Strategic leadership for the future of India

[Muppalla]

Keeping future of India in mind, the founding fathers of India's constitution have created certain rules. For example, the members of parliament cannot hold office of profit. They might not have used the term called "conflict of interest" but all these kinds of rules are actually geared towards conflict between their personal interest to that of selfless service to nation. Couple of years ago when SC disqualified Jaya Bachchan, there was hue and cry. Instead of stictly implementing it, all the parties converged together to ammend the constitution.

Similarly, there may be a clause somewhere in the constitution about this direct relationship with foreigners and if someone takes this as a PIL, there is potential that crap will fall on the administration especially with a substantial contingent of such transgressors. If such a thing happens, it will be interesting to see the response.

I believe there are such rules that are strictly followed in Armed Forces of India and also administrative services. It is the political area where it is not strictly followed.

As this thread is about "Strategic leadership for future of India", is it a good idea to compromise and leave the ethics to individuals or should it be not part of the constitution?

Another question - The oath of secrecy that is administered to PM is that ethically he/she is supposed to keep the secrets from the better half as well? Does all the ministers have to take oath of secrecy? I forgot the process.

[Virupaksha]

Another question - The oath of secrecy that is administered to PM is that ethically he/she is supposed to keep the secrets from the better half as well? Does all the ministers have to take oath of secrecy? I forgot the process.

yes for both

[samuel]

There is one view that ethics are what is in a contract. For example, an oath when taking a public office can be interpreted as such. It is obvious that things will bottom out quickly without such ethical codes of conduct. But most codes of most countries, ours included, are incomplete. It requires one to understand their spirit, not just the letter, and there is the conundrum. If one does not follow the spirit of the law, one can defeat its entire purpose even when following it, for there can be ways, means and loopholes to get around it, and this becomes a never ending game. On the other hand, a liberal interpretation of the spirit, not explicitly stated, can lead to misinterpretation too. So, this actually is a tough one if taken in its generality. I would therefore say it comes down to the person "the state of the individual" in being cognizant and devoted to the responsibilities they undertake. The results as we know there, are mixed.

S

[Rahul Mehta]

1. Currently there are substantial number of persons who are occupying the ministerial postions in the Union Cabinet whose spouses are either naturalized or of foreigners. For example new commerce minister Anand Sharma with South African wife. Montek Singh Ahluwalia's wife US citizen (white lady and not one of Indian origin). The whole set up is substantially globalized. Classified information of India is discussed in Cabinet meetings ( I guess Ministers of State etc. are not part of the cabinet meetings). I also think there will be a lot of classified and secret information that the babus and the ministers will have access. Is this kind of setup a good example "Strategic leadership" for future of India. Are there any reasons it is okay for India because it is better that way onlee? It all depends on how ethical these folks are and how India centric these families are. It is not to say that these folks are dangerous as compared to Sharad pawar types who are alleged to have more connectivity to India's underworld. Is it not the fundamental rule of national security/strategy of countries from times immemorial to restrict foreigners into ruling ring? Are there any restrictive laws related to this issue in other countries?

2. PS:No offense or insults intended on the patriotism of those BR members who are having spouses/fiancees of other countries

3. Let us not discuss Sonia Gandhi again as it will be very boring and repetitive.

Some 2500 years ago, Plato told me that "in ethics and politics, give answers, dont ask questions". I would go ahead and say -- Admins should ban questions and ask members to post ONLY the answers, as far as ethical, political and policy matters go. Here is my answer:

1. The existing law allows a person to divorce the spouse when spouse changes religion. And the one who changes religion gets no alimony and loses rights to child custody. I propose we should extend the law on the matter of citizenship and residency as well. IOW, if a person changes citizenship or residency or even applies for a change, the spouse can get divorce with no burden of alimony and also get child custody. To me, citizenship is holier than religion.

2. We should ban dual citizenship and also ban PIO etc status. (this was in my manifesto)

3. If a person has a spouse with foreign citizenship or GC or has applied for GC, he should be prohibited from contesting even Panchayat election till person divorces him/her. And he cant become Minister.

4. If a spouse of sitting MP or Panchayat Member becomes foreign citizen or GC holder or even applies, that MP must divorce the spouse within 15 days or will be expelled from house.

4. If a person marries foreign born foreign citizen, he should be debarred from contesting elections, and ban will stay for 5 years after he divorces the spouse.

5. The above rules should apply on judges, IAS, IPS and every person in Govt.

6. The information of citizenship and residency of all relatives of all MPs, judges, IAS, IPS, peons etc should be on GoI website. eg If an MP's son becomes US citizenship, I dont want a law to debar him legally, but I do want this information to become public in a verifiable way so that die hard nationalist can decide not to vote for him and also recall him. Likewise, if there is verified information that an SCj's kids applied for GC, that can make a good case for a rabbid nationalist to get that SCj recalled. (I am living under delusion that recall laws will come soon :p )

7. IOW, people with foreign citizen spouses or even spouses who have applied for GC should be debarred from ANY position in Govt from peon to President. I am a 100% Xenophobic Nationalistic Chauvinist cum Nationalistic Bigot.

AKAIK, no country has such laws I proposed.

And Muppala, your question does go against BRites who have foreign spouses. You have a purpose behind raising this question --- you believe that if any person has foreign spouse, he is unsuitable for many tasks in Govt. And that "any person" can be a BRite. So in form of question, you are making a statement that may hurt feelings of many BRites. So will my answer. But then, I dont want to modify the answers to suit their feelings. Nevertheless, thanks for bringing this important issue. And pls post your answers as well.

[Rahul Mehta]

Sorry munna ji. My bad but go by the message rather than my error in "Judge" ment. It may be a good idea to collect the names of all the folks at the top in this admin who has foreign spouses or bahus/daamats.

http://www.ifpri.org/2020conference/pro ... uwalia.asp

Muppalla,

I agree that we should have info on residency, citizenship status of ALL persons in administration and their spouses and kids. But there is mountain size blind spot in you vision --- you are leaving judges out. You are focusing ONLY on Administration and leaving judocracy out. We also need to compile and post information of

1. whether any judge has applied for GC or has GC
2. whether any judge has spouse with GC, applied for GC, foreign citizenship
3. whether any judge has kids GC, applied for GC, foreign citizenship

As judges expand their roles in politics, under the garb of PILs, they have become active politicians though out of citizen's control. Look at recent judgments like putting SIT to chase Modi or re-opening riot cases 5th time. These are all politically motivated judgments. And so we should keep an eye on contacts of judges with foreign countries.

Also, we should publish this information on BJP Ministers. I recall that Yashwant Sinha, a BJP Finance Minister many American company. Now YS has sons, in-laws who are GC holders and are based in US. We should not rule out the possibility of unfair play here.

.

[RajeshA]

1. Currently there are substantial number of persons who are occupying the ministerial postions in the Union Cabinet whose spouses are either naturalized or of foreigners. For example new commerce minister Anand Sharma with South African wife. Montek Singh Ahluwalia's wife US citizen (white lady and not one of Indian origin). The whole set up is substantially globalized. Classified information of India is discussed in Cabinet meetings ( I guess Ministers of State etc. are not part of the cabinet meetings). I also think there will be a lot of classified and secret information that the babus and the ministers will have access. Is this kind of setup a good example "Strategic leadership" for future of India. Are there any reasons it is okay for India because it is better that way onlee? It all depends on how ethical these folks are and how India centric these families are. It is not to say that these folks are dangerous as compared to Sharad pawar types who are alleged to have more connectivity to India's underworld. Is it not the fundamental rule of national security/strategy of countries from times immemorial to restrict foreigners into ruling ring? Are there any restrictive laws related to this issue in other countries?

2. PS:No offense or insults intended on the patriotism of those BR members who are having spouses/fiancees of other countries

3. Let us not discuss Sonia Gandhi again as it will be very boring and repetitive.

Some 2500 years ago, Plato told me that "in ethics and politics, give answers, dont ask questions". I would go ahead and say -- Admins should ban questions and ask members to post ONLY the answers, as far as ethical, political and policy matters go. Here is my answer:

Plato said many things. Samuel Johnson also told me once, that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels".

1. The existing law allows a person to divorce the spouse when spouse changes religion. And the one who changes religion gets no alimony and loses rights to child custody. I propose we should extend the law on the matter of citizenship and residency as well. IOW, if a person changes citizenship or residency or even applies for a change, the spouse can get divorce with no burden of alimony and also get child custody. To me, citizenship is holier than religion.

Consideration: There are multiple civil codes for different religions in India. When the spouse moves from one religion to another, it may become difficult to ascertain which civil code should be applicable. For the sake of simplicity, it could make sense to have such a law on divorce and subsequent separation of common goods and children. In case of foreign citizenship too, this consideration may also be valid.

Position: Have a Uniform Civil Code in India. Encourage all married couples to have a Marital Agreement on terms of separation, etc. No reason to make an already skewed law more skewed.

2. We should ban dual citizenship and also ban PIO etc status. (this was in my manifesto)

Consideration: It is a globalized world, a world in which a country or region within wants to attract more investment, wants to increase its influence. Taking more people under the hood, and chaining those already underneath it to it, a nation spreads its footprint.
Islam does it, by first expanding the periphery, and then expanding the core. In fact Islam bans conversions and promotes Taqiyya to allow its followers to prosper and still stay true to it. It has proved to be a good strategy.

Position: The current policy is very good.

3. If a person has a spouse with foreign citizenship or GC or has applied for GC, he should be prohibited from contesting even Panchayat election till person divorces him/her. And he cant become Minister.

Consideration:
1) The best way to get elected is by debarring everybody else to contest on some ground or another.
2) In India there are hardly any conditionalities on standing for election, except perhaps of age, and that is for good reason. It is the Constitution's way of saying, the voter's knows what is best for him.
3) In Iran, every candidate in an election is first vetted by the Guardian Council, hardly a system one aspires for in India.
4) Assumption being made, that having a foreign spouse goes counter to discharging one's duties under the Constitution with any measure of integrity, something totally unproven.

Position: The above suggestion is just so much crap.

4. If a spouse of sitting MP or Panchayat Member becomes foreign citizen or GC holder or even applies, that MP must divorce the spouse within 15 days or will be expelled from house.

Position: Again Crap!

4. If a person marries foreign born foreign citizen, he should be debarred from contesting elections, and ban will stay for 5 years after he divorces the spouse.

Position: More solidifying of Crap!

5. The above rules should apply on judges, IAS, IPS and every person in Govt.

Position: More expanding of Crap!

6. The information of citizenship and residency of all relatives of all MPs, judges, IAS, IPS, peons etc should be on GoI website. eg If an MP's son becomes US citizenship, I dont want a law to debar him legally, but I do want this information to become public in a verifiable way so that die hard nationalist can decide not to vote for him and also recall him. Likewise, if there is verified information that an SCj's kids applied for GC, that can make a good case for a rabbid nationalist to get that SCj recalled. (I am living under delusion that recall laws will come soon :p )

7. IOW, people with foreign citizen spouses or even spouses who have applied for GC should be debarred from ANY position in Govt from peon to President. I am a 100% Xenophobic Nationalistic Chauvinist cum Nationalistic Bigot.

Consideration:
Xenophobic? Granted
Chauvinist? Granted
Bigot? Granted
Nationalist?

It is the extreme Xenophobia and Angst of the past Brahmins, that has caused India to be enslaved for a thousand years. If there is one factor, that has led to the destruction of our culture and temples through marauding Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc. this is it. If today, we all have become imprisoned in Macaulayism, then this is it.
If some Xenophobes and in-Lungi-shitting Brahmins had not declared everybody leaving the borders of India, traveling abroad, stepping over the seas, etc. sinful and apavitra, we would have remained open-minded about newest thinking on sciences, technology, geography, etc. Indians could have been the ones to discover the New Continents. Alas that was not to be, simply because the Xenophobes did not know where to draw the line. If those past Brahmins had not been the epitome of exclusivism, then Sanatan Dharma could have had the biggest following in the world.

AKAIK, no country has such laws I proposed.

And Muppala, your question does go against BRites who have foreign spouses. You have a purpose behind raising this question --- you believe that if any person has foreign spouse, he is unsuitable for many tasks in Govt. And that "any person" can be a BRite. So in form of question, you are making a statement that may hurt feelings of many BRites. So will my answer. But then, I dont want to modify the answers to suit their feelings. Nevertheless, thanks for bringing this important issue. And pls post your answers as well.

OK. Let us not care about 'feelings' of people on this issue. Let us be objective. The issue as I see it is, 'what is better for the nation?'

Indians with foreign spouses == Somebody who loves one foreigner
Xenophobic Chauvinist Bigots == Somebody who hates all foreigners.

Where I would draw the line: Anybody who has applied for a foreign nationality, a foreign passport, cannot be considered a nationalist. A nationalist does not spread his nationalism over several nations. Applying for a foreign nationality embodies the symbolism of not being content with one's own motherland. A politician ought to be nationalist. He should not only be content with his motherland, he should be obsessed by it. He cannot have divided loyalties, as he has to care for the duties of the state. This judgment however should remain in the hands of the voter. Information on whether a person applied for or received a foreign passport besides his Indian passport or in addition to his Indian passport should be made public at the time of candidature.

A common citizen on the other hand should not do something anti-national, but he need not be constrained from living his life to its fullest potential as well as doing service to his fullest potential to the country in whatever capacity he deems fit. He deserves no chains to be put on him by xenophobes, except that of the law of the land.

Trying to nail a person, for the simple reason that he has a foreign spouse, is targeting a person on arbitrary grounds, having no bearing on his nationalism or lack of it.

I could make an arbitrary condition that no person with the name Rahul should ever be elected to any public office, because Indians with foreign spouses tend to name their children Rahul. I know of at least two such cases. Or anybody who has traveled outside India has already compromised his love for his country. Or anybody who ever saw a Hollywood movie, is already a tainted commodity and has no place in the country's leadership. What about Levis Jeans!!! Or an iPhone?

Basically coming up with such extreme grounds for debarring people from fulfilling their service to the country, is simply political positioning. Such extreme positions are not nationalistic because they are simply stupid, and stupidity can hardly be good for the nation. Such xenophobic positions are crap, simply because they are based on general assumptions, which xenophobes try to sell as the truth divine, assumptions like 'anybody with a foreign spouse is a liability or unpatriotic'.

I can understand that one would be careful in entrusting somebody with a sensitive office if the spouse originates from a people, who have a record of hostility towards Indians (Chinese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc), but generalizing it goes beyond the expectations of prudence. In this case, I might even consider the suggestion as worth discussing, but that has nothing to do with Xenophobia, Chauvinism or Bigotry.

JMTs

[Muppalla]

And Muppala, your question does go against BRites who have foreign spouses. You have a purpose behind raising this question --- you believe that if any person has foreign spouse, he is unsuitable for many tasks in Govt. And that "any person" can be a BRite. So in form of question, you are making a statement that may hurt feelings of many BRites. So will my answer. But then, I dont want to modify the answers to suit their feelings. Nevertheless, thanks for bringing this important issue. And pls post your answers as well.

You are doing it again. Putting words that I have nothing to do with. I have no disrespect or suspicions about anyone. My question was very simple. "Conflct of interest" is a serious clause in many countries. I am asking why it is not the case and suggesting that it should be the case. That is my opinion. Some others may have an opinion that this the most un-important thing to deal with as most of these dual citizens are competent. I do not have any disrespect to people with such an opinion inspite my difference of opinion.

Admins should ban questions and ask members to post ONLY the answers, as far as ethical, political and policy matters go.

Forums are for exchange of views. What is this rule that members should post only answers?

[John Snow]

Once the nuptial knot is tied there is no "foreign" in spouse, all maters are internal and nocturnal affairs, period.

[shaardula]

agatha sangma
http://world1.rediff.com/ishare/video/N ... ndi/624351

[brihaspati]

To make this line of thought more concrete, and less frivolous, can we have case studies of significant leadership of India, who had foreign spouses, and whose actions as regards Indian interests changed significantly after such marriages? The earliest example that comes to my mind is that of J.M.SenGupta - his wife being Nellie SenGupta. As far as I know, there were no discernible effects - if anything, JMS was known as a hardliner. So the point raised before could have some foundation, that a leader with foreign origin spouse, may actually try harder to prove himself a "red-blooded" Indian than someone with an Indian spouse. I guess we are excluding all sundry relationships which have not been legally recognized - such as foriegn mistresses etc.? There were perfect examples of purity in Indianness of spouse but connections with "wives" of foreign origin, of other men of "foreign origin" - that potentially spelled disaster.

[Rahul Mehta]

Rahul Mehta:Admins should ban questions and ask members to post ONLY the answers, as far as ethical, political and policy matters go.

Muppalla: Forums are for exchange of views. What is this rule that members should post only answers?

People often (rather almost always) ask questions to make statements. So posting answers alone saves time.

... I have no disrespect or suspicions about anyone. My question was very simple. "Conflct of interest" is a serious clause in many countries. I am asking why it is not the case and suggesting that it should be the case. That is my opinion. Some others may have an opinion that this the most un-important thing to deal with as most of these dual citizens are competent. I do not have any disrespect to people with such an opinion inspite my difference of opinion.

IOW, you insist that those with foreign spouses should be debarred from becoming Ministers or contesting elections. And obviously, this will extend on many important positions such as IAS, IPS and judiciary. I agree with this. And these views of ours are bound to hurt feelings of BRite who has a foreign spouse. And it would hurt him more if he is already an MP, Minister, IAS, IPS or judge.

brihaspati: So the point raised before could have some foundation, that a leader with foreign origin spouse, may actually try harder to prove himself a "red-blooded" Indian than someone with an Indian spouse.

So he will try harder to prove and pretend that he is red blooded. But his real intentions and actions may be compromised. eg if a Minister has son who is placed at top position in US MNC, I wont trust him with Finance Ministry - we have had bad experiences in past. And of today, given that US, UK, Pakistan, Saud, China etc and too many enemies we have, we cant afford to have Nbjpr with foreign spouses. For that matter, I wouldn't trust a PM who has a Pakistani spouse or a Chinese spouse or both . Would you? Or if his son is well placed in some Pakistani or Chinese MNC. Better safe than sorry. And Ministry positions are not fundamental rights - they are as per the discretion of citizens. So if we make a law debarring people with foreign spouses from GoI jobs, we are not breaking any fundamental rights.

[shiv]

Once the nuptial knot is tied there is no "foreign" in spouse, all maters are internal and nocturnal affairs, period.

That is as true for us, as "commons" forum members a anyone else. Sauce for the Goose, sauce for the gander" or "Yatha praja, tatha raja" Take your pick.

[RamaY]

I do not know about others but as someone with foreign spouse, I respect public sentiment. If my nation has doubts on my ability to manage my family, I will not force myself on the rajya. If rajya-dharma is too important to me, I will follow Rama's footsteps.

That said, forget about people with foriegn spouses we were very close to have a foreign-born citizen as our PM. We were outsmarted in a big way when this person put a dummy candidate in the front and ruling this nation for the past 5 years.

Remember our national-psyche is too dhimmi and extremely liberal at present. If we push this issue any more, we will be in for even a worst outcome.

[RajeshA]

And Ministry positions are not fundamental rights - they are as per the discretion of citizens. So if we make a law debarring people with foreign spouses from GoI jobs, we are not breaking any fundamental rights.

You ARE breaking fundamental rights.
o As an Indian citizen, he has the right to apply for such a job. It constitutes the principle of equality of the citizen before the law.
o An Indian voter has the right to choose, who should be made a Minister. As you say, it is per his discretion. So let him have his discretion. Why debar the citizen from using his discretion by debarring the citizen's potential choice from holding GoI jobs. Why should a law come between a citizen's discretion and its fulfillment?

[RajeshA]

I do not know about others but as someone with foreign spouse, I respect public sentiment. If my nation has doubts on my ability to manage my family, I will not force myself on the rajya. If rajya-dharma is too important to me, I will follow Rama's footsteps.

RamaY ji,
A vocal rabid minority does not represent public opinion. Public sentiment can be measured only in a public democratic court. Never let the hyenas bring you down. They will not decide whether you are patriotic or capable.

[RajeshA]

RM is asking for another citizenship differentiator where he says some levers of power cannot be given to those who have foreign spouses, because of possible conflict of interest. I do not support it, does not mean I do not see merit in it.

I can understand that one would be careful in entrusting somebody with a sensitive office if the spouse originates from a people, who have a record of hostility towards Indians (Chinese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc), but generalizing it goes beyond the expectations of prudence.

If a people P show a characteristic C, then one can postulate that a person H ∈ P can have C unless H is an exception, so the default is to expect C in H. The assumption is that P shows a characteristic C. Without this assumption, the default would be not to expect C in H.

Put differently why should some body who has a Norwegian wife, or a Swiss wife, or a Bhutanese wife, or a Peruvian wife, be placed in the same category as one who has a Pakistani wife. I am not saying, that one with Pakistani wife is a national risk. I am just saying that by default one would expect the risk to be higher, even if minimal.

You are right that there is a difference between born and naturalized citizens, between naturalized citizens who are PIO and who are not. However now the differentiator is being applied to Indian born citizens. If that rubicon is breached, then there is no stop. Then one can claim that a Muslim cannot be given a GoI job because through his religion, his loyalties could lie with forces beyond India. Then one can say that a Punjabi or a Bengali cannot be entrusted with GoI job because over his ethnicity, his loyalties can lie with his co-ethnics from across the border. Then one can start legislating against allowing people to have GoI jobs because of their political inclination.

- The problem with RM is he is making having a foreign wife into a crime, which deserves punishment of the highest order, by taking away the person's rights as a (naturally-born) citizen of India.
- The problem with RM is his passion for introducing 'differentiators' to the very core of what constitutes a Bhartiya's relationship with Bharat, and whose sanctity cannot be allowed to be violated.
- The problem with RM is wishing to take away the citizen's discretion and choice through legislation.
- The problem with RM is that he wants to turn it into a political platform whose sole purpose is to appropriate the 'nationalistic' tag by legislating all other nationalists into oblivion.
- The problem with RM is that he wants to wear 'Xenophobia' as a badge of honor, not appreciating how much xenophobia has hurt India over the last thousand years.

ravi_ku,
I do support that naturalized Indian citizens who are not PIOs should not be allowed to hold high offices. There is such a constraint on US Presidency as well, and it makes sense. However there is a huge difference between that and a naturally born Indian simply having a foreign spouse.

[Virupaksha]

RajeshA,
I wrote that and thought back. It looked like my position was "cat on wall" and so deleted it

The rubicon that all citizens are equal has already been crossed.

- becoming a "top level" is not a right.
- can you please tell me what values of Bharatiya's relationship with bharat have been breached. Sorry I am a thick skull when it comes to issues like this.
- Did he say that those laws are brought about through some dictator? So what did he say which he does that?
- Another throw of names without any matter behind. Throw some names like "nationalistic" to sound off opposition?
- I would say the opposite. The complete lack of xenophobia has hurt India. But this is my personal opinion and any discussion will definitely make us digress.

In your second para, you have accepted that one with a foreign (today our enemy is Pak, tomorrow XYZ) spouse increases the risk.

I agree to some extent, it will be discriminatory to a certain extent and love blooms wherever. and let me accept the limitations, what happens "out of marriage" stuff? Is spouse the only relationship which need to be restricted? What happens if your children are(like MMS today)? - note that MMS "future" is detached from what happens in India. Basically we have handed over the reigns to a person who doesnt have any "need" for future of India. What do you do then? It is because I do not have clarity in my mind over these type of issues, I am ok in principle, but not ok in putting it on paper.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA,
I wrote that and thought back. It looked like my position was "cat on wall" and so deleted it

The rubicon that all citizens are equal has already been crossed.

At the moment I believe the law does not make a differentiation on the basis of naturally-born and naturalized. Sonia Gandhi could have legally become the PM. Politically that would have been untenable. As I mentioned, in case of US Presidency, there is a differentiation between the two. At the moment this makes Indian Constitution more non-discriminatory.
So in India's case
- The rubicon of differentiating between naturally-born and naturalized has not been breached. I don't consider this rubicon sacrosanct for the 'top-levels' (Ministers).
- The rubicon of differentiating between naturally-born on the basis of some arbitrary differentiators based on the subjective opinions of some (as is the case with those with foreign spouses) has also not been breached.

- becoming a "top level" is not a right.

I never claimed it is, but applying for the top-level, striving for it, should be a right for all naturally-born citizens of India.

- can you please tell me what values of Bharatiya's relationship with bharat have been breached. Sorry I am a thick skull when it comes to issues like this.

His sense of belonging to Bharat and equality with all Bhartiya, equality of opportunity.

- Did he say that those laws are brought about through some dictator? So what did he say which he does that?

No, but all those who use democratic avenues to get power, should not close the door behind them, should not subvert those avenues for others once they have power. Otherwise it is like becoming PM and then declaring oneself Shenshah and doing away with democracy. The act of curtailing the opportunity for others to reach power is a dictatorial streak, opportunity which one availed oneself.

- Another throw of names without any matter behind. Throw some names like "nationalistic" to sound off opposition?

- I would say the opposite. The complete lack of xenophobia has hurt India. But this is my personal opinion and any discussion will definitely make us digress.

It is not xenophobia, which has hurt India. It is lack of strength in ourselves, it is convictions, it is internal divisions, and it is lack of healthy sense of self-interest. This is true for the last thousand years, and for those, who dwell on the question of Sonia Gandhi, one does not need to hate the foreigner (xenophobia) to understand that one does not give whole-sale power to some outsider in one's own country.

In your second para, you have accepted that one with a foreign (today our enemy is Pak, tomorrow XYZ) spouse increases the risk.

It is not a question of enmity at the political level between countries. I referred to enmity which has percolated all the way down to each national of the other country towards India. There are not many such countries.

Secondly, acknowledging a potential risk, does not mean one generalizes it whole-scale. Just because allowing your child to cross a road carries a certain risk, does not mean that the you would forbid the child to cross a road again in life. There is also no need for a law prohibiting children to cross a road. One would decide for a policy of urging caution to the child.

I firmly believe that the people, the voters, ought to be the highest court of opinion, regarding the choice of their leaders. If somebody does not trust another person to be able to carry out the duties of an office with integrity and loyalty because of his foreign spouse, then he should take the matter to the people, to the voters. If a person is xenophobic, then he should place the matter before the people. If the voters do not hear the xenophobe's plea, then it because the people do not accept his reasoning, and his reasoning has failed. But it is a different matter to debar people from contesting the elections in the first place through legislation one could bring about on the sly, or through manipulating a certain coterie in Parliament. I however do not believe, such a law would ever be accepted by the Supreme Court anyway.

I agree to some extent, it will be discriminatory to a certain extent and love blooms wherever. and let me accept the limitations, what happens "out of marriage" stuff? Is spouse the only relationship which need to be restricted?

What happens if your children are(like MMS today)? - note that MMS "future" is detached from what happens in India. Basically we have handed over the reigns to a person who doesnt have any "need" for future of India. What do you do then? It is because I do not have clarity in my mind over these type of issues, I am ok in principle, but not ok in putting it on paper.

- One can prescribe that the PM ought to come from Lok Sabha and be directly elected.
- We may disagree on this point. I think, that the problem with some of the political-philosophical underpinnings of the beliefs in India, is that an individual carries responsibility for the thoughts and actions of others, of his spouse, his children, his friends, his family. All these associated individuals have been influenced by a lot more factors than simply his sermons. Everybody as an individual is free to go and do whatever one wants and to profit from it or pay the price for it. One can take responsibilities for one's team, one's company, the cabinet, etc. because that responsibility has been set through jurisdiction or regulation. However one cannot legislate against individuals to pursue their own lives, out of their own convictions, and place that individuals responsibility in the hands of another person.
The latter does happen as in the case of children below 18 or for individuals who have been legally declared as certifiably insane, but it is not the general case.
If factors like you mentioned, that one's children are abroad and this implies that the person has lost his sense of patriotism and responsibility to his country, are relevant, then those concerns should be decided in the people's court and not through legislation, simply because this is a matter of personal judgment.

JMTs

[Muppalla]

I don't understand why people bring love and marriage into this issue and making this issue as though one of emotional one. Folks can marry anyone and live happily as there several avenues to pursue their careers/passions. Once love/marriage decision is made desist from becoming Commerce Minister or things like that. These are/were the rules of engagement for public offices across the significant portions of world and also during the successful rule of kingdoms in historical India.

Most of the times it was just followed that way without even making it as a "rule" but now a days there are significant number who are breaking this unwritten rule and hence the necessity to make it as a clearly written rule. The folks who made a personal decisions are vigorously trying to get into places where there is either direct conflict of interest of "perceived" conflict of interest.

How many in India know that an agency like RAW exists and what it does? You can't go back to billion population for every national policy especially when politics/voting patterns are always local (I don't need to quote or prove this). This is escapism from the issue at best. Like every system, democracy has its limitations and by saying that let us take it to peoples court is wanting to exploit those limitations to prove a point. In India, there are significant sections who think we were better off under British rule than under SDRE rule.

The policy makers can make some analysis and could compare and contrast to other democratic countries or the other powers regarding such policies. My take is India has the most liberal rules when it comes to this aspect of "conflict of interests". The irony is it has a very stringent rules in armed forces but for the bosses of such institutions like armed forces, it is extremely lax.

I request everyone to take out Sonia Gandhi from this discussion as it will be repetitive and boring too. Her case is very different from all others in the admin. She is more of Gandhi family bahu and even democratically speaking, the population knows it. However, the folks becoming ministers and other administratively appointed folks are those about whom even 0.1% of India's population does not know. These folks are appointed or the ones coming via Rajya Sabha.

No country even the ones those allow a large scale immigration is that lax in this aspect of rules.

A classic example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori

India can potentially make same mistake as Peru. Imagine one of these ministers/officials involved in a scandal and convicted but flees to a country of spouse's origin and India does not have extradition treaty. I am not talking about espionage but some simple money laundering case.

At the minimum as a start there should be a new rule where every one who is contesting or occupying public office should disclose all the relations to foreigners and any residency/citizenship of other countries. For public positions (like ministers, NSA etc.) this should be put on the web.

[brihaspati]

Sorry to say, this is getting more and more Kafkaesque!

Since we are now extending the discussion to having "sons" in MNC's as a debarring qualification, the underlying assumption is that familial affection will make someone "weak" and the "son" can then influence the dad/mom, why are we then not considering the reverse tie of having a father or mother of "foreign" origin? This debars RG(jnr). In fact, a famous industrialist could be reinvestigated whether his marriage to a French citizen subverted the industrial development of India.

And, yes, SG cannot be removed from this discussion. When you are talking of making a general rule which takes legal status, you cannot discriminate. Why can you make an exception because someone is a "bahu" of a certain family, or make it subject to approval by popular will - this is not a legal approach.

Conflict of interest rules are strictly applied in many western countries in many professional situations. But it is extremely shortsighted if exact such rules are not studied before raising the issue for blanket applicability on Indians. Also, it is very much within the capacity of intelligence dpeartments to keep a tab on whether actions by Indians are being affected by their foreign spouses. On the other hand, a foreign spouse, in the "right hands" can be a wonderful tool for "double agentship" - feed him/her the "right signals" to manipulate the foreign power concerned.

My observation is that, most "foreign women" who marry Indian men and come over to India, knowing full well, the political and social commitments of her husband, usually mentally "convert" to a certain extent to adapt to Indic interests as the primary one. As again, I would still not consider SG an exception to this rule completely. Her apparent complicity in EJ/Western tactical objectives result more from general and vicious threat of potential violence on the family and exposure of corruption, the latter being possibly shared by the upper echelons and fundmanagers of Cong but blamed entirely on the G-family.

Let us not restrict ourselves in our Kuupamanduka strategy maintained for centuries. That is the sign of a defeated victimhood, never gaining the confidence of winning. This is why we first restricted marriages within our own subgroups, then within sub-sub-groups, then within sub-sub-sub-sub-groups, creating foreigners forever mistrusted out of our fellow countrypeople. At least bringing in more women from outside, should be "desirable"! And genetic mixing is a great way to homogenize - this over-emphasis on marital restrictions must go. The mistrust on "foreign" influence of spouse is part of this ingrained mistrust of any relationship that has not been tightly controlled by the self-appointed guardians of our society - who however failed to defend that very society from invasion by "foreigners".

Trust Indians to tackle this on their own, and for the practical details of vigilance, a proper supervision from behind by a sufficiently capable intelleigence framework should be good enough.

[RajeshA]

I don't understand why people bring love and marriage into this issue and making this issue as though one of emotional one. Folks can marry anyone and live happily as there several avenues to pursue their careers/passions. Once love/marriage decision is made desist from becoming Commerce Minister or things like that.

The question is why should he desist? Has one done something wrong in marrying a foreigner, which is a private matter, as you mention? Why should he allow others to impinge on his rights as a naturally-born Indian citizen, which includes to strive for public office?

These are/were the rules of engagement for public offices across the significant portions of world and also during the successful rule of kingdoms in historical India.

If I may say so, in historical India, the kings used to marry princesses of other kingdoms, to strengthen inter-kingdom bonds. According to laws proposed here, the king would have had to abdicate his thrown and then go and sell potatoes on street side.

Most of the times it was just followed that way without even making it as a "rule" but now a days there are significant number who are breaking this unwritten rule and hence the necessity to make it as a clearly written rule.

This is just the natural process of social evolution. Places which seemed far away are not that far away now. One finds out that people living on other shores, are genetically compatible and can procreate. Why should Indians have to live in mental cages?

The folks who made a personal decisions are vigorously trying to get into places where there is either direct conflict of interest of "perceived" conflict of interest.

How is doing one's work in a GoI in an electoral office, and having a foreign spouse a 'conflict of interest'? Conflict of interest arises where one's business interests can influence one's decisions in one's electoral office. Conflict of interest arises when one has divided loyalties. What has one's (foreign) wife, who may have her own profession, and is otherwise a member of one's family, got to do with one's electoral office? I see ZERO relationship.

How many in India know that an agency like RAW exists and what it does? You can't go back to billion population for every national policy especially when politics/voting patterns are always local (I don't need to quote or prove this). This is escapism from the issue at best. Like every system, democracy has its limitations and by saying that let us take it to peoples court is wanting to exploit those limitations to prove a point. In India, there are significant sections who think we were better off under British rule than under SDRE rule.

The policy makers can make some analysis and could compare and contrast to other democratic countries or the other powers regarding such policies. My take is India has the most liberal rules when it comes to this aspect of "conflict of interests". The irony is it has a very stringent rules in armed forces but for the bosses of such institutions like armed forces, it is extremely lax.

I request everyone to take out Sonia Gandhi from this discussion as it will be repetitive and boring too. Her case is very different from all others in the admin. She is more of Gandhi family bahu and even democratically speaking, the population knows it. However, the folks becoming ministers and other administratively appointed folks are those about whom even 0.1% of India's population does not know. These folks are appointed or the ones coming via Rajya Sabha.

No country even the ones those allow a large scale immigration is that lax in this aspect of rules.

A classic example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori

India can potentially make same mistake as Peru.

Wikipedia says: He is a Peruvian of Japanese descent and a Japanese national
I mentioned earlier that: Anybody who has applied for a foreign nationality, a foreign passport, cannot be considered a nationalist. A nationalist does not spread his nationalism over several nations. Applying for a foreign nationality embodies the symbolism of not being content with one's own motherland. A politician ought to be nationalist. He should not only be content with his motherland, he should be obsessed by it. He cannot have divided loyalties, as he has to care for the duties of the state. This judgment however should remain in the hands of the voter. Information on whether a person applied for or received a foreign passport besides his Indian passport or in addition to his Indian passport should be made public at the time of candidature.

The case being debated here is NOT about dual citizenships. I don't believe somebody with a dual citizenship should even come near an elected office or GoI post. He has shown himself to be not content with being just Indian, so he should forfeit a post, where he needs to give undivided attention with undivided loyalty to Indian interests.

But what is the need to bring in his spouse into the equation??? That is the question!!! Just because someone marries a foreigner, he is not qualified to be elected to office in India. Should Rajiv Gandhi have been debarred from becoming PM??? That is the nonsense part!

Imagine one of these ministers/officials involved in a scandal and convicted but flees to a country of spouse's origin and India does not have extradition treaty. I am not talking about espionage but some simple money laundering case.

For those who want to flee, spouse abroad is not the only avenue. Dawood Ibrahim is living in Pakistan, and not because of his wife. Actually I find it is an extreme case, where one expects one's politicians to loot India big, and then abscond using the wife's foreign nationality to another country with which India does not have an extradition treaty, and to cover such a case, all politicians with foreign wives should be barred from any activity in India

At the minimum as a start there should be a new rule where every one who is contesting or occupying public office should disclose all the relations to foreigners and any residency/citizenship of other countries. For public positions (like ministers, NSA etc.) this should be put on the web.

The only thing that matters for eligibility is whether the person contesting for some office is a naturally-born true-blooded Indian with an Indian citizenship, resident in India, and that he has never shown any interest in acquiring the citizenship of any other country in the world. A person can be responsible only for his own words and actions, not those of his kin (except of his minor children).

Even Rama differentiates between Ravan and Vibhishan. Vibhishan is not being made responsible for Ravan's actions. When will we learn that we are only responsible for our own actions, and of others, but only if we have played an active part in encouraging the other to those actions, or in some way facilitated those actions.

[Muppalla]

Sorry to say, this is getting more and more Kafkaesque!

Since we are now extending the discussion to having "sons" in MNC's as a debarring qualification, the underlying assumption is that familial affection will make someone "weak" and the "son" can then influence the dad/mom, why are we then not considering the reverse tie of having a father or mother of "foreign" origin? This debars RG(jnr). In fact, a famous industrialist could be reinvestigated whether his marriage to a French citizen subverted the industrial development of India.

Sons in MNCs maybe/ may be not a debarring question. This has to be done case-by-case basis. You cannot be a Roads and building Minister and you give contract to an MNC or Indian company were your son or daughter is in a position to influence your decision to give contract to that company for building express highway between Delhi and Chandigargh. This is the case of direct conflict of Interest. Foreigner or not is non-issue here. That is how the form for "Conflict of Interests" was filled by me when I applied my job for the current position I am working. This has nothing to do with just public postions. Even private companies implement.

In United States ( and I guess many other countries who care for themselves ) Foreign origin and direct relationship with foreigners is alway investigated even for a public trust postion though some of them are allowed for some positions. Naturalized citizens are allowed even in Defense consulting with a higher level clearance with regular polygraph testing during the time of engagement. However the consulting companies who does this kind of work classify the naturalized citizens as dual citizens with foreign parents/siblings and/or living abroad. However, if the naturalized citizen and his/her parents are also naturalized and living inside the country they proceed with the clearance process.

And, yes, SG cannot be removed from this discussion. When you are talking of making a general rule which takes legal status, you cannot discriminate. Why can you make an exception because someone is a "bahu" of a certain family, or make it subject to approval by popular will - this is not a legal approach.

Agreed. The only reason is the discussion will bring in all the Subramanya Swamy docs and then some members calling them as CTs will happen. The discussion will lose focus. More than that SG has been discussed several times. Several lurkers will be unhappy which makes this thread as hindutvawaadi thread etc. Just trying to be politically correct

Conflict of interest rules are strictly applied in many western countries in many professional situations. But it is extremely shortsighted if exact such rules are not studied before raising the issue for blanket applicability on Indians. Also, it is very much within the capacity of intelligence dpeartments to keep a tab on whether actions by Indians are being affected by their foreign spouses. On the other hand, a foreign spouse, in the "right hands" can be a wonderful tool for "double agentship" - feed him/her the "right signals" to manipulate the foreign power concerned.

It is a double edged sword. At a lower level it might work. But when the power leader is naturalized and potential future power's girl friend is foreigner. On top of that the first ring of friends for the first family has all spouses who are foreigners. A significant portion of those appointed also have foreign spouses. Most of these have sons/daughters with foreign spouses. The system is slowly but surely becoming that way is my point. Some members can still think this is paranoid thinking

My observation is that, most "foreign women" who marry Indian men and come over to India, knowing full well, the political and social commitments of her husband, usually mentally "convert" to a certain extent to adapt to Indic interests as the primary one. As again, I would still not consider SG an exception to this rule completely. Her apparent complicity in EJ/Western tactical objectives result more from general and vicious threat of potential violence on the family and exposure of corruption, the latter being possibly shared by the upper echelons and fundmanagers of Cong but blamed entirely on the G-family.

A good observation. But irrespective of the good intentions of those coming and to avoid such controversies, for a stable and good "Strategic leadership for the future of India", there should be a blanket ban on the first and second ring of leadership for those who has significant foreign relationship.

Let us not restrict ourselves in our Kuupamanduka strategy maintained for centuries. That is the sign of a defeated victimhood, never gaining the confidence of winning. This is why we first restricted marriages within our own subgroups, then within sub-sub-groups, then within sub-sub-sub-sub-groups, creating foreigners forever mistrusted out of our fellow countrypeople. At least bringing in more women from outside, should be "desirable"! And genetic mixing is a great way to homogenize - this over-emphasis on marital restrictions must go. The mistrust on "foreign" influence of spouse is part of this ingrained mistrust of any relationship that has not been tightly controlled by the self-appointed guardians of our society - who however failed to defend that very society from invasion by "foreigners".

There is something called as assimilation. Once assimilated then could be allowed. How in the world the first gen will be that much assimilated when they have so much of connectivity. Example - most of PIOs on BR. As I said there are many places they can work and why they have to be allowed in the top power ring of the country.

Trust Indians to tackle this on their own, and for the practical details of vigilance, a proper supervision from behind by a sufficiently capable intelleigence framework should be good enough.

You should also help this "intelligence framework" with some rules around this and otherwise it is just a lot of work. The bosses of the intelligence framework are suspect.

[RajeshA]

Brihaspati ji,

Thanks for a very eloquent response!

[Pranav]

x-post from future strategic scenario thread:

Hello folks,

Although BRF has been and remains an excellent forum for many topics, it is clear that there are certain lines of thought and inquiry that are frowned up in BRF.

For example, the Psy-ops and Media watch thread has been moved into a forum which is not visible to non-members. Exploration of civilizational identities is not encouraged.

It is the prerogative of the admins to steer this forum as per their wishes. But my concern is that the many great people who have come here and posted in the days of Glasnost should not get scattered and isolated as a result of the Purge. People may end up drifting away as a result of the crack-down and enforced blandness, and then the great community that has been built up would be lost.

In order to prevent such an eventuality, I have set up a "Bharat-vadi Forum" on Google groups in which topics that have become Taboo on BRF could be explored. As of now there are two threads open there. One of them is on "Indian Identity and Nationalism", in which for exploring the foundations of Indian nationalism. To what extent is our nationalism based on our civilizatonal heritage? What other ideas can Indian nationalism be based on? Please take a look at my post on this link: http://groups.google.com/group/bharatva ... ics?start= . There is also another thread there on Psy-Ops and media watch.

I hope people will take a look and join. If a sufficient number of people are interested, we could find a more permanent place for ourselves of the web that we can call home.

[ShauryaT]

At least bringing in more women from outside, should be "desirable"!

I know many women in my family, who will whack a person, making a statement, such as above!

[ramana]

OK. Back to topic after this diversion. Thanks, for all the views. Subject is now closed.
ramana

[aryank]

x-post from future strategic scenario thread:

Hello folks,

Although BRF has been and remains an excellent forum for many topics, it is clear that there are certain lines of thought and inquiry that are frowned up in BRF.

For example, the Psy-ops and Media watch thread has been moved into a forum which is not visible to non-members. Exploration of civilizational identities is not encouraged.

Pranav,

Post in this forum.

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?act=portal

[RamaY]

Ramana-ji, I read your post to close this topic. But I think we must note one important point in this line of thought which is slightly different from the original issue.

Throughout history, kings and national leaders were encouraged to enter into marital relationships with foriegners to form new alliances and end wars. This is an essential part of raja-dharma. To one count king Dasaradha (Rama's father) had more than 300 wives. The wife connection rarely influenced the king's decision making process. Very rarely the spouse angle resulted in a national decline. Even SG as a wife of RG did not influence the national strategy in any significant way. One can only make inferences about SG's alligence to India based on the events in the past 5 years.

If applied properly this foriegn spouse/family-member thing can be helpful to Indian causes.

JMT.

[Muppalla]

When Kings married foreigners ( rajkumaris from other Kingdoms) they either got the entire kingdom as dowry or in the ensuing palace fights the kingdoms became weak and fell down.

Regarding Rajiv Gandhi and his elgibility, if anyone is interested read Indian Express archives of 1980s and 1990s. Snam Progetti ( Quattrochi was the boss there) and its fertilizer manufacturing companies entered India during Indira's times and after Sonia's ( by the way let me re-qualify that she is better than the underworld kingpin Sharad pawar ) entry into palace. There was an article that gives details of why our fertilizers are so expensive and why the government has to give huge subsidy. Italians were alllowed over French etc was written in that article. I was teenager those days and I wish I have predicted BRF will come up so that I could have kept all those articles. Rajiv Gandhi was not even PM. The foreigner/naturalized person was just daughter-in-law.

Added later (some links) :
http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/dai ... 50794.html
http://www.indianexpress.com/old/ie/dai ... 50654.html

OK. Back to topic after this diversion. Thanks, for all the views. Subject is now closed.
ramana

As suggested, I am not continuing this "foreign spouses" topic further on this thread. Let us move on to other aspects of strategic leadership for the furture of India. This is just only one aspect of this topic. I agree enough is discussed on this topic and I promise I will not answer even if my post is directly quoted.

[brihaspati]

Big business/big capitalist interests in India have so far played a confusing role in leadership. Having benefited from "liberalization" they sided or helped with the "liberalizing" forces. But the recent electoral indications could be a setback for them in terms of interpretation of the results as pro-"populist" and therefore any measure that can be seen as helping "big-bourgeoisie" will be politically costly.

Any analysis on this component?

[Manny]

Chinese woo business in Bangladesh

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/f ... 073642.stm

[RamaY]

Muppala-garu,

You are going in the right direction!

If RG's connection is successfully used by Q thru SG then what stopped RG using similar connections to the betterment of India? If the Indian leadership (political, military, and economic) is nationalistic to start with, and if one can exploit marital relationships to the benefit of personal or national interests, then why the Indian leadership failed (repeatedly) to use these connections? How come foreign interests were able to exploit these connections every time, per your argument, irrespective of the individual's personal-integrity and their field of interest (including military)?

Isn't it telling us something? Either these individuals (Indian citizens by birth) are not patriotic to start with, OR didn't find their spouses exploiting them, OR are too Dharmic to use their spouses for Indian interests in reverse.

Taking the family issues out of the discussion, my hypothesis is that these individuals are not the type of nationalists we want them to be. They either were doing careful cost-benefit analysis and accepting certain costs OR were corrupt to the core, including personal integrity.

The interesting point is even the ABV's administration didn't think this to be an important point enough, either to NDA's political interests or to national interests, to pursue this issue with full vigor. They made all great sound bites during election about SG but did not pursue the Bofor's vigor so they can some convincing evidence to prove the case either way. They let that case die without any value to Indian national interests (they could have got some mileage out of it for national interests in the worst case, IMO).

That brings us to the key point of this thread. UNLESS we fix the core body of knowledge of Indian leadership we cannot expect a reliable and repeatable performance from Indian leadership. The direction and motivation for that core body of knowledge (code of conduct if you will) comes from one of the threads that got locked recently. Once the India’s manifest destiny is defined the BOK for its leadership, citizenry, law-and-order can be defined in such a way that all these bodies of governance will work in cohesion. Today the culture, citizenry, law-and-order, leadership, and national strategy are going in different directions pursuing different goals and objectives. That is what making this nation weak from within.

JMT.

[paramu]

Big business/big capitalist interests in India have so far played a confusing role in leadership. Having benefited from "liberalization" they sided or helped with the "liberalizing" forces. But the recent electoral indications could be a setback for them in terms of interpretation of the results as pro-"populist" and therefore any measure that can be seen as helping "big-bourgeoisie" will be politically costly.

Any analysis on this component?

This election in India backed by the Big business/big capitalist interests in India follows from the nuclear deal process where the same interests along with their counterpart in US joined together to get the deal passed. This is the first time after independence Big business/big capitalist interests in India have joined the global trading system a progeny of the British trading system of the colonial days. This election opens the door for the Big business/big capitalist interests in India to join the global MNC interest and global bankers and power brokers. Indian independence was fought against this same global interest.
The question is the Big business/big capitalist interests in India work for Indian national interest and taking care of Indian core interest including culture/roots/etc.

[ramana]

Big business/big capitalist interests in India have so far played a confusing role in leadership. Having benefited from "liberalization" they sided or helped with the "liberalizing" forces. But the recent electoral indications could be a setback for them in terms of interpretation of the results as pro-"populist" and therefore any measure that can be seen as helping "big-bourgeoisie" will be politically costly.

Any analysis on this component?

Have you noticed that in the last two rounds BJP just gave up and let the body politic consolidate round the INC? And the absence of vituperative comments on BJP?

[Keshav]

Have you noticed that in the last two rounds BJP just gave up and let the body politic consolidate round the INC? And the absence of vituperative comments on BJP?

What does that have to do with big business? Didn't Ambani and Mittal support Modi in the last election?

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... PM/410621/

[Rahul Mehta]

Indian elitemen depend on MNCs for technology, operations, export markets etc

So they all faithfully OBEY MNCs.

--

Congress is now an MNC property. Which is why Sonia is not able to make Priyanka a Minister or MP. And she could not make RG a Minister. The MNCs dont want one family to become too strong and so they are keeping the pie divided between many families and persons, so that all are disposables. In addition, ToI/IE are MNC properties. So when RG, PG, SG, MMS sneeze they get good publicity. And is NaMo or LKA sneeze, they get bad publicity. Consider the publicity stunts wherein RG went to some poor woman's house. ToI/IE gave favorable coverage to it. If NaMo or LKA had done such a stunt, ToI/IE had ripped them apart.

IOW, Congress, ToI/IE and most Indian elitemen should be seen as wholly owned subsidiary of MNCs (and Christianists). Thru them, MNCs have hijacked Govt. What could be scarier is - what if EC is also now MNC property.

[brihaspati]

ramanaji,
BJP's silence and mild-manner does appear surprising. But it could be the result of an internal struggle for control. It is possible that one portion "penalized" the whole for not toeing its line. No insinuations intended, but just a typical feature from my own experience in party politics.

Placing NaMo at the head will be a mistake. They are just pushing him towards "liquidation". If he is really valued, he should be kept inside, within the "party". If NaMo is projected more, he will face physical danger, and it will be justified as legitimate anger by Muslims, but carried out with solid international and internal political collaboration. Any anger that results from such an incident will then be used by well prepared plans to liquidate further leadership elements, ban political activity by BJP, and a general repression imposed to eliminate the support base of the BJP. The rashtryia machinery of repression chooses only to be effective in sadistic elimination of ideologically motivated political movements or groups - like separatist Punjabi Sikhs or Bengalee Naxalites, its exquisite enjoyment of torture or sadism is somehow never evident when dealing with other types of "opposition" or from other regions. The same blueprint most likely exists against the ideological core of the BJP. We will find the armed sections of the rashtra most effective against such core, compared to the everlasting "engagements" that we have with Kashmiri Jihadis, Jihadis in general, Christian militia in NE, or even Naxalites not in Bengal or Punjab.

The MNC factor is not the only important factor in the behaviour of the Cong leadership. It is not impossible that this particular gov will be forced or already are in understanding with external forces, to take measures or steps whose political costs cannot be calculated as yet. It would be dangerous for long term foreign interests, to destroy the fish with the fisherman. So the dynasty, as a symbol of continuity, has to be kept detached from the effects of such policies. Their continuity ensures continued control. This is the reason, that none in the dynasty joined the gov directly. Why do we fail to recognize the political/statesmaship thinking behind this - that of the British model and view of monarchy?

[RamaY]

The MNC factor is not the only important factor in the behaviour of the Cong leadership. It is not impossible that this particular gov will be forced or already are in understanding with external forces, to take measures or steps whose political costs cannot be calculated as yet. It would be dangerous for long term foreign interests, to destroy the fish with the fisherman. So the dynasty, as a symbol of continuity, has to be kept detached from the effects of such policies. Their continuity ensures continued control. This is the reason, that none in the dynasty joined the gov directly. Why do we fail to recognize the political/statesmaship thinking behind this - that of the British model and view of monarchy?

We see a different paradigm emerging in the Indian political scene in the past decade or so.

A typical politician in India has developed the financial means to support his/her political base. The new economy in terms of real estate, corruption, arrack distribution, land settlements, partnerships in power, infrastructure, and irrigation projects offer many avenues for the politician class in India for financial resources.

In that sense the business houses in India lost their value to political spectrum except for paying the predetermined bribes (%) to political entities. Here the controlling entity is the politicians, not the business community.

The situation is slightly different in the developed world. They use publicly traded companies (MNCs) as the necessary conduits to support their political careers and objectives. And these MNCs are facilitated, through a fine play of geopolitics, to exploit other nations and societies by the western political leadership.

Another difference is our political class is not creative and capable enough to exploit other nations and societies for whatever reasons. They are only good at leeching Indian public and Indian natural resources.

[aryank]

Jayalalitha converted to Chiristianity?

Mr. Advani will have to explain this keenness for Jayalalithaa even after suspicions arose that she may have converted to Christianity secretly, and that is why a Bishop performed service at her residence on Christmas last December.

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... spx?id=613

[Rahul Mehta]

Placing NaMo at the head will be a mistake. They are just pushing him towards "liquidation". If he is really valued, he should be kept inside, within the "party". If NaMo is projected more, he will face physical danger, and it will be justified as legitimate anger by Muslims, but carried out with solid international and internal political collaboration. Any anger that results from such an incident will then be used by well prepared plans to liquidate further leadership elements, ban political activity by BJP, and a general repression imposed to eliminate the support base of the BJP. The rashtryia machinery of repression chooses only to be effective in sadistic elimination of ideologically motivated political movements or groups - like separatist Punjabi Sikhs or Bengalee Naxalites, its exquisite enjoyment of torture or sadism is somehow never evident when dealing with other types of "opposition" or from other regions. The same blueprint most likely exists against the ideological core of the BJP. We will find the armed sections of the rashtra most effective against such core, compared to the everlasting "engagements" that we have with Kashmiri Jihadis, Jihadis in general, Christian militia in NE, or even Naxalites not in Bengal or Punjab.

Are MNCs, Christianists and other assorted foreign powers so powerful that they can kill Indian leaders and get away? In that case only solution is to create 1000s of leaders who are identical clones so that if one is killed it is ensured that next one will do the same. This way, MNCs, Christianists will realize that there is no point in killing the leader and so they will give up. Also, we should have tit for tat - i.e. for every leader they kill, we kill five of theirs

----

A typical politician in India has developed the financial means to support his/her political base. The new economy in terms of real estate, corruption, arrack distribution, land settlements, partnerships in power, infrastructure, and irrigation projects offer many avenues for the politician class in India for financial resources. In that sense the business houses in India lost their value to political spectrum except for paying the predetermined bribes (%) to political entities. Here the controlling entity is the politicians, not the business community.

Indian business house have lost compared to MNCs. But compared to local politicians, they are far more powerful as they have better control over media and have better control over banks. They get huge amounts of loans which they never repay, and these becomes their personal wealths.