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/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |