Being an indian, he knew the level of corruption and obstructions created by marxists in the government very well. and it is been in india more almost a decade, from vajpayee's 14 days govt. So this has nothing to do with india's growth. speaking of singh and Gandhi - how dare he can say that as a Gandhi's Kitchen cabinet. i am not a supporter of congress, but i respect sonia, since she was the first indian woman politician to say no to prime minsiter's post. may be she had some political reasons behind it, but this was a good move in terms of helping the nation, otherwise BJP would have created a nation wide riot on this issue. the author seems to be more a liker of hinduist ideologies, thats why he has never mentioned about all the faltering that happened in previous vajpayee govt. and atlast about singh, he is a doctrate at cambridge one of the great institutes of the world. you should not speak so badly of a man, who has the cherisma to rule the nation, we have lallu, but we also had fernandes,we had narasima rao, we had vpsingh all have been accused before for corruption, but still it didnt put any control on india's growth.i have my full confidence on Dr.singh and his govt.
RE:it seems to me the author lost his mind.
by Kaushik Das on May 28, 2005 12:24 PM Permalink
Well, retract your respect, then. She said NO to the post because it would have put her under a lot of pressure. Reporters, the opposition, bureaucrats, foreign dignitaries, et al would have had a field day playing with her statements and answers. Also, her saying NO got her more sympathy (like rajiv's death in 1991) than her saying YES. Her saying YES would have raised the foreigner issue strongly, even among congress supporters. If she had to say NO, why didn't she say NO to 10, Janpath, which she should have vacated long ago? Why didn't she say NO to politics itself? Or to any of her family joining politics itself? Why didn't she say NO to her children studying abroad when her family ruled India?
RE:it seems to me the author lost his mind.
by Prakash on May 29, 2005 03:21 PM Permalink
Kaushik Das somewhere along the line you have lost the plot. Sonia was not interested in Power directly - her sole interest was that those rabid funadamentalists who were spreading their poison through the country had to go. That was why she came out of retirement when the noble Sitaram Kesari was getting nowhere - took on 'her crown of thorns' of being an Italian by birth to even take the Congress a couple of steps back in the second last election. However she was made of sterner stuff and did not give up. She travelled the length and breadth of the country - and COMMUNICATED to the people of India the grave danger posed by these Sangh Parivar rabble and earned their respect AND their vote. You see this got the NDA booted out of power. They also expected her to be Venal like they were - I mean CHOR ke nazar me sabhi hai chor! They did think they could keep the issue boiling and undermine the government until the next General Elections were held. However her rejection of the Prime Minister's post - as something she never really hankered for but what she wanted was the Communal, Sick, Unprincipled and Venal NDA out. They were corrupt in addition to being communal and rightly OUT.
RE:it seems to me the author lost his mind.
by Gauzbig on May 29, 2005 12:24 PM Permalink
Dont forget that Sonia Gandhi said no to politics for a long time.
She was against her husband joining politics.
She herself was averse to joining politics but could not sit and watch the RSS and the BJP take the nation to the brink of disaster.
As she mentioned to Shekhar Gupta in walk the talk. Everytime she walked past the pictures of her slain mother in law and husband she realised that she was walking away from her responsibility to them and thier people and their death would be in vain. Indira and Rajiv would have fought tooth and nail, the division, communalism and complete havoc the NDA was wrecking in its hubris driven agenda and exclusivist economic policies.
As to why she allowed her children to study abroad. Her children were privately tutored for sometime due to the security threat the family faced in India. The security threat could have put the educational institutions and the other students to grave risk , they should have persisted with an Indian education to prove a point?
