You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - May 2004

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00069 May 2004

 
May 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear Shri Sudharsan Swami,
 
It is with great pain that i finished reading your article where you have 
compared Sonia and Rama. Iam not interested to post politics here but as you 
have compared as said "inner voice" of sonia with that of  Lord Rama, iam 
forced to write this. Please read thru carefully and decide reasons which 
forced sonia to opt out. 
 
Sonia's life from 1968 is full of mysteries and iam not able to digest any 
comparison between this female and  Lord Rama.
 
Thanks,
Srinath

Whose inner voice?

Pioneer News Service/ New Delhi

Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because her 

"inner voice" suddenly told her to do so? Why did this "voice" speak now, 
despite her being elected Congress Parliamentary Party leader and after 
obtaining letters of support from all allied parties?

Apparently, it was not the "inner voice" but certain queries that could have 
been put to her by the President of India, custodian of the Constitution, which 
caused her to withdraw her name.

Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her eleventh-hour 
retreat as a "personal decision" spurred by her children, it could be the 
clarifications apparently sought by President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted 
in the rethink. The President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject 
her candidature for the post of the Prime 

Minister. However, he is believed to have sought certain clarifications on a 
few points regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so, 
he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by legal 
luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok Sabha election results.

That probably explains why Ms Gandhi's decision to opt out came only after she 
emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the President on Tuesday at 
12.30 pm. That could also explain why she did not allow the entourage of allied 
parties to accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom.

According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed to her that 
in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised, he would need some more 
time to examine the matter. Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on 
Wednesday, May 19 - a date unilaterally announced by Left leaders and 
enthusiastically endorsed by Congressmen on Monday without consulting the 
Rashtrapati Bhawan.

Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the basis of 
various petitions submitted to him, the President could have sought to clarify 
a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said to have informally communicated to her 
on Monday evening that certain queries needed to be answered, even as he 
invited her to have a discussion on Government formation.

On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party leader 

Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj against any person of foreign 
origin occupying a top constitutional post, and the legal advice that he had 
obtained from top constitutional experts, the President could have sought three 
clarifications from Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience for Ms 
Gandhi. The BJP leaders had already declared that they would continue to 
support any form of agitation on the foreign origin issue.

The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought relates to 

Article 102 of the Constitution that says: "A person shall be disqualified for 
being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament" on any 
or more of five possible grounds. Clause(d) of the same Article says "... or is 
under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state".

The term "adherence" had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi in her 
affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli parliamentary 
constituency had stated that she owned ancestral property, namely portion of a 
house, in Orbassano, Italy, the country of her origin. This fact of ownership, 
legal experts say, makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be 
interpreted as "adherence" to a foreign country. Since this portion of the 
ancestral property was apparently bequeathed to her by her father in his will, 
she inherited it only after his death. 

Consequently, the property was not her's when she filed her 1999 nomination 
affidavit.

Article 103 states that "if any question arises as to whether a member of 
either House of Parliament has become subject to disqualification mentioned in 
Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision to the President 
and his decision shall be final". Clause 2 of the Article says: "Before giving 
any decision on such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the 
Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion."

This means that the President is required by the Constitution to undertake an 
elaborate process of examining the legal and constitutional issues involved. 
Thus, Ms Gandhi's swearing-in could not happen before the matter was fully 
clarified and resolved.

Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section 5 of the 
Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity provision whereby 
citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign origin is circumscribed by 
the rights that particular country confers upon foreigners seeking citizenship 
there.

The crux of this provision of "reciprocity" is that a person of foreign origin, 
who has acquired the citizenship of India through registration by virtue of 
marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy more rights (like becoming Prime 
Minister), if the same opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen 
in that particular country.

While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal luminaries 
pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the issue of her surrendering 
Italian citizenship. It is believed that while acquiring citizenship through 
registration in 1983, she surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian 
Ambassador in New Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the 
Italian Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled.

This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few days,but it 
would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch of the campaign once the 
citizenship issue returned to the fore.

Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma Swaraj pointed 
out that as the Supreme Commander of India's Armed Forces, the President should 
examine a key issue. It referred to the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign 
Service official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or 
must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the 
nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj's petition demanded to know.

What could have prevented Sonia?

Article 102 of the Constitution says: "A person shall be disqualified for being 
chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (d) if he or 
she is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign 
state." Sonia Gandhi, in her affidavit, had declared she owned a house in Italy 
and may thus invite, the term "adherence" of the said provision.

Under Article 103, the President is the sole adjudicator on the issue who has 
to decide on such matter in consultation with the Election Commission.

Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, dealing with the reciprocity clause for a 
person who registered herself as an Indian citizen, says the said person could 
not enjoy more rights than those available to an Indian born person in that 
other country if he/she acquires citizenship of that country, like Italy for 
instance.

The clauses of the Citizenship Act were apparently not fully met when Ms Gandhi 
relinquished her Italian citizenship.


sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear friends,

A number of you have sent in your feedback and
comments to me on my posting yestderday, "Rama: Despot
or Democrat". They are all very interesting viewpoints
and I thank you all for sharing them with me.

*****************

I would be very happy too if my posting aroused not
only scriptural views/comments but also encouraged
comparison with current events in India even as they
are happening and unfolding today. 

Please permit me to say that the dramatic events of
the past two days in the political scene in India (at
least as I see it) bear a striking and very remarkable
resemblance to the events of the Ramayana essayed in
my posting y/day. Making due allowances for changes in
cast, characters, context and script, what happened
y/day in New Delhi finds unmistakable echoes and
parallels with the details of the Valmiki-Ramayana
events I described. 

Last night amidst tumultuous scenes of political
high-drama (as we all saw on our TV screens),
Smt.Sonia Gandhi refused to take over the reins of
power in India as Prime Minister. There was not a
single obstacle in her way to ascend the throne -- she
had the so-called Will of the People behind her, she
had the Constitutional legitimacy to back her claim
and she had any number of allies to back her and
support her... There was the shadow of just one taint
upon her -- the taint of suspect citizenship. (It was
a bit like the taint of suspected fidelity that was
upon Sita in the Ramayana). 

And yet last night Smt. Gandhi went to the nation and
said "No, I shall not wear the crown". And the reason
she gave was "My "antaryAmi" -- my inner voice or
self"! She said her "antaryAmi" told her the position
of Prime Minister of India is not for her. People were
aghast. They were dumbfounded... They were begging
her, entreating her to reconsider... but she did not
relent. 

To me personally, it was all so reminiscent --
virtually like some strange replay in a time-warp --
of some of those scenes Valmiki so graphically
describes in the "ayOdhya kAnda".

Let me hasten to add that the personalities of
yesteday's drama in New Delhi are of no interest to me
at all. Nor do the related political developments have
any significance for me. But I think I learnt one
important truth from what I saw yesterday and it
convinced me beyond doubt about this:

The 'Will of the People' is not supreme even in a
democracy. There is a force, a Will that is far, far
greater and superior that manifests and asserts
itself, from time to time, in the affairs of men and
nations. That force is the force of Dharma, the Will
of God, which somehow at the end is the only force
that prevails over all else... Smt.Sonia Gandhi, for
want of a better word, called it "antaryAmi" -- Soul
Force. In the Ramayana, Lord Rama called it 'Dharma'. 


Thanks and regards,
dAsan,
Sudarshan



________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. 
http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/





Yahoo! Groups Links





                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/VkWolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list