Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
archive: Does Sonia's birthplace matter? (Part II of III)

Does Sonia's birthplace matter? (Part II of III)

Prof M N Panini
The Economic Times
June 1, 1999


    Title: Does Sonia's birthplace matter?  (Part II of III)
    Author: Prof M N Panini
    Publication: The Economic Times
    Date: June 1, 1999
    
    Sharad Pawar, Purno Sangum and Tariq Anwar have made an issue of the
    eligibility of persons of foreign origin holding the top three
    positions of the country.  They want this privilege to be reserved
    only for those born in India.  Their logic seems to be that a person
    born in India imbibes the spirit of patriotism that is vital for
    making decisions affecting the lives of millions in the country. 
    Patriotism should of course be an essential and a necessary -though
    not a sufficient - qualification for such a high post.  The patriot
    will sacrifice his or her own interests for the collective interests
    of the country - a spirit that is essential for nation building.
    
    The point at issue here is about the patriotism of naturalised
    citizens.  Pawar and his associates think that naturalised citizens
    cannot be sufficiently patriotic to hold the post of Prime Minister. 
    Pawar quotes the instance of Indians who have become naturalised
    citizens of the USA.  Since they still feel the tug of the country of
    their birth, they should not aspire to the highest office in that
    land.  If such a person becomes the President of the USA, she or he
    will find it awkward to take anti-Indian positions that may be
    dictated by the job.  Worse still, she or he may do things to promote
    the interests of India at the expense of American interests.  This
    indeed may be the case, but history knows cases of 'traitors' among
    citizens by birth as well.  Surely, this is no ground for the
    discriminatory treatment of all naturalised citizens.  It should be
    possible to evolve institutions to ensure that the right sorts of
    naturalised citizens as well as citizens by birth are selected for
    such important posts.
    
    Despite her Italian origin, Ms Sonia Gandhi has impressive cultural
    credentials to hold the high office of the Prime Minister.  She is the
    bahu of a family that can boast of 'sacrifices' for the country.  She
    has made India her home despite the personal tragedies she suffered. 
    Her children are Indians.  Her answer to her critics using such a
    repertoire of symbols has already touched an emotional chord with the
    masses.  By using evocative symbols and idioms Ms Gandhi has in fact,
    demonstrated her Indianness on the one hand and her political
    dexterity on the other.  Pawar and his associates, despite their long
    innings in politics, have been made to look political novices in the
    process.
    
    The question of Ms Gandhi's origin Detracts attention from other
    relevant issues in the Indian context.  One is the issue of dynastic
    rule and its obverse, the culture of sycophancy that compel even those
    who want to remain far from politics into becoming prominent
    politicians and even Prime Ministers.  Pawar and his associates,
    having suffered from such a system are indeed justified in complaining
    against the culture of sycophancy.  The other is the issue of
    criminalisation of politics in India.  When will the Indian political
    system identify the culprits of various scandals that have rocked the
    country, including the Bofors scandal, and bring them to book?  The
    only service they seem to have done by raising this issue of Sonia's
    birthplace is to demonstrate that patriotism can also have a
    non-Hindutva dimension.
    
    We should also not forget that the issue of origin is also an issue of
    ultimate loyalty.  Today, if it is legitimate to raise questions about
    the loyalty of naturalised citizens, tomorrow it may be considered
    legitimate to question the loyalty of those who do not speak Hindi! 
    By raising such an issue we only sow the seeds of suspicion
    
    and inadvertently evolve a discourse that may engender separatist
    movements.  We cannot afford to forget the impact of Jinnah's
    two-nation theory that snowballed into a monstrous self-fulfilling
    prophecy, creating wounds that are still to heal.
    
    (Prof M N Panini, Social Science Centre, J L Nehru University)
    



Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements