In its May 14, 2007 issue on TIME 100 Leaders a prominent place has been given to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. The third paragraph of the write up selected by the news magazine reads:
When her party won national elections in 2004, she was offered the prime ministership; she listened to her "inner voice" and turned it down, and anointed the economist Manmohan Singh in her stead. It was a gesture that was, well, Gandhian. And it solidified her hold on power. For ordinary Indians, this act of renunciation held tremendous mythic resonance. Though Singh is Prime Minister, it is Sonia, 60, who is the kingmaker. And her most lasting legacy may lie in her children Rahul and Priyanka, one of whom may well become India's Prime Minister someday, ascending to the high office that their mother has - thus far - spurned". (Emphasis added).
Assuredly TIME must have assessed a few thousand items from its archival retrieval system to select a piece on a person whose influence transcends India's national borders. Inexplicably TIME chose a piece that does not do credit to either the magazine or Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. Besides the evidently fawning nature of the piece selected - one amongst the many that appeared at that time - it is an indefensible misrepresentation of the facts. Anybody with an elementary knowledge of the functioning of Indian democracy would know the manner in which governments have been formed in New Delhi after every election since India became independent. The fact is that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was never "offered" the prime ministership, so the question of having "turned it down" doesn't arise. The details of the meeting that took place with the President are not in the public domain. These may be revealed after many years should Dr. Kalam choose to do so in his post-retirement years, or they may never be revealed.
By presenting a falsified version of the account a diservice has been done to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi who single-handedly revived India's oldest and, perhaps, most respected political party, which was declining at an alarming rate. Mrs. Gandhi's revival of the grand old party of Indian politics did a service to Indian democracy by restoring a semblance of political balance as an extreme right wing party was tending to pull it away in directions that might not have stabilised the long-term social cohesion of India.
As to why Sonia Gandhi might not ever become the prime minister of India attention has to be drawn to a petition admitted in the Supreme Court. A news item, in the Times of India, New Delhi, April 17, 2007 mentions that the opposition party, which had held Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin as an issue against her taking on any constitutional office asked the Congress party to initiate a political debate over the matter. The opposition party's call for a debate followed the admission of a petition by the Supreme Court on whether a person of foreign origin could hold a constitutional office. Although the Supreme Court had earlier, on an election petition, ruled that Sonia Gandhi was an Indian citizen, the petitioner, however, got around the ruling by so framing the petition as to focus on her competence to hold an office at the highest level in the country.
The controversy regarding Ms. Sonia Gandhi has unnecessarily taken on a political hue and the clamour against her a political bias. In the political cacophony thus generated the true import of the question of denial of the highest office to a citizen of foreign origin is lost sight of. Very simply stated the nation cannot afford to take a chance. It has nothing to do with the persona of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. It has everything to do with national security and the supreme national interest. Today NATO forces are deployed in Afghanistan, not too far from the borders of India. They are already making forays into NWFP and FATA of Pakistan. Should the situation deteriorate further they might make deeper inroads into Pakistan, thereby coming much closer to the Indian border. Currently, India's relations with the West are on a reasonably good footing owing to the common perception of threat from global terrorism. It should be recalled, nevertheless, that not too far back the West - Italy included - was siding with Pakistan and even China . Even today several western countries, again including Italy, are opposed to India's nuclear stand and a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. Hypothetically, as Prime Minister, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi being a person of foreign origin from a NATO country, would be the final arbiter of several decisions regarding India's security. Should India ever have to confront NATO she would almost certainly face mental anguish, torn between conflicting loyalties to her motherland and her adopted land. It is not inconceivable that India might be obliged to retaliate against NATO forces including Italian forces should India perceive a direct threat to itself. Under these circumstances the question should never arise of a foreign origin person being the ultimate arbiter of India's security. An example has been given of only the National Security aspect. Similar illustrations can be given from diverse fields where clash of interest between India and Europe or the West could take place in the coming years, although the trend presently is in the other direction. The argument put forward against foreign origin persons holding the highest office in the land, or, for that matter, any office that has a bearing on national security is prima facie unassailable.
Taking a cue from the write up in the latest issue of TIME Indian negotiators, especially the Prime Minister, has to ensure that any nuclear agreement signed with USA in no way compromises India's long-term regional interests or its future security needs.
Vinod SaighalConvenor MRGG (Movement for Restoration of Good Government)
New Delhi,
May 8, 2007.