Blog & Web Directory on India
    
Advertise    SI Web Directory    Home    About Us     Facebook    Twitter
 
Share

Prominent Indian politician and leader of the Congress Party Sonia Gandhi has been viciously attacked in a full-page advertisement costing at least $64,575 in today’s edition of the New York Times.

The Ad, which we noticed on Page A5 in the Washington DC edition and Page A11 in the Late Edition of the New York Times, compares her most unfavorably with Mahatma Gandhi.

The people behind the Ad seem to be agitated that Sonia Gandhi was invited to deliver a talk on Mahatma Gandhi’s message of peace and non-violence at the United Nations General Assembly on his birthday on October 2.

Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday was observed as the International Day of Non-Violence by the U.N. General Assembly.

Declaring that Sonia Gandhi “is not a representative of Gandhian values,” the Ad attacks Sonia on multiple fronts: corruption, deception, violence, intolerance, terrorism, self-aggrandizement and religious bias.

The New York Times advertisement has been endorsed by the Forum for saving Gandhi’s Heritage consisting of Mahatma Gandhi International Foundation, Mahatma Gandhi Center & Hindu Temple, Indo Caribbean Council, Kashmir Taskforce, Indian American Intellectual Forum and Foundation of Nepalis in India.

The Sonia attack Ad must have cost at least $64,575, the so-called standby rate rate for a full page Ad in the New York Times that does not guarantee the date or page on which it will appear. We are skeptical that the advertisers paid the regular full page Ad Rate of $142,083.

The choice of Sonia Gandhi to address the U.N. on an important occasion like the International Non-Violence Day has left some NRIs in the U.S. aghast. One long-time Indian resident in New Jersey felt that the Mahatma’s grandson Rajmohan Gandhi or Nelson Mandela would have been better suited to articulate Gandhiji’s vision of non-violence in today’s context.

While Sonia Gandhi may or may not be the best person in Indian politics, virtually all political leaders in India – at the Central, State and local levels – are the same.

As Ramachandra Guha observes in his new book India After Gandhi:

The first generation of Indian leaders lived mostly for politics. They were attracted by the authority they wielded, but also often motivated by a spirit of service and sacrifice. The Indian politicians of the current generation, however, are most likely to enter politics to live off it. They are attracted by power and prestige, and also by the opportunities for financial reward.

On a later page, Guha rightly notes:

The lawmakers of India are, more often than not, its most regular lawbreakers.

Given the dubious track record of most Indian politicians and parties, we do not think there’s little to distinguish one from the other.

If Sonia Gandhi is evil incarnate as the attack ad makes her out to be, most Indian politicians are no different.

Share
 
Share

Wall Street Journal (subscription required) columnist Bret Stephens has lashed out at India’s supposedly growing defense ties with Iran in a hard-hitting column on Tuesday.

Citing articles in DefenseNews and the Washington Quarterly as well as actions by the U.S. State and Justice Departments, Stephens charges India with providing miliary technology to Iran, a pariah state for the U.S. establishment.

The U.S. is deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iran is also one of the three countries in U.S. President George Bush’s Axis of Evil (the other two are North Korea and Iraq).

In his column Tuesday, Stephens wrote:

[I]f Congress is going to punch a hole in the NPT to accommodate India — with all the moral hazard that entails for the nonproliferation regime — it should get something in return. Getting India to drop, and drop completely, its presumptively ceremonial military ties to Iran isn’t asking a lot.

As for the Indians, they don’t seem unduly worried about the criticism over the Indo-Iran military relationship describing it as “ceremonial”.

India’s Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington DC Raminder Singh Jassal is quoted in the WSJ piece as saying:

We are aware of our responsibilities and we know the danger of an Iran with nuclear weapons.

India’s burgeoning ties with Iran is prompted by its growing energy needs. The two countries are working on a 1,600 mile-long, multi-billion dollar gas pipeline deal to move gas from Iran to India via Pakistan. The U.S. is opposed to the gas pipeline project.

Share
 
Share

Did anyone say that politics makes strange bedfellows?

Ah, how true. How true.

Beleaguered Pakistan President and military chief Pervez Musharraf has held secret talks for a second time with his bitter foe Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistan People’s Party and former Prime Minister of the country.

The secret meeting is believed to have taken place in Abu Dhabi on Friday, July 27, 2007.

Both sides are mum on the discussions.

Reporting on the meeting between Musharraf and Benazir, the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) wrote on Monday:

A senior Pakistani cabinet minister said the meeting between the two leaders was part of an effort to develop a consensus on major political issues.

Benazir is currently in exile and divides her time between London and Abu Dhabi.

News reports say that this is the second hush-hush meeting Continue reading »

Share
 
Share

No, No, No.

We are not talking here about Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington’s controversial thesis on the Clash of Civilizations.

We are talking about Huntington’s earlier work, Political Order in Changing Societies (Yale University Press, 1968).

In that now forgotten classic, Huntington famously argued in the opening sentence:

The most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government.

As Iraq collapses into complete chaos, it’s worthwhile to reexamine Huntington’s 42-year-old argument (originally outlined in an essay Political Order and Political Decay in the academic journal World Politics in 1965).

Huntington framed his argument on the importance of order in context of rising violence in modernizing countries across the world. In perhaps the best sentence by a contemporary political thinker, Huntington wrote:

Men may, of course, have order without liberty, but they cannot have liberty without order.

Fast forward to Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a monster, the likes of whom have seldom walked the face of this planet. Some 200,000 people died or disappeared during his decades-long rule in addition to the several hundred thousand who perished in the Iraq-Iran war and the first Persian Gulf War.

But Saddam and his Baath Party were also a bulwark against terrorists in Iraq and ensured order and stability in the country, mostly through repressive measures.

In the aftermath of Saddam’s ouster, the institutional vacuum has produced Continue reading »

Share
 
Share

A mediocre Indian politician Pratibha Patil was elected as the country’s first woman President.

The nominee of the ruling coalition at the center, 72-year-old Patil is a lightweight politician with little achievement to her credit.

Patil won two-thirds of the electoral college votes defeating her rival Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, who was backed by the opposition parties.

Fortunately the office of the President is a symbolic post in India with little real power usually. But the President can play a crucial role in selecting the governing party if there’s a hung parliament with no political party having an absolute majority of its own.

Real power in the Indian politicial arena lies with the Parliament and its elected leaders and the leadership of the major parties.

Share
 
Share

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has vowed to run a dignified campaign, has attacked his rival Hillary Clinton for her “personal, financial and political ties to India” in a memo leaked to the New York Times by the Clinton camp.

The caustic memo referred to Hillary Clinton as D-Punjab, a reference to Hillary’s joke at a fund raiser at an Indian American’s home in Maryland that “I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily.”

Seemingly prompted by envy of Hillary’s close ties to the Indian-American community and her success in raising funds from this rich community, the memo attacks Bill Clinton’s stock ownership in an Indian company, outsourcing to India and the Clintons’ close ties to New York hotelier Sant Chatwal.

The Obama campaign memo reads:

The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary’s campaign fundraising. Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs. Bill Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to India. Workers who have been laid off in upstate New York might not think that her recent joke that she could be elected to the Senate seat in Punjab is that funny.

The Asian-Indian community, one of the richest in the U.S. is of course not amused by the Obama campaign’s attack. U.S.-India Political Action Committee chief Sanjay Puri told the New York Post:

For any candidate to imply there is something wrong with getting Indian-American support, that is upsetting – very upsetting – for our members.

Indian Americans for Hillary 2008 have already raised $1 million for Hillary and plan to raise a total of at least $5 million for her.

In a damage control exercise, Obama claimed the nasty attack as “a screw-up on the part of our research team” and that neither he nor his senior staff had seen the document.

After the storm of negative publicity that followed, Obama told the The Des Moines Register’s editorial board:

I thought it was stupid and caustic and not only didn’t reflect my view of the complicated issue of outsourcing … it also didn’t reflect the fact that I have longstanding support and friendships within the Indian-American community.

Share
 
Share

Mayawati’s Bahujan Samajan Party made mincemeat out of Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party, BJP and Rahul Gandhi’s Congress Party in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections of April/May 2007.

The BSP won 207 seats, large enough to form a government on its own.

Following the defeat of his Samajwadi Party, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav submitted his resignation to state Governor T V Rajeshwar.

Son of Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi and a Lok Sabha Member of Parliament, Rahul Gandhi campaigned intensively for his party but failed to convince the people of this backward state.

With a pitiful 21 seats, the Congress Party came a humiliating fourth in the elections, behind Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party, which won 100 seats and the BJP which got 50 seats.

Save his birth in the Nehru-Gandhi family, the 37-year-old Rahul Gandhi has little going for him.

Share
© 2012 SearchIndia.com   Privacy Policy Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha