How could I have committed the elementary fallacy of the slippery slope? That’s simple. I committed no such fallacy. An example of the slippery slope fallacy is this: “You start punishing people for murder today and the next thing you know, people will get hanged for killing animals.” Now that is a fallacy because you are refusing to make a sound decision today for fear of making a sound distinction tomorrow. (In this case, the elementary distinction between humans and animals)
I did not claim that there is no difference at all between citizens and non-citizens. I just wanted to know what the difference was, so that I could use it in my argument, in ways you are probably not anticipating.
Yazad is right that the reason we let only citizens stand for political posts in our country is to avoid conflicts of interest. But let’s be clear on what the conflict of interest amounts to. If the fear were just that a person could hold political office in two countries simultaneously, then we could pass a law prohibiting that specific action. Of course a person could be Defence Minister of India for a period and then move to Pakistan after demiting his post. But that could happen even now.
The real reason for the citizenship requirement is that we expect things like loyalty and commitment from our politicians. The law is making an educated guess that a person who acquires citizenship of this country is probably willing to make that required commitment. (Yes Gautam, in the economists’ lingo, it is a signalling mechanism)
But please note that the law can at most make an educated guess. it cannot guarantee that a citizen will be loyal and committed to the country (or there would be no traitors)
It is like the law setting the age of majority at 18. What is it saying? Is it saying that on my 18th birthday I was suddenly infused with a sense of responsibility and with a level of maturity that I hadn’t possessed a day before? Of course not. Some people are responsible and sensible ahead of their time and the law is in fact unfair to a sixteen-year old who has enough good sense to manage his money but cannot legally sign his own cheques. Some people never gain their sense of responsibility. You probably shouldn’t turn over the keys to your business empire to your son on the day he turns 18 just because he has turned 18. It is a good idea to exercise your own judgment on the issue.
Similarly, if a naturalised citizen stands for high office, voters need to judge whether the candidate has developed a sufficient amount of loyalty and commitment to the country, and whether he has actually understood the problems of the country, given that he started off with a handicap. Note that I am not saying that the law should ban the candidate from standing at all. I am only saying that the voters should ask questions and that they deserve an answer.
Is that too much to ask for? I don’t think so.
If I stood for elections from Mangalore (my “native” district which I have visited often but never lived in), my opponents and my voters will have legitimate questions about my origins. I can tackle the “outsider” questions by pointing out how much I know about the district. “See? I can speak Tulu.” “See? I know the difference between the Thenku and the Badagu styles of Yakshagana” The onus is on me to explain how my knowledge of the district is not as bad as a typical outsider’s, and what other talents I have that will compensate for the little handicap that comes from my having stayed outside the district for most of my life.
I will certainly not say, “So what if I cannot speak Tulu. Can everyone who has lived all his life in the district speak Tulu?” Or, “What if I know nothing about the problems of the district? Does every politician here know everything about the district?” If I did so, I would be insulting my voters’ intelligence.
But don’t such arguments constitute the entire case for Sonia Gandhi becoming the Prime Minister of India? If someone asked how is it that she could not speak Hindi properly even though she had stayed for 40 years in Delhi, the answer was “Can all Indians speak Hindi? Are you saying that someone who doesn’t know Hindi cannot be the Prime Minister?” (Um.. no, but not picking up the local language after forty years in that locality raises legitimate questions about your love and commitment to said locality. And those questions haven’t been answered by looking at the rest of your record.) If someone asked why she became a citizen only in 1983, the answer was “So what? She is a citizen, isn’t she? (Um.. yes she is a citizen. But as I have already explained, citizenship is supposed to signal your commitment to the country, If you became a citizen 15 years after you married an Indian citizen, you need to explain what took you so long, and why you hesitated, if you did.) If someone asked what she knew about India, the answer was “Does every Indian know everything about India?”
That was how the argument went even for even those questions that weren’t directly related to her commitment and loyalty. Education? “Is Uma Bharati educated?” Experience? ” What have all those others with experience achieved?”
So this is what we had. A person who came from outside India making a claim for the most important job in India, whose only claim to be an Indian is a legal document certifying her to be an Indian, whose only qualification for the post is that she was at least better than the dumbest among us. A person who would fail any test of Indianness devised, but her defense amounted to saying that because no one would score full marks in the test, it didn’t matter that she scored a zero. The only way to claim that she is an Indian is to deny that there is any basis for nationalism at all; that there is any thing that Indians share, which makes them distinct from non-Indians.
Excuse me while I take a small digression and talk of nationalism. Most people who supported Sonia committed the “with-us-or-against-us” fallacy. They assumed that everyone who opposed Sonia and called her a foreigner were automatically taking the narrow position of religious nationalism. “She-isn’t-Hindu-and-she-is-white- and-so she is Foreign”. That is not true. There is such a thing as secular nationalism, you know.
Religious nationalists’ approach to nationalism is to dig deep into the past and discover something that unites us, and use that as a basis for nationalism. But nationalism isn’t discovered, it is constructed. Every generation finds things we have in common, things that we share, things that we value and things that we can be proud of, and builds a nationalism out of it. Just because it is constructed it doesn’t mean that it isn’t real.
So we middle-class Indians are building a secular nationalism and we are using as raw material uncontroversial things that we all can share, like cricket, films, songs etc. We are also taking religious festivals like Diwali and Holi, and stripping them of sectarian meanings and converting them to national symbols. We aren’t doing these things consciously and purposefully of course. We are doing those things by simply going on with our lives.
When I say that “X” is something we share it doesn’t mean that every Indian shares “X” and that anyone who doesn’t appreciate “X” isn’t an Indian. But I am saying that many Indians share it, and X, Y and Z together defines Indianness.
These things that we share help us to communicate better with one another and help us work with each other better.
Now we secular nationalists were told that unless we accept someone with whom none of us has anything in common as leader, we have thrown in our lot with the religious nationalists. We were supposed to be proud of the fact that we ended up electing Sonia as our Prime Minister. Proud of the fact that a person of no talent with no qualification to rule had manuevered herself into a position of power by using what we saw as our age-old weakness – dissension in our ranks? If she had become Prime Minister, we would have seen Congress culture in its full bloom. We would have seen Congressmen compete among themselves to display sycophancy. Was that something that would fill our hearts with pride? Even now, the spectacle of a seventy-year old Manmohan Singh with a record of public service behind him and a PhD in economics with him saying that he would seek “guidance” from Sonia Gandhi makes me cringe, whether or not I think of her as a forigner. Many people do think of her as a foreigner and they’d see it as a national humiliation. They certainly won’t feel proud.
Unfortunately, the political battle between religious and secular nationalisms is being fought within the BJP. In fact they share a symbiotic relationship there.
(We middle-class Indians don’t associate the Congress with nationalism. That is because the Congress has recklessly squandered the legacy of the freedom struggle which it used to carry. In fact the freedom struggle and the symbols of the republic could have been one of the bases for nationalism. But because the Congress misrule tainted those symbols, I think the middle-class turned to the BJP and the Ram Temple for a brief period looking for things to be proud of. But that is another story)
But on this issue, both the BJPs would have been united and the middle-class would have moved inexorably towards the BJP, with every misstep Sonia took. (Needless to say, she would take a lot of missteps) Don’t underestimate the middle-class by the way, it has effected a change in government in 1989 and 91. because of Bofors and Mandal respectively. The effect this time would have been much worse for the Congress, and we’d have to hope that it is the secular nationalists and not the religious nationalists who would have won the internal battle within the BJP.
So that’s what I have got against Sonia. To repeat, I don’t think that naturalised citizens should be constitutionally barred from becoming Prime Minister. I know that Americans don’t allow non-American born citizens become President, but their founders wrote it to guard against a specific threat which is not relevant now. (To prevent one of the European royal families from installing one of their scions as President by working the political process and then converting the US into a monarchy). But even if the Americans repeal the provision and an immigrant does run for President, I am sure, he will have a record of achievements, adopted American values and lived the American dream.
Similarly, if you are some immigrant who wishes to become Prime Minister of India, build up a track record, display an understanding and commitment towards India, learn to speak our language and understand our metaphors. Then seek a mandate specifically for your Premiership. If you succeed, I will be proud. Not till then.
Many of the questions you raise about Sonia are valid, but to my mind quite easily answered. I don’t think she or Rajiv intended on settling in India let alone entering politics. Sanjay was the heir apparent, he had even made the moves that clearly signalled that. It was only two consecutive deaths that kind of fast-tracked Rajiv and then Sonia into politics. Sonia then lost her husband to Indian politics, that is a tremendous loss. I can’t imagine losing a close family member in a such a public way.
Subsequently, though Rao was able to keep the government together for 5 years the Congress disintegrated around him and when Kesari took over matters got worse. Remember Cong(Tiwari), Scindia’s MP Vikas Congress, Tamil Manila Congress and I think Trinamool was also part of that phase. Now when she did com into politics to lead the INC, she did not at first make matters better, there was the NCP which formed quite promptly. But subsequently she seems to have consolidated the party and put it on a war path so to speak. Thus far the gains have been modest, the congress has only as many seats this time as it had in the 12th Lok Sabha, but its up nearly 30 since the 13th.
Also the spread and success of her coalitions seems to have been quite spectacular. A person who has no understanding of India would not have been able to make such moves.
About her not learning hindi in 40 years, she wasn’t exaclty living in a mohalla, she spent most of that time in the modern day fortress that is 10 Janpath.
You might consider the BJP the bastion of nationalism, but maybe that has to do with your relative solace at being from the majority community. Being a Catholic, the BJP and RSS rhetoric is spine chilling. The possibility of being declared a foriegner, or having my loyalties adjudged by some extremist yardstick is not my most cherished dream. There is no secular wing in the BJP, there is a rabid wing and a politically astute wing.
If you see the caste stats from the Mandal Commission, there are only 16 to 17% upper caste Hindus in the country, which is where the core support for the BJP comes from, in order to get a chance at power the appeal has to be broadened and the message has to be diluted.
The Parliamentary system does not require a mandate for a particular person, the MPs are elected on whatever platform they fight, and they are vested with the right to elect the PM. Which is what allows the wise Dr. Singh to be the PM despite having lost his one chance to get into the LS.
On another note, I continue to be impressed by the seeming disorder of the UPA coalition, which I think is indicative of a far more transparent governing process. (My favourite minister is S. Jaipal Reddy, loved him when he was with the UF too) This is how democratic governments shoul function through public debate, not through closed door complicity.
CORRIGENDA, SJR ties for #2 with the PM, Thiru Chidambaram is #1.
SJR I remember had said during the UF ministry, that his job was to close down the Ministry. Had Swaraj not happened to I&B, he would probably have suceeded. This time around he said that he is not going to control what is shown on TV. I can’t think of more liberal noises that he could make.
Gautam,
The reasons that you give, even if true still disqualify her in my book. If you want a job as important as the Prime Minister of India, I will look at your entire record of your commitment to India. If she was reluctant to stay in India, reluctant to join politics, what claim does she have to the job? And as for your reasons for her not knowing the language, as I already pointed out, it reflects the fact that she did not make an *effort*. I am not saying that we should deport someone who lives in Delhi for 40 years and does not learn Hindi. I am only saying that we should ask some serious questions before we let them be PM.
The serious answer to the serious questions is that her worst fears came true, she lost her husband. After which point she had plenty of time to exile herself from India, much like she did from the Congress. But for whatever reason she did not. Subsequently after the party had seen much infighting and was by all means like a plane with all engines down, with all the passengers waiting restlessly for the end, she stepped in and has since revived that party. Her patriotism is atleast signalled by her decision to stay in India post-1991, and her political acumen – much of it flowing from the clout of her family – has been proven since.
I don’t think you need much experience in running a country in advance of ascending to the post of PM. Understanding the country is also overated. Think Gujral on the first count, and Nehru on the second. What you do need is the respect of those who support you and your government, which she has. If experience was a criterion for high position then NT RamaRao would not have won elections in AP in 1983, a few months after floating the TDP, nor would Navin Patnaik be running his second term in Orissa. I don’t think even Biju won two consecutive terms while her was alive (though I am not sure).
What you need to be PM is the will, the respect and confidence of your supporters, which she has. The elections are organised with the objective of ascertaining the will of the people, which is entrusted to Parliament during its tenure. If a majority of members of Parliament believe that she is fit to be PM, then despite any conscientious objections from reasoners like yourself or emotional animals like Swaraj and Bharati will not make any difference.
I dont think it is respect. What she has is the mindless doormats prostrating in front of her, in the hope of being given something to do with their lives.
Sonia has got absolutely no respect, If you ask me. All that pleading and the “tamasha” we saw on TV was just a stupid, shameless play by the politicians.
True, the BJP did go to an extreme with it’s views on nationalism and Hindutva, but it commanded a much higher respect, especially Mr. Vajpayee, than Sonia will ever.
I go with Ravages. The so-called “revival” and “massive victory” of the Congress has very little to attribute to Sonia’s skills. Let’s discard her Hindi abilities and look at the reality: can she, on her own, deliver an impromptu speech in the way Vajpayee or Advani does? What’s her take on any policy that affects the people? In fact, she was famously shown to be fumbling at EVERY interview on TV and newspapers–fumbling and look askance at her more accomplished colleagues–Manmohan et al to do the proxy-answering for here.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely: this answers your question about her not getting out of India in 1991. It is only because the sycophants promised that they’ll make her PM that she stayed back. The lure was too much. Now, she seems to have realized that being a PM is not as easy as eating pizza. Why did she refuse to become PM immediately AFTER meeting Kalam?
Another point about her revving up the Congress. The Congress was as you pointed out, WITHOUT the Gandhi-Nehru tag leading them. Else, couldn’t the entire party find just ONE capable leader to fill the void left by Rajiv? Why go back to 10 Janpath if you are so sure of the Congress’ credentials? The answer is obvious: the party didn’t. It had lost its spine to function without the coveted tag. Moreover, it was their last chance: hence pre-poll and now, post-poll sycophancy.
Gautam, you are spinning so much that I am surprised you haven’t felt giddy yet.
Interesting article. Let me comment on the subject of Secular vs. Religious nationality. You said that “Religious nationalists’ approach to nationalism is to dig deep into the past and discover something that unites us, and use that as a basis for nationalism. But nationalism isn’t discovered, it is constructed.”
I don’t think this is entirely true. Nationalism needs both of these things. A common past, present, and future. ‘Constructing nationalism’ has nothing to do with the past. For a healthy nationalism you need to have a common past when your ancestors shared sorrows and happiness, when they worked together towards common goals. If this was not the case, why don’t we see nations being formed every now and then ? Can some Indians, Americans, Chinese come together, and form their own nation because they seek a common future and are ready to ‘construct natinalism’ ? Bangladesh (then east pakistan) could not stay with Pakistan mainly because Bangladeshis and pakistanis didn’t have a common past. Every nation differs in its culture, but then what’s a culture ? Isn’t it a style of living and thinking evolved over centuries ?
A question –
Are you merely saying that Sonia should not be supported by Indians as a PM, or are you asking for specific legislation banning people of foreign origin?
If it is the former, then there is no problem. I wanted the BJP government to fall for the single issue of MMJ. But that does not mean I advocate banning loony Rightwing-Socialists(!!) constitutionally.
I think one reason that Sonia has been by and large accepted by Indians as a PM or even a national leader (mind you, just educated net-using public is not India), it is because while she may not have taken efforts long enough to become a 100% Indian, but her efforts have been enough to de-Italy-ise her in everyone’s eyes.
Since her Italianness has not been an eyesore ever since she entered the public eye in 1980 or so, people accept her.
I am saying that Sonia should not be supported by Indians as PM. Even if the Congress had got an absolute majority, I would have claimed that the people of India have made a mistake.
But I don’t think that she has got a mandate to rule. I believe that on serious questions such as this the mandate of the people should be explicitly sought and obtained. Sonia did nothing of that sort. The Congress did not project Sonia as PM and in any case it did not get a majority, even including its prepoll allies. Just as the BJP did not get a mandate to carry out its agenda in 1999, I think the Congress too did not get the mandate to install Sonia as PM. I would have “accepted” Sonia as PM as I would accept an unjust law – under protest and something to agitate and protest against.
Looking at it on an emotional level, i totally get what you are saying. But speaking logically you are still committing a fallacy.
The constitution was not made by Sonia or the Congress in the last few years. It was made by the Constituent Assembly which had the unequivocal mandate to do so.
The mandate which you and all BJP supporters keep talking about, is a very hazy term. I doubt if the constitution has any relevancde for it. What is relevant is simple majority and two thirds majority.
As of now people who never opposed her foreign origin have a simple majority.
And this “mandate” animal you talk about…..what is it needed for? Can we decide economic and foreign policy without a mandate? Because if so, then no party has gotten a mandate in the Lok Sabha after 1984.
Please write a post detailing your understanding of the concept “mandate” and its role in politics…..whether it has actually been enumerated anywhere.
Gaurav, it is not an emotional argument and I am committing no logical fallacy.
Look, neither of us liked what Moron Joshi did, but I am quite sure that he had the legal powers to do so. In fact, he even had a moral right to do it. The taxpayers own the IIMs and he, as a representative of the voters and taxpayers had a right to do what he did. Ayn Rand herself would have said that we had no right to oppose Joshi’s actions unless we opposed state run educational institutions in general.
Our real argument against Joshi’s decisions was that it was awfully bad policy. Now how would you feel if in response to your well-reasoned arguments against Joshi, someone had answered, “But he is a representative of the people. He has a perfect right to do what he did”?
Because that is exactly what you are doing. In response to my arguments about how Sonia Gandhi would be a disaster as a Prime Minister because she lacked legitimacy and there were genuine doubts about her commitment if not her loyalty, you are simply saying that because our convoluted democratic process threw up her name, she is the appropriate person to be Prime Minister. Just as there can be constitutional, but unjust laws, just as there can be legal, but wrongheaded policies, there can be legally elected, but inappropriate Prime Ministers. I’ve explained why Sonia Gandhi would fall into the last category. It’s upto you to refute that point.
Well, even the BJP did not get a mandate to rule did it? They got 182 seats in the 99 elections. Their allies made up the remaining 130-odd seats. If that was a mandate then the Congress+Allies+Left(which never opposed her candidature) getting a majority is a mandate.
In my previous post I merely questioned the relevance of the term “mandate” in the strictly logical domain.
If you are saying Sonia would have been a legal but inappropriate PM, I have no usses, as I said earlier. In the same way that loony Joshi is someone I hate but would not like to be disenfranchised or anything.
When you raise doubts about her loyalty, I can understand. But what makes you question her legitimacy is beyond me.
errr….replace “usses” with “issues” 🙂