by just being charismatic. Like you say, they need to have skills as well. While in India, you get by party affiliation, goondgiri, bribery etc. Not that these do not happen in US, just that they are the exception than the norm.
Ganesh
@ Ganesh
Understood. I just wanted to say there can be different ways of looking at it. We may see having elected representatives of different religion as a sign of secularism, but they may consider an elected head of state of different background to be one.
A white dot is whiter in a black background. US Politicians have banked on racism background showing them whiter and Indian Politicians bank on Religion. Maybe this is how they win a election. POLITICS …
Muslims and Christians in India put some thought as to who will be in their favor before going to elections and votes are not split making them a sizable majority. The Hindus votes are mostly split on caste basis.
Both of these do not achieve anything, instead they should think of what the candidate will do for the constituency. But the people dont even know what to expect from politicians. All they expect is less violence, less corruption and less cost of living which remains elusive.
Ganesh,
That is the point i was pointing to.. because america hears us, its not fair for us to prescribe idealism to it and then accuse it of not adhering to.. I am sure you would accept that it would not be possible even to speak out, if you are citizen of countries like malaysia or in russia..
Idealism is only theoritically possible.. whether good or bad, there is reason why some sections of americans feared for obama .. and there is reason why they are not still able to accept persons from other religions..
Its imperative, we understand that problem..
I am surprised at sukumar supporting sonia gandhi for PM post.. how come any nation accept a foreigner to lead their country, and in sonia’s case, when her credibility is at question.. it was projected as though sonia gandhi was a heroine aspiring for PM and that BJP and rightwingees are villains who spoilt her ambition…
Senthil, is that how you interpreted what Sukumar wrote?
He said in his opinion why Sonia could not become PM. For majority of Indians, it doesnt matter. BJP made it a major electoral issue. Sonia (whether it is master political move or really great in heart I dont know), made MMS as PM. It is a move that floored even bigwiggies in BJP. Her nationality is an issue, will be an issue. Not the same in the case of Rahul Gandhi.
US preaches democracy, human rights etc and plays big brother in all world affairs. So, US must be a cut above the rest. So, I dont think it is appropriate to compare with Russia or Malaysia. One of the key reason why many people in US think race as a big issue is Evangelical Churches sway the public opinion. At least in 2004 election, that is what I observed. A well educated client manager was arguing why she would vote for Bush – she admitted that she was influenced in their Church. You may also know why Passion Of Christ is such a huge success. Many churches encouraged their perishers to buy certain number of tickets and distribute to their friends. I thought I came to middle east when I came across these back in 2004. Anyway if you say they have reasons to do what they do, then we can even justify AQ or Bin Laden. But we wont as any sane person in the world, right.
Thanks Vamsi. Senthil, as Vamsi said correctly, it is not my opinion about whether Sonia can be PM that matters. It is the BJP’s opinion that matters. All i am saying is in any country unless liberal views dominate you will not see minorities rising to power. USA is no exception to that as Vamsi pointed about the Church’s influence. Dubya leveraged the evangelicals very well to capture power twice.
this time however because Republicans have failed miserably and 0bama waged a masterful campaign that removed race as an issue,Obama won. As i said above, i am hopeful that this is a harbinger of things to come. Only time will tell.
Vamsi,
Absolutely correct. In the US, as much as there is separation of church and state at the constitution level, leaders as well as the folks who vote are influenced one way or the other by the Church. And even here, as it was pointed in this thread before, WASP influence is much more predominant.
Sukumar,
Obama did wage a masterful campaign. As much African Americans naturally aligned with him, he never projected himself as just their leader, and at the same time, he did not distance himself from his roots either. Once again, I think the way he turned around Rev. Wright fiasco into a nation wide discussion on race was brilliant as well as very clever.
Ganesh
Vamsi,
If we look back at how KGB terribly influenced the world affairs, US seems to be lot more better.. considering the enormous power wielded, a comparison b/w US and Russia is more apt.. I need not mention, both Russia and US were christian majority nations..
I feel, the liberal values that ganesh discussed is equally applicable to all nations.. does it means that if a nation is not powerful as US, it should not be questioned..
Its glad that you pointed out enormous influence of church in US.. and i hope, you would agree, the same influence is wielded in India too.. While the Hindu majority is Dis-organised, more liberal, the churches play dirty power politics in the name of minorities..
Also, in India, CSI is the largest property owner, and runs one of the largest educational institutions.. and it receives most of government grants and aid while the institutions run by individual persons in majority community does not receive any grants , because the person is Hindu..
Is this the kind of liberal values that are advocated in the name of minorityism?
I hope you even heard about recent decision to make Madrassa certificate on par with CBSE certificate..
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/madrasa-certificates-will-now-be-cbse-equivalent/404478/
I believe, this is not the kind of minority upliftment that an educated persons wants..
Sukumar,
Sonia gandhi was president of congress and by default aspiring for PM post.. BJP has every right to make it an election issue.. How does it make it less liberal?
In my opinion the republicans lost mostly because of Economy problem, which itself was result of their bad policies..
Also my point is that atleast obama could fight an election and win it in US.. such thing is not imaginable in other christian countries like Russia, which also contains sizeable population of muslims.. I doubt, even in britain, it would be possible..
So US is more liberal than most other nations in this regard..
Vamsi,
If sonia’s nationality is an issue, then can there be a discussion on it in separate post? I think, it had never come for discussion so far.. Are the sastwingees community ready for it?
Also, if sonia’s nationality is an issue, then how come it be a master political move or a kind heart, as you have opinionated.. is it not a national issue ( both in security point of view and also in national honour), that a person whose nationality is questionable, and whose credibility is questionable, is able to determine who our PM should be?
Again, while we are talking about honesty and patriotism, should this issue not a thing of great concern to us?
Do you feel, just because she belongs to minority christian community, she should not be scrutinized or questioned..
Sonia Gandhi is not an issue for any common man. You are right about opinionated view of right wing versus left wing versus straight-wing. Her nationality is not questionable – according to constitution she is a naturalized Indian citizen. Since nobody could predict the events that led her to become a head of a national party, it is vague if she can be PM or not. A foreign woman, marrying a son of head of a state who is a pilot, who got assassinated, whose husband became PM and also got assassinated, then shied away from public eyes (mourning or detested politics), allowed her party to choose another leader as PM for 5 full years, then saw that part going into ruins with no direction or unifying force, came back into public life, learned politics, Hindi, managed to lead a victory and become a potential candidate for PM – Imagine the odds.
IMO – if we start with trust (irrespective of ethnicity, language, nationality), things will be good. Vajpayee could trust Musharaff/ Nawaz Shariff, who will screw India in the first possible opportunity but would not trust Sonia Gandhi. That says something right? National Security (LOL), chances that someone of that level in public scrutiny will do against interests of our country is very very remote. I am not saying that Sonia Gandhi is like Mahatma Gandhi. But what she did is with finesse. She has real power but doesnt have constitutional power. At the end, I dont know if BJP can celebrate anything. It forced, India to have a Paneerselvan instead of JJ at the top. How unfortunate?
Community is ready for anything as long as contributors post an interesting post.
Vamsi,
Very well said. The “president only if born here” rule in US does seem unfair at times. Take the case of Madame Secretary Albright. She immigrated to US when she was 5 and has done immense service to her nation and the world in general. It is so unfortunate that she cannot even be considered for presidency.
Sonia Gandhi, by marrying Rajiv Gandhi, had to sacrifice a lot. She stuck with her husband’s country and his party and had indianized herself to the extent possible.
Do you think there would be any cut-off age associated with allowing someone not born in a country to become president/prime minister? Here is an *hypothetical* scenario – If Italy was to wage a war against another country that is globally accepted to be unfair, but the citizens of Italy due to historical reasons consider fair, and the war affects India negatively (but only minimally) What would Sonia Gandhi do? Would she be able to erase fact that she has lived a large part of her in Italy and do the right thing both publicly and privately?
Senthil,
Yes. If the post is interesting and is written with an open mind to generate discussion and opinions are not stated as facts, bring it on. Let us have fun!!
Ganesh
Hello
Are you from Cognizant ? This Indian guy mentions Cognizant ppl in his incident. FYI
simplymalayalees.com/evaartha/
I may be tangential to the discusson but I feel that SG could have become PM with proper credentials.That includes working for the Party from grass roots ,and qualifying to become the president of the Party through sheer talent,but in this case it did not happen that way.She became president of the party just because she was married to a Nehru-Gandhi.If she had worked for adopted country from start like Madame Albright she has every qualification to become the PM .It may not be related but the DMK i agree is dynatsic party but we should give some credit to MK Stalin who has worked in Party from 1975 (was jailed during emergency),was given a ticket only in 1991 who was groomed in to the mould.Just because he is the son of the party president he was not given posts in platter(there were favourtisms ).
So, IMHO SG and Madeline Albright are 2 different cases, Sonia needs to become the PM by virtue of her qualification/eligiblity, and not by the virtue of her marriage …..
Keerthy – There are many news stories in the site provided by you. Which one are you referring to? Please provide details, as people are generally hesitant to click on web pages, unless they are sure it has related content.
As you know, there are many spammers these days, trying to increase hits to their sites.
/** A foreign woman, marrying a son of head of a state who is a pilot, who got assassinated, whose husband became PM and also got assassinated, then shied away from public eyes (mourning or detested politics), allowed her party to choose another leader as PM for 5 full years,
**/
Vamsi,
Please note the bold phrase in your above lines.. you have hit the nail.. Congress is the property of nehru family, and now sonia inherits it
You seem to have a heroic version of sonia.. But the reality is different.. i will detail it later..
/** Where is the proof that SG is less patriotic and less honest than, say, you? **/
I will prove it.. but before that, Can you tell me how can we prove the patriotism of a person?
I dont have any heroic option of Sonia Gandhi. Let us give credit where she deserves. Anyway being in public life she will be scrutinized for where she lacks. Even today I really doubt if she takes any action all by herselves. She is surrounded by a coterie of many corrupt people and some very honest people(AK Antony). INC being property of Nehru family is not a new piece of information. It is true at least since Indira Gandhi days. Like it or not that is their unifying force.
Unless they are tested for breaking point. If they do not break. Take a person give him 1M$, he may not reveal a state secret. Give him 100$m some will break. Give him 1B$ some more will break. Or cause some harm to their close people etc. Patriotism is well tested in case of defectors from behind Iron curtain during Cold War. You may dig some material on that in the Net. None of them are less patriotic in normal circumstances. Some top rank Russian folks who sacrificed everything to Soviet also defected when their beliefs were shattered or simply money and better life.
Again it is going tangential. Just try to reply to this – had SG been a princess from Hindu nation Nepal who married RG, will BJP make any issue? It is my strong belief (based on many actions of BJP so far) that it would have accepted saying that Nepal is part of Akhand Bharath. I have reasons to believe that in that aspect, Sonia got a raw deal.
Vamsi,
If that persons was aware that he is being tested for patriotism, will he take that money, (even if it is 100 billion)?
Patriotism and Trust are abstract things that cannot be proved scientifically.. These comes through implicit understanding and also through intuits..
Even in our office, we dont ask anyone to prove their trust NOR do we employ scientific methods to prove our loyalty..
And this is what played a major role in Obama’s campaign.. When the entire muslim world treats america as their enemy, and when alqaeda had carried a major terrorist attack on america, its natural that obama’s muslim identity creates a sense of insecurity among american people..
And there is reason in their fear, because being at such most powerful post, even an deliberate intented delay may cause great damage to their country..
That is what we are seeing in India with SG calling shots, just by virtue of the power she has.. With PM Manmohan singh being made dummy, every minister behaves as they are the Prime minister.. no minister is accountable to either PM nor SG and In short the entire government had divided among the UPA partners and no one is accountable for any one..
What was the consequences… Nepal, a india favorable nation is lost.. China is being allowed to encircle india with its string of pearls.. even bangladesh kicks us.. In short, india had been weakened and the recent mumbai episode exposed the weakness to the whole world..
And as a direct consequences of sonia calling the shot, Quotrochi was deliberately made to escape india by subverting the CBI.. he could even withdraw his amount, by deliberately holding CBI from taking preventive action..
The list goes on..
/** had SG been a princess from Hindu nation Nepal who married RG, will BJP make any issue? It is my strong belief (based on many actions of BJP so far) that it would have accepted saying that Nepal is part of Akhand Bharath.
**/
Vamsi.. there is no straight forward answer.. why does india has open border with nepal and bhutan, but not with pakistan or bangladesh? the same holds true for this..
You are making a point that because SG is a christian, BJP opposed.. this may be partly true, but arent George fenandes a christian, but occupied powerful defence minister post? and Omar abdullah, a muslim became cabinet minister?
The point is not just about religion, but the nationality, patriotism and allegiance of the person concerned..
Even if it had been a prince from Nepal, but lacking credibility, i bet, BJP will not accept them..
Life is full of If’s and Else.. the same question can be asked to you.. if SG had been a prince from Nepal, will the ELM (English Language Media) support her?
/** Community is ready for anything as long as contributors post an interesting post. **/
I am waiting for that post, and also for another post, that sukumar long back assured writing on caste system..
Senthil,
I will end this by saying – more power to you if you trust BJP (with its religious bigots) to be protectors of our nation.
Ganesh
Ganesh,
Thanks.. but your views on BJP is unsubstantiated ..
I will also end this with the following news, that was reflective of how congress undermined the very security of the nation..
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/got-nothing-in-defence-army-fails-to-woo-talent/82916-3.html
/** INC being property of Nehru family is not a new piece of information **/
Vamsi.. can i view this as a compromise on your ideals? Are we not stressing democracy in every part of the society.. is INC as property of congress, a casual thing or a concern to us?
Senthil,
Just because I am saying BJP is not protector of our nation, does not mean that I am saying it is congress. BJP is very overt in the way it uses religion to gain power. And elements like Modi incite violence against minorities and destroy places of prayer in the name of religion. Unfortunately, good leaders like ABV are held hostage by such bigots.
Congress also does this, in a more covert way, by cow towing to minorities.
My point is, do not expect your leaders to be the protector of the nation. It is YOU and the communtiy around you, with your awareness and education that needs to do this – until the politicians can raise above pettiness and become leaders of a nation.
And I have really had last say on this digression in this thread!!
Ganesh
Senthil,
Why do you think I am a supporter of Congress? Just because I say BJP and most of the right wing folks are biased, it does not mean I am a Congress sympathizer. I used to vote for candidates based on merits. Luckily for brief period I could vote, my constituency used to have some good choices.
I also attended sakha(RSS) briefly, canvassed for BJP candidate for our constituency in 1991 parliamentary elections, was an active ABVP member (at least for a while I admit that I was a college level leader), state ABVP leaders used to stay with me in my room when they come to the town where I studied MCA, used to meet folks at ABVP state office in Vidyanagar. I know all good things they do and their commitment. But, a big but, I changed my opinions when I saw larger picture. I had reasons to believe that India needs less hawkish, more diplomatic leaders. Bringing down mosques, butchering minorities, and burning churches is not the right solution for our problems. Protecting and enhancing the situation of minorities is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of progress and development. As a matter of fact, in our current security situation, it is much needed step.
Again, I dont want to hijack this thread anymore
Honestly this is my last post.
Vamsi,
I am not talking about loyalty.. you are dead against monarchy and aristocracy.. in INC it is more like autocracy for the past 4 decades.. By ignoring this aspect, have you compromised your ideals? Is it not a grave danger that we do not oppose or voice against, placing a big national party under a single family, and that too for 4 decades? I havent seen you fiercely advocating against this in any of the discussion, NOR is the sastwingees community writing against this fact..
This is my question, and i feel, my question is relevant to this post..
/** And elements like Modi incite violence against minorities and destroy places of prayer in the name of religion. **/
Ganesh.. We will have this discussion on a separate post… But this is unsubstantiated accusation on your part.. you seem to be towing the line of the ELM.. (Engligh Language Media)..
Senthil,
That is the whole point. That point itself is not big enough for opposing any party. Which Indian party has real internal democracy? You can list down the number of internal elections conducted where many second level leaders were given a chance to go to the top post? Dont say BJP’s 3 year (or 2 years) rotation of it’s President. All I hear is two names – ABV and LKA. These days some Gujaratis or few extreme right wingers naming NM. Can you please enlighten me?
vamsi,
Let me take the same logic.. Which country allows the minority to become PM? Why is only america questioned?
We are closing the loop and came back to the starting point of this post
..
Also, your hatred for BJP doesnt make you recognize the fact that BJP is not controlled by any single family.. NOT even by its idelogical founder RSS.. it has considerable internal democracy..
Btw, i am a strong supporter of Modi,.. its not few people.. but a lot of people all across country support him ..
vamsi.. let me conclude this point.. my core point is that in the name of justice or nuetrality or liberal values, we are taking stands as per our convenience.. i am not saying that we should not question anything.. but, we often take a stand that we are always NOT biased and only others are biased and even accuse the target.. In this post, it is america.. in earlier post it was the society, government, and many other targets..
While the intent of this post and other posts are noble, it itself becomes biased, when we narrow ourself in to one or two factors, instead of taking in to account the larger picture.. and particularly in this post, only the minority factor is considered, and all other factors is ignored.
I just wanted to point this..
Senthil,
Why are you ignoring/simply putting this important issue under the carpet? What is the bias you are talking about? Can you please explain?
Also check the title of the post. It is about America because the author and almost everybody in this community are impacted/ influenced by America. Why America? You read the above comments in chronological order, then you get answers to all questions raised in your conclusive comment.
And, you should not conclude by tweaking the message that is black and white in the same post and few comments above.