May 23, 2004

"Power in itself has never attracted me, nor has position been my goal. My aim has always been to defend the secular foundation of our nation and the poor of our country." So said Sonia Gandhi as she declined the position of Prime Minister of India.

Now Manmohan Singh has been sworn in as the first Sikh Prime Minister of the world's largest democracy. It's been a surprising election.

posted by homunculus 20 years ago
  • Very interesting, indeed. You have to admire her. Anyone who turns down a position like this is probably right for the job. It goes along with that saying, "Don't vote for the one who wants it, vote for the one who doesn't".
  • True, but it might have been better if she had decided she didn't want to be Prime Minister a bit earlier - as it is, millions of supporters surely voted for her party under the impression that they were, in efect, voting for her.
  • This is fascinating and important, but also very confusing news, at least for me, since I don't know the Indian system well. Can anyone explain sort of the background to this? I had heard that the BJP were in power - and now it seems they are out. But the Indian system doesn't work like Canada or the UK - how are the president and the prime minister chosen? What kind of powers do they have, and how do they relate to each other? Also - why were there issues about her eligibility for being PM? And what will it mean for religious politics to have a Sikh PM? And for economic politics that the party has changed - does this new party have a new stance on privatisation, or the same? (I probably have many more questions, but those are my immediate ones)
  • I have heard that Singh is an internationally respected economist, and well suited for the job of Prime Minister. I think it's a minority government, which will rely on a coalition with other minority parties to work, but I think it bodes well for India's future. That is, if the religious extremists stay out of it.
  • Plegmund, I think that, as the article states, she was trying to send a message. She has likely accomplished what she wanted to by handling it this way. Those who have voted for her have not been rendered powerless. Given her status, their ability to persuade will still be strong. (IMHO).
  • The Indian federal system is a parliamentary one. There are two houses: Rajya Sabha(House of "Lords") and Lok Sabha(House of Commons/People). There are 543 seats in Lok Sabha. The recent elections were for 541 of those seats (2 are appointed by the President). The group which can display a support of a majority of these elected seats (i.e. 271) gets to form the government. This time around, Congress and its pre-election allies got (I think) 217 seats. After the election, a few other parties pledged support from outside (meaning: no cabinet posts for them), bringing total support to +271 seats. The Congress was a dead party, nationally speaking. Sonia Gandhi was brought in, in 1998, on the strength of her Gsndhi connection, to save the party. 1999 elections turned out to be a failure. BJP seemed to consolidate its position as the de facto major party, on the basis of thriving foreign trade and development in urban centres. Since this progress didn't extend to the bulk (rural) of the country, the BJP fell flat this time around. Sonia Gandhi was(is) an Italian. She met Rajiv Gandhi at Cambridge Univ, married him and came to India in late 60s. She didn't adopt Indian citizenship till 1983. Rajov Gandhi became PM in 1984, on the basis on a sympathy wave, when his mom, Indira Gandhi (then current PM) was assassinated. Rajiv Gandhi himself was killed by a suicide bomber in 1991, during a re-election campaign speech. The issue against Sonia Gandhi as PM, is that she's a foreigner, and the only reason she's in India is because her love interest was a powerful Indian. There is a perceived humiliation in having a foreign-born person presiding over the Indian government. The President is a ceremonial role, analogous to the British Queen, albeit without all that pomp and attention. There is a cabinet of ministers of which the Prime Minister is the head. Each minister has to be a member of parliament (either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha). Membership to the Rajya Sabha is via appointment. 1/3rd of its member change every two years, with six years being the standard term for each member. In general, Indian system is like the UK system. Just change the labels and a few things here and there.
  • BTW, Congress is a pretty secular party (officially). I'm not *too* concerned about religious input or threads in this government.
  • I gathered that Congress was a secular party - I was wondering if that would help ease some of the religious tensions in India. Their economic stance also seems to be more moderate.
  • Indeed. I was trying to work out if the impression I've gained from the BritMedia coverage - that BJP vs. Congress was analogous to Tory vs. Labour (with a more emphatic religious/ethnic element than the increasingly weak Tory=Church of England, Labour=Secular supposed divide, which was never really that true, and is even less so now) - was in any way accurate. I apologise for the horrible parentheses in the previous sentence. From what you say, Gyan, it sounds moderately accurate - there is a more secular, progressive/liberal, social democratic trend to Congress - but I'd be interested to know your views on how ideology/ethnicity/religion relate to each other in India. Can't help thinking of how in N. Ireland, my homeland, Catholic=left wing and Protestant=right wing. At least, that is, in terms of the political parties; even though there's no reason why it should be thus. The whole politics/religion/history interchange is, I think, both fascinating and very instructive in viewing how the world of today may become the world of tomorrow. To me, the most shocking thing is that a lasting relationship formed at Cambridge. Never fucking happened to me...
  • jb: I was wondering if that would help ease some of the religious tensions in India. On the whole, yes. Of course, both parties will ignite tensions if they need to. flashboy: but I'd be interested to know your views on how ideology/ethnicity/religion relate to each other in India. Most Indians are poor, struggling and illiterate. Religion thrives. As such, at urban locales, religion/ethnicity is not a big problem. It is a component of your identity, but it's not disproportionally weighted. People manage. When the economic cycle & flow gets sour or stagnant, or elections are near, elements like politicians and social strongholds play up the situation as a clash of social components like ethnicity and religion. Speaking of which, ethnicity *is* a more dominant aspect. The main thing to keep in mind, is that Indianess is a fractured identity, created by political circumstances. Think Europe, but instead of a loose federal institution like the EU, there's a overriding sovereign institution (the Central government). Of course, as more generations pass by, a person might look at oneself as an *Indian* first, with ethnicity being a historical/social artifact. But India's not at that stage yet. As long as there's 10+ cultures, speaking 10+ languages, with their own customs and mindsets, it's going to be difficult. There are two primary directions India can adopt, 1)A greater degree of homogenization. 2)Greater sovereignty for the individual states (a slow march towards EU-like hierarchy).
  • I think, flashboy, the critical factor is to get married, and then move to India. Divorce is quite rare there. Although spousal murder is not.
  • the Economist has some good articles about it - though I haven't read them all yet. Most interesting I learned is that most people (especially Ms. Gandhi herself) didn't think she would win and that though most countries' constitutions do not allow foreign-born leaders, India's constitution expressly allows it.
  • This article on the Indian state of Kerala was posted in a MeFi thead awhile back, presenting Kerala as a model of a successful communist state. But this new article in OutlookIndia claims that beneath the statistics, it's not a pleasant place.
  • What if?
  • Incredible link, homunculus.
  • Arundhati Roy: India Is Colonising Itself