Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

by Guest Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:04 pm

Occasionally, i wonder whether the staunch opposition to Sonia Gandhi in the minds of many Indians (not most Indians--because Congress would not be in power otherwise) is because of some kind of xenophobia. A few things in favour of Sonia are:

1. She has held the party together. Narasimha Rao did a good job of being in power for full five years but after the Congress lost power, the party lost direction as Rao got entangled in corruption cases. Rao also made two mistakes. First, by not aligning with DMK despite there being a strong anti-Jayalalitha wave at the time. Most of the top Tamil Congress men had warned Rao about not going along with Jaya but he did not listen to them. Second, by giving the Congress Presidentship to Sitaram Kesri. Rao thought Kesri did as he would tell him to do but was mistaken. Kesri backstabbed Rao and then made a series of poor strategic decisions.

When Sonia assumed the Congress presidentship, the party was demoralized and it appeared as if a BJP led alliance was going to rule India for at least a decade if not two. When the Congress under Sonia managed to defeat a formidable BJP led by leaders of the stature of Vajpayee and Advani, it was nothing short of a miracle.

2. Being a public figure, she has conducted herself with great dignity. For example, there have not been any whispers about her regarding any romantic dalliances.

-----
Catharine the Great, Empress of Russia, was one of the greatest rulers Russia has known in its history. But she was actually a German. She became Empress of Russia because she married the Russian Tsar. Medieval Russians, it would appear, did not suffer from the defect of xenophobia. Also, there is no evidence or even indication that Tsarina Catharine showed any favouritism towards Germans.

by artood2 Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:40 pm

There is also staunch opposition to Mayawati, Rabdi, JJ, RSS in minds of some people. That is not xenophobia.

by Guest Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:46 pm

artood2 wrote:There is also staunch opposition to Mayawati, Rabdi, JJ, RSS in minds of some people. That is not xenophobia.

--> But i have heard people say that India is a country of more than a billion people--why do we need an Italian born occupying a position of immense power?

by artood2 Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:49 pm

Rashmun wrote:
artood2 wrote:There is also staunch opposition to Mayawati, Rabdi, JJ, RSS in minds of some people. That is not xenophobia.

--> But i have heard people say that India is a country of more than a billion people--why do we need an Italian born occupying a position of immense power?

and that is same as people voting for Mayawati or Rabdi for caste or some other guy for religion. A lot of those people think that SG does not have the leadership qualities to match the position that she occupies.

by sambarvada Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:49 pm

Rashmun,

Comparing the Russian situation in the medieval era to that of present day India is not a great idea.

The typical Indian because of centuries of servitude has internalized the "superiority" of the white skin.

If Rajiv Gandhi had married a Burmese woman, it is highly unlikely that Indians would have made his wife the de facto leader of their motherland.

So what if Congress party had split into smithereens?

Some other viable coalition of non-Congress and non-BJP government would have cropped up.

BJP is not the only alternative to the Gandhi family.

by Guest Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:58 pm

sambarvada wrote:Rashmun,

Comparing the Russian situation in the medieval era to that of present day India is not a great idea.

The typical Indian because of centuries of servitude has internalized the "superiority" of the white skin.

If Rajiv Gandhi had married a Burmese woman, it is highly unlikely that Indians would have made his wife the de facto leader of their motherland.

So what if Congress party had split into smithereens?

Some other viable coalition of non-Congress and non-BJP government would have cropped up.

BJP is not the only alternative to the Gandhi family.

--> you make some good points. but i have to disagree with you on your very last point. As of now i do not see any viable alternative to a Congress led coalition or a BJP led coalition in the near future. i am also not keen on the idea of regional parties coming to power in nearly every state.

by artood2 Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:
--> you make some good points. but i have to disagree with you on your very last point. As of now i do not see any viable alternative to a Congress led coalition or a BJP led coalition in the near future. i am also not keen on the idea of regional parties coming to power in nearly every state.

why are regional parties such a problem? they represent aspirations of people.

by Guest Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:03 pm

artood2 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> you make some good points. but i have to disagree with you on your very last point. As of now i do not see any viable alternative to a Congress led coalition or a BJP led coalition in the near future. i am also not keen on the idea of regional parties coming to power in nearly every state.

why are regional parties such a problem? they represent aspirations of people.

--> My fear is that if regional parties become too strong (for instance, if they are in power in nearly every state), it could affect the soveriegnity of the country.

by charvaka Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:43 am

Rashmun wrote:My fear is that if regional parties become too strong (for instance, if they are in power in nearly every state), it could affect the soveriegnity of the country.

Your fear of India's magnificent diversity is no better than the xenophobia exhibited by the people who object to Sonia Gandhi on the basis of her ethnic origin. Both fears are essentially fears about "the other" -- and neither has any rational basis in fact.

by Guest Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:25 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:My fear is that if regional parties become too strong (for instance, if they are in power in nearly every state), it could affect the soveriegnity of the country.
Your fear of India's magnificent diversity is no better than the xenophobia exhibited by the people who object to Sonia Gandhi on the basis of her ethnic origin. Both fears are essentially fears about "the other" -- and neither has any rational basis in fact.

--> the breakup of Russia--when every state in the soviet union went its own way--is there for everyone to see and learn from.

by Another Brick Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:41 am

Rashmun wrote: 2. Being a public figure, she has conducted herself with great dignity. For example, there have not been any whispers about her regarding any romantic dalliances.

nobody in congress looks above her feet. and since you like cross-party comparisons ("has gadkari won any elections?"), even gadkari has not had any affair so far.

by charvaka Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:09 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:My fear is that if regional parties become too strong (for instance, if they are in power in nearly every state), it could affect the soveriegnity of the country.
Your fear of India's magnificent diversity is no better than the xenophobia exhibited by the people who object to Sonia Gandhi on the basis of her ethnic origin. Both fears are essentially fears about "the other" -- and neither has any rational basis in fact.

--> the breakup of Russia--when every state in the soviet union went its own way--is there for everyone to see and learn from.

Did the Soviet Union break up because of regional parties? That you even made the comparison to Soviet Union shows your irrational fear of diversity.

The Indian states that had violent separatist movements (Punjab, Assam, Kashmir, Nagaland) typically had significant periods of rule by Congress and / or its allies. OTOH, states ruled by regional parties opposed to Congress (e.g. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have no violent separatist movements.

by Guest Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:58 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:My fear is that if regional parties become too strong (for instance, if they are in power in nearly every state), it could affect the soveriegnity of the country.
Your fear of India's magnificent diversity is no better than the xenophobia exhibited by the people who object to Sonia Gandhi on the basis of her ethnic origin. Both fears are essentially fears about "the other" -- and neither has any rational basis in fact.

--> the breakup of Russia--when every state in the soviet union went its own way--is there for everyone to see and learn from.
Did the Soviet Union break up because of regional parties? That you even made the comparison to Soviet Union shows your irrational fear of diversity.

The Indian states that had violent separatist movements (Punjab, Assam, Kashmir, Nagaland) typically had significant periods of rule by Congress and / or its allies. OTOH, states ruled by regional parties opposed to Congress (e.g. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have no violent separatist movements.

1. The Soviet Union broke up because of many reasons. But one reason was a strong wave of regionalism and regional chauvinism that swept the country at the time.

2. The fact that there was a strong secessionist movement in Tamil Nadu is known to every serious student of Indian history.

by charvaka Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:03 am

Rashmun wrote:1. The Soviet Union broke up because of many reasons. But one reason was a strong wave of regionalism and regional chauvinism that swept the country at the time.

And how do you know this?

by Guest Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:09 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:1. The Soviet Union broke up because of many reasons. But one reason was a strong wave of regionalism and regional chauvinism that swept the country at the time.
And how do you know this?

--> i had conversations with Indian professors and students who had witnessed the breakup of the Soviet Union first hand since they were completing their studies in Russia at the time.

by Guest Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:30 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:1. The Soviet Union broke up because of many reasons. But one reason was a strong wave of regionalism and regional chauvinism that swept the country at the time.
And how do you know this?

--> i had conversations with Indian professors and students who had witnessed the breakup of the Soviet Union first hand since they were completing their studies in Russia at the time.

--> i also had discussions with one russian on this issue while i was in canada. he said it was as if every province of Canada had become an independent country. the indian professors said that russia thought they would be very smart by breaking up since the other provinces depended a lot more on them and so they would save themselves a lot of trouble. what they did not foresee was that it was as if every province was bringing something to the dining table and by shooing away the other states, russia ended up becoming a loser itself. eventually russians realized their mistake but it was too late.

by artood2 Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:39 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:My fear is that if regional parties become too strong (for instance, if they are in power in nearly every state), it could affect the soveriegnity of the country.
Your fear of India's magnificent diversity is no better than the xenophobia exhibited by the people who object to Sonia Gandhi on the basis of her ethnic origin. Both fears are essentially fears about "the other" -- and neither has any rational basis in fact.

--> the breakup of Russia--when every state in the soviet union went its own way--is there for everyone to see and learn from.
Did the Soviet Union break up because of regional parties? That you even made the comparison to Soviet Union shows your irrational fear of diversity.

The Indian states that had violent separatist movements (Punjab, Assam, Kashmir, Nagaland) typically had significant periods of rule by Congress and / or its allies. OTOH, states ruled by regional parties opposed to Congress (e.g. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have no violent separatist movements.

1. The Soviet Union broke up because of many reasons. But one reason was a strong wave of regionalism and regional chauvinism that swept the country at the time.

2. The fact that there was a strong secessionist movement in Tamil Nadu is known to every serious student of Indian history.

Soviet Union was really a union of countries which had a relatively short lived existence in history. The cultural roots and religious solidarity is more pronounced in India.

The regional parties have actually acted as an outlet for regional aspirations preventing secessionist movements. The secessionists have often come to power as regional parties once a political settlement has been reached.

by charvaka Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:54 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:1. The Soviet Union broke up because of many reasons. But one reason was a strong wave of regionalism and regional chauvinism that swept the country at the time.
And how do you know this?

--> i had conversations with Indian professors and students who had witnessed the breakup of the Soviet Union first hand since they were completing their studies in Russia at the time.

--> i also had discussions with one russian on this issue while i was in canada. he said it was as if every province of Canada had become an independent country. the indian professors said that russia thought they would be very smart by breaking up since the other provinces depended a lot more on them and so they would save themselves a lot of trouble. what they did not foresee was that it was as if every province was bringing something to the dining table and by shooing away the other states, russia ended up becoming a loser itself. eventually russians realized their mistake but it was too late.

Did you ask the Indian professors and students and the One Russian whether regional parties were in power in the various Republics of the Soviet Union?

PS: BTW, classic Rashmun Method. Congrats and such.

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:00 am

Dear Satya Upadhyayji, here is a book I would highly recommend for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Soviet-Princeton-Paperbacks-ebook/dp/B003ULNANK/ref=sr_1_4?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1311865136&sr=1-4

Buy it on your Kindle

by Guest Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:07 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:1. The Soviet Union broke up because of many reasons. But one reason was a strong wave of regionalism and regional chauvinism that swept the country at the time.
And how do you know this?

--> i had conversations with Indian professors and students who had witnessed the breakup of the Soviet Union first hand since they were completing their studies in Russia at the time.

--> i also had discussions with one russian on this issue while i was in canada. he said it was as if every province of Canada had become an independent country. the indian professors said that russia thought they would be very smart by breaking up since the other provinces depended a lot more on them and so they would save themselves a lot of trouble. what they did not foresee was that it was as if every province was bringing something to the dining table and by shooing away the other states, russia ended up becoming a loser itself. eventually russians realized their mistake but it was too late.
Did you ask the Indian professors and students and the One Russian whether regional parties were in power in the various Republics of the Soviet Union?

PS: BTW, classic Rashmun Method. Congrats and such.

--> Charvaka Spin again. The opinion of those who were present when the Soviet Union broke up should only be mocked and ridiculed according to the method of Charvaka Spin. Sitting in front of the computer and relying completely on google searches is the way to go according to how Charvaka Spin works.

by charvaka Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:46 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i had conversations with Indian professors and students who had witnessed the breakup of the Soviet Union first hand since they were completing their studies in Russia at the time.

--> i also had discussions with one russian on this issue while i was in canada. he said it was as if every province of Canada had become an independent country. the indian professors said that russia thought they would be very smart by breaking up since the other provinces depended a lot more on them and so they would save themselves a lot of trouble. what they did not foresee was that it was as if every province was bringing something to the dining table and by shooing away the other states, russia ended up becoming a loser itself. eventually russians realized their mistake but it was too late.
Did you ask the Indian professors and students and the One Russian whether regional parties were in power in the various Republics of the Soviet Union?

PS: BTW, classic Rashmun Method. Congrats and such.

--> Charvaka Spin again. The opinion of those who were present when the Soviet Union broke up should only be mocked and ridiculed according to the method of Charvaka Spin. Sitting in front of the computer and relying completely on google searches is the way to go according to how Charvaka Spin works.

I didn't mock or ridicule those who were present. I mocked your methods. It looks like that upset you.

Let me say this again. You said regional parties in power threaten the "sovereignty" of India, and gave the Soviet Union as an example. Did the Soviet Union have "regional parties" in power? If not, your argument doesn't hold. Even if Indian professors and students and the One Russian told you something else altogether tangential to this topic.

by Guest Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:01 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i had conversations with Indian professors and students who had witnessed the breakup of the Soviet Union first hand since they were completing their studies in Russia at the time.

--> i also had discussions with one russian on this issue while i was in canada. he said it was as if every province of Canada had become an independent country. the indian professors said that russia thought they would be very smart by breaking up since the other provinces depended a lot more on them and so they would save themselves a lot of trouble. what they did not foresee was that it was as if every province was bringing something to the dining table and by shooing away the other states, russia ended up becoming a loser itself. eventually russians realized their mistake but it was too late.
Did you ask the Indian professors and students and the One Russian whether regional parties were in power in the various Republics of the Soviet Union?

PS: BTW, classic Rashmun Method. Congrats and such.

--> Charvaka Spin again. The opinion of those who were present when the Soviet Union broke up should only be mocked and ridiculed according to the method of Charvaka Spin. Sitting in front of the computer and relying completely on google searches is the way to go according to how Charvaka Spin works.
I didn't mock or ridicule those who were present. I mocked your methods. It looks like that upset you.

Let me say this again. You said regional parties in power threaten the "sovereignty" of India, and gave the Soviet Union as an example. Did the Soviet Union have "regional parties" in power? If not, your argument doesn't hold. Even if Indian professors and students and the One Russian told you something else altogether tangential to this topic.

--> my point is as follows:

1. regionalism and regional chauvinism have an affect on the sovereignty of India because it creates an us vs them, us vs outsiders kinds of feelings and prejudices. It divides the people, just as religion and caste divide the people.
2. if regional parties become very powerful in India, for instance if almost every state is ruled by a regional party, it could unleash feelings of regionalism and regional chauvinism which would divide the people along regionalistic lines and would have the potential to instigate secessonist movements if a popular regional leader who believes in secession comes to power.
3. Regionalism was an important factor in the breakup of the Soviet Union because many if not most people in the state of Russia, which was by far the largest state in the Soviet Union (76% in terms of land mass), suffered from feelings of regional chauvinism and supported the breakup of the Soviet Union. They thought that after the breakup they would be better off and that the other states were a burden on Russia.
4. Regionalism and Regional chauvinism need to be opposed just as any attempts to divide the people on the basis of caste and religion need to be opposed.

by charvaka Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:11 pm

All four of your points are nonsense. Let me explain.

Rashmun wrote:1. regionalism and regional chauvinism have an affect on the sovereignty of India because it creates an us vs them, us vs outsiders kinds of feelings and prejudices. It divides the people, just as religion and caste divide the people.

There is nothing wrong with regionalism. There is nothing right with chauvinism of any kind -- regional, or anti-regional.

Rashmun wrote:2. if regional parties become very powerful in India, for instance if almost every state is ruled by a regional party, it could unleash feelings of regionalism and regional chauvinism which would divide the people along regionalistic lines and would have the potential to instigate secessonist movements if a popular regional leader who believes in secession comes to power.

Nonsense. Our history tells us that secessionist feelings are reduced when regional parties become empowered in state politics. It is when the will of Delhi and Congress are forced upon states -- against the wishes of the people of the state -- that secessionism flares up into violence. The two biggest threats to India's sovereignty -- in Punjab and Kashmir -- both belong to that category.

Rashmun wrote:3. Regionalism was an important factor in the breakup of the Soviet Union

Nonsense. The Soviet Union was an artificial empire with no shared cultural or civilizational links. Had the system empowered regional parties, it might have survived longer.

Rashmun wrote:4. Regionalism and Regional chauvinism need to be opposed just as any attempts to divide the people on the basis of caste and religion need to be opposed.

That's what the communist party in the Soviet Union believed. We know where that got them.

by Guest Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:23 pm

charvaka wrote:All four of your points are nonsense. Let me explain.

Rashmun wrote:1. regionalism and regional chauvinism have an affect on the sovereignty of India because it creates an us vs them, us vs outsiders kinds of feelings and prejudices. It divides the people, just as religion and caste divide the people.
There is nothing wrong with regionalism. There is nothing right with chauvinism of any kind -- regional, or anti-regional.

Rashmun wrote:2. if regional parties become very powerful in India, for instance if almost every state is ruled by a regional party, it could unleash feelings of regionalism and regional chauvinism which would divide the people along regionalistic lines and would have the potential to instigate secessonist movements if a popular regional leader who believes in secession comes to power.
Nonsense. Our history tells us that secessionist feelings are reduced when regional parties become empowered in state politics. It is when the will of Delhi and Congress are forced upon states -- against the wishes of the people of the state -- that secessionism flares up into violence. The two biggest threats to India's sovereignty -- in Punjab and Kashmir -- both belong to that category.

Rashmun wrote:3. Regionalism was an important factor in the breakup of the Soviet Union
Nonsense. The Soviet Union was an artificial empire with no shared cultural or civilizational links. Had the system empowered regional parties, it might have survived longer.

Rashmun wrote:4. Regionalism and Regional chauvinism need to be opposed just as any attempts to divide the people on the basis of caste and religion need to be opposed.
That's what the communist party in the Soviet Union believed. We know where that got them.

will get back to this later today.

by sambarvada Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:00 pm

Rashmun,

How is that Hinduism is able to hold together India?

by charvaka Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:54 pm

Rashmun wrote:will get back to this later today.

Ok, do get back with the names of the regional parties that were in power in the Soviet Union which led to its disintegration. Also report back on violent separatist movements that threatened India's sovereignty that were caused by regional parties being in power.

by Guest Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:01 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:will get back to this later today.
Ok, do get back with the names of the regional parties that were in power in the Soviet Union which led to its disintegration. Also report back on violent separatist movements that threatened India's sovereignty that were caused by regional parties being in power.

--> i have decided to write a blog on this issue.

by Sponsored content

Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia

Re: Sonia Gandhi and Xenophobia