comment by a wide awake patriot:
At last Mother India has saved Us from getting a foreign Prime Minister.
> > It is certainly not a matter of pride to have Sonia > as the Prime > Minister. You cannot be electing a person as Prime > Minister and not feel > proud of having elected her. When someone wants to > lead this country, it > must be a matter of pride for its people to have > that person as their > leader. Imagine the depths to which this issue has > descended. > > "What is wrong if she is the Prime Minister," is an > argument that comes > not from the ordinary people of India, but from the > educated Indian. > This comes from the Chidambarams and from the > Rajdeeep Sardesais of this > country; this comes from editorial writers sitting > in cities. So let us > analyse this issue with all its implications for a > country like India, > which has an unbroken civilisational continuity. > > India is indeed a civilisation behind the facade of > a nation. It is now > facing the might of the nation-state, which has > evolved in the west. The > nation-state mechanism in the west is basically > aggressive, violent, > conquering, invasive, dominating, imperialistic. It > is a concept which > the Indian mind cannot internalise, understand, or > exhibit in its > attitude. So, now we are conceding that foreigners > can become prime > ministers and presidents of India, provided they > hold a citizenship > certificate. > > Odious comparisons are being made by a few who are > bent on justifying > Sonia as the prime minister. Look at Sister > Nivedita, they say. She > rebelled against the British for India. And her name > was Margaret. Swami > Vivekananda called her Nivedita because she had > surrendered herself to > this country. Where then is the comparison? > > Compare Nivedita with Sonia Maino. She came to India > marrying a very > good-tooking man. When she came to India in 1968, > she was wedded to an > Indian who was the son of that country's Prime > Minister. > > People say it is our tradition that when a woman > enters her husband's > home, she becomes part of that family, and so Sonia > too is an Indian. It > is a sentimental attitude. Look at the acts. Sonia > did not apply for > Indian citizenship in 1968 when she married Rajiv > and came to India. It > is what any good Indian wife would have done. > > She filled an application in 1968 for permission to > stay as a foreigner > in India for five years. She said, "I am married, I > am married into > theIndian Prime Minister but I would still like to > remain a foreigner." > So she was given a certificate in 1968 to reside in > India as a foreigner > for five years. In 1973, after the first five-year > period expired, she > again applied for the permit to stay on in India for > another five years > as a foreigner. And this is the person who is going > to live and die for > us. My friend Cho Ramaswamy told me not to believe > what she says, There > is not only a complete divorce between what she says > and what she does; > there is also a clue that she will do precisely the > opposite of what she > says. I will come to it later; there are instances > and instances. > > So, she again applied for a foreigner's permit. You > know why? Between > 1968 and 1973, there were indications of war with > Pakistan over East > Pakistan. And sure enough there was the Bangladesh > war. During that > conflict, when all commercial pilots were asked to > forego their leave > and enter service, she asked Rajiv to go on long > leave. He was given > special permission and they left the country. > Throughout the period of > the war, they were in Rome. Why? Because the > American Seventh Fleet was > moving towards India, and Sonia Gandhi probably had > serious doubts about > India's survival! > > So she deserted the country with her husband. She > returned only after > peace was restored, and after India had won the war > because of Indira > Gandhi. This is where the stark contrast between > Sonia Gandhi and Atal > Bihari Vajpayee is most glaring. Look at their > conduct after the two > wars. > > After the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, Vajpayee, > who was the Leader > of the Opposition, stood up in Parliament and > congratulated Indira > Gandhi for her courage and vision and praised her as > Durga. He was a > patriot. At that important moment, he never thought > that acknowledging > the achievement of his political adversary will cost > him votes. Yes, he > and his party lost votes in both Partiament and > Assembly polls, but not > because Vajpayee stood tall in his praise oflndira > Gandi. After the > Kargil war, Sonia Gandhi told the NDA Government, > "Please do not ask for > any credit." This is meanness, pettiness, smallness, > and > foreignmindedness. > > Sonia Gandhi played politics even with the > self-esteem of this country > by choosing the wrong moment to demand an > explanation from the > government, to raise issues of corruption in defence > deals. Her praise > of our armed forces came after she realised that the > people of this > country were not taking her criticism very well. > That she was a > foreigner and had no business asking for > explanations came across very > clearly. Every intelligent lndian knew there were > problems, including > corruption associated with some sections of the army > and that it was > these problems that resulted in the Kargil invasion. > > Should it be used as an occasion to expose a small > number of people and > defame the entire army in the process? The army > today represents the > core of Indian nationalism. This was the occasion > for the nation to rise > above everything and pat the army for its heroism, > courage and > sacrifice. > > But only a nationalist will think like this. > However, Sonia Gandhi, who > was after votes and political power, could not think > like this. Now let > us come to the period between 1973-1978. In 1977, > when Indira Gandhi was > defeated, Sonia sensed the mood of the nation, took > refuge in the > Italian Embassy and refused to come out of it. She > said she was going > back to Italy. Sanjay Gandhi had to go and plead > with her to return. > > Is this is the person who is going to live and die > for India? To live in > India is very different from living for India. And > to live in India in > such glory, with such protection and resources, is > very different from > dying for India. Nationalism will not come by merely > wearing saris.