Re-assessing Rahul Gandhi
As most readers of this blog know, I am not a fan of the Gandhi-Nehru family or of Rahul Gandhi.
However, I recently came across several news-reports which prompted me to re-assess my opinion of him. To cite:
First were his reported remarks at a CWC meeting during which he apparently questioned “abstaining from liquor” and “wearing khadi” as being pre-conditions to become Congress party members.
More recently, he was candid enough to admit that: “..there was ‘no internal democracy’ in any political party, including his own…”
Around the same time, “Calling himself “an old person”, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi yesterday exhorted youths to join politics and take up leadership roles to strengthen Indian democracy.”
More recently, he apparently refused a cabinet post because he wanted to focus more on organisational matters within the Congress party.
Sadly though, he did a U-turn on Khadi: “‘I wear khadi daily. I feel comfortable wearing it. I will be the last person to say khadi should not be used..” but I will let that pass.
I hope there are not many more U-Turns..otherwise Rahul will be just like any other politician.
Regardless of what Rahul says and thinks though, his party continues to be plagued by dynasty-driven politics. From a recent�critique by Swapan Dasgupta, some excerpts (emphasis mine):
“…Rahul, from all accounts, is fairly representative of most Indians of his class. Somewhat westernised, yet rooted in India, cosmopolitan, fun-loving and neither political nor scholastic, he should have articulated the average rich kid’s view of the world. Unfortunately, the dynastic principle has forced him to be what he is not. Having internalised the idea of India as a family estate, Rahul has to be seen helping and empathising with his less fortunate subjects. His Discover India programme is an aspect of his noblesse oblige.
…It is ironic that dynastic democracy demands a commitment to charity masquerading as socialism. It is prefaced on widespread poverty and vulnerability. This is why it is in conflict with everything modern India should stand for.�”
However, according to this article, Rahul’s moves are part of a carefully choreographed plan and timeline for his eventual ascent to the post of Prime Minister.
Excerpts (emphasis mine)
“…So what kind of prime minister will Rahul Gandhi make? The question is not hypothetical. The process of anointment has begun. Make no mistake about it: the next Congress-led government at the Centre, if it retains office in May 2009, will have Rahul, then 38 years old, in a senior cabinet position. As second-term prime minister, Manmohan Singh, then in his late-70s will gently defer to Rahul on big policy matters while Sonia gracefully assumes the role of empress emeritus.
But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Rahul has to first become a Congress general secretary, which he will do well before 2007. He will have two years to get to know the grassroots Congress cadre and how the party functions nationally as well as get a grip on the intricacies of caste-based Indian politics.
…In 2009, with at least two years as party general secretary under his belt, and assuming a Congress-led coalition retains office, Rahul is certain to join the cabinet in an appropriately junior capacity.
…Rahul’s ascension will be far more measured, orderly and crafted. He is unlikely to assume the prime ministership till the middle of the Congress-led government’s next term (again assuming it wins the scheduled 2009 election), replacing Manmohan Singh in 2012 when Singh will be past 80 and Rahul himself just over 40.
…Rahul would then fight the 2014 general election as a Congress prime ministerial candidate in his own right. He would be 44 and have spent a decade in active Indian politics. By now too, Priyanka, her children grown, would be ready to lend her hand as party general secretary. Is this then how Sonia has mentally divided the roles of her children? Rahul taking on a front political role, Priyanka an administrative party role? In 2014, Sonia herself would be nearly 68, a year younger than when her mother-in-law was assassinated 22 years ago.
So, back to the original question: will Rahul make a good prime minister? I believe he will.
…This half-Italian, quarter-Parsi, quarter-Kashmiri pandit is modest, bright (but fortunately not too brilliant – always a handicap in most professions), hardworking and shrewd. He knows which buttons to press, who to rely on, the kind of talent to surround himself with. In a young, globalised, forward-looking India, Rahul Gandhi is in the right place at the right time.”
And if anyone is in any doubt about who controls the strings in Congress, this apparently off-the-cuff remark by Sonia Gandhi should put all such doubts to rest:
“I wanted Rahul to be in the government but he declined…”
Sadly, sometimes even Madam Sonia’s wishes don’t come true.
P.S. Have a look at this article which has some intresting tidbits:
“…MAHATMA GANDHI, soon after the British government announced the date by which it would finally renounce all responsibility from the affairs of the subcontinent, reportedly advised that the Indian National Congress be disbanded…
INC bosses, who had other ideas, instantly rejected Gandhi’s idea.”
and
“…But virtually nobody is aware that her (Sonia Gandhi’s) father in law was a politician, who had changed the spelling of his name from the Parsi-Gujarati variant “Gandhy” to the Gujarati Hindu variant “Gandhi” at the time of his marriage with Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter.”
Apparently this name change was done at the behest of Mahatma Gandhi.
😐
Related Posts:
On track for 7, Race Course Rd
Was Rahul Gandhi really arrested at Boston in 2001?
Update: Re. Sonia Gandhi’s citizenship, reciprocity clauses etc, please read comments #2, 4 and the last one below
From: Why did Rahul refuse a Cabinet berth?
***
Separately, on cue:
Asked whether his party would support Rahul Gandhi if he is in a position to be nominated as the leader of the next government, (Praful) Patel shot back: “If the UPA comes with a majority and if the Congress party so chooses, what is the question? Why is this being debated?”
*** REQUEST for HELP in verification ***
Has anyone here come across this statement by Dr Subramaniam Swamy? I am not able to verify it (with links/references). Thanks
*** STATEMENT by DR SWAMY ***
14th April 2008
Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party.
The proposal of the NCP leader Mr. Praful Patel to support Ms. Sonia Gandhi or Mr. Rahul Gandhi for the post of Prime Minister after the next General Elections to the Lok Sabha, is laughable and unimplementable.
Under the reciprocity proviso to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, Ms.Sonia Gandhi is ineligible for the post of Prime Minister of India because in Italy Indian taking Italian citizenship cannot become the Prime Minister and hence on reciprocity, Italians becoming Indian citizens cannot become Prime Minister of India. It was this proviso which was responsible for the somersault of Ms. Sonia Gandhi, from staking the claim for Prime Ministership on 16th May, 2004, and then withdrawing the same in favour of Dr. Manmohan Singh on May 18th, 2004. Although this proviso has since been deleted by the then outgoing NDA Government, it is however illegal because the said deletion was carried out on an Act passed in January 2004 for NRIs. Under the Objects and Reasons of the Bill moved in Parliament to enact this law does not empower the Government to delete the said proviso to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Hence if Ms. Sonia Gandhi stakes her claim to the Prime Ministership of India it is subject to challenge in court along with the challenge to the deletion of the said proviso to the Citizenship Act.
As far as Mr. Rahul Gandhi is concerned, he was born when his mother was still an Italian citizen and hence his name was under Italian Citizenship Act automatically entered in the Citizenship Register maintained by the Italian Government and the Italian Embassy in New Delhi. Mr. Gandhi has never renounced his Italian citizenship and hence the legality of his Indian citizenship can also be challenged since India does not recognize dual citizenship.
To B Shantanu: “Has anyone here come across this statement by Dr Subramaniam Swamy? I am not able to verify it (with links/references). Thanks”
Here is the link to verify:
April 14, 2008.
PRESS RELEASE
The proposal of the NCP leader Mr. Praful Patel to support Ms.Sonia Gandhi or Mr.Rahul Gandhi for the post of Prime Minister after the next General Elections to the Lok Sabha, is laughable and unimplementable….
As far as Mr.Rahul Gandhi is concerned, he was born when his mother was still an Italian citizen and hence his name was under Italian Citizenship Act automatically entered in the Citizenship Register maintained by the Italian Government and the Italian Embassy in New Delhi. ….
(SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY)
http://www.janataparty.org/pressdetail.asp?rowid=59
Also read and circulate:
Do You Know Your Sonia ?
by Dr. Subramanian Swamy
http://www.janataparty.org/sonia.html
There was a reciprocity clause, this HAS been deleted in 2003, and this has been deleted WITHOUT a publicly televised debate in parliament, without consultation, in stealth and with the full complicity of parliament.
You will find the reciprocity proviso under s.5(1)(e) of the Act on this MHA url http://www.mha.nic.in/acts-rules/ic_act55.PDF
You will find this deleted in the amended Act http://www.prsindia.org/docs/acts_new/1167485133_citizenship_amendment.pdf
There is a discussion under “Overseas Citizen of India” on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_nationality_law
Whether the deletion of the proviso was illegal (as Dr Swamy claims) is not clear; what is clearer is that India does not recognize dual citizenship.
Shantanu,
Here is another (hilarious) somewhat related news item:
Cong snubs Arjun: No vacancy at top
Taking a dim view of HRD minister Arjun Singh’s projection of Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi as a future prime ministerial candidate, the party on Tuesday sought to dub the senior leader’s remarks as “sycophancy”.
…
Arjun Singh, however, remained unfazed… Singh said he had meant no disrespect to Manmohan Singh. He justified his remarks on Rahul: “What is the harm in what I said about Rahul? I really don’t take back my words.
…
Here is the link:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Cong_snubs_Arjun_No_vacancy_at_top/articleshow/2954891.cms
Hope it helps.
Thanks,
Pragya
Sonia Gandhi became a citizen of India thank to s.5(1)c, i.e. by marriage to an Indian citizen. Even if you wish to detect a conspiracy in the amendment to 5.1.e, this has nothing to do with her.
The amendment to the Citizenship Act was by the BJP and had to do with introducing the novel category of OCI. This has no bearing whatsoever on the Sonia issue…
@ Pragya: Thanks for the link…It is hilarious!
I found the confusion even more amusing…
Anyways, we often criticize the family, but arn’t these spineless leaders like Arjun Singh, Praful Patel et al responsible for makeing the dynasty-driven politics happen?
Btw, I am no big fan of Gandhis too. But will not blame Rajeev, Sonia or Rahul for that either.
There is an old Indian proverb which goes like this:
“My ancestors ate butter. You may smell it from my mouth?”
May be of interest.
Cause of origin of pseudo-secularism in modern India.
http://www.nehrufamily.com/
FYI.
Swamy demands Priyanka’s prosecution for visiting Vellore jail
http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?NEWSID=%7B19983D0D-96E0-428B-8FFC-7A1E2B231792%7D&CATEGORYNAME=CHN
@P S: You are right …There is not much point in blaming the “family” for dynasty driven politics…To a large extent, it is a function of their party and their support base…The “dynasty” survives because Congress party workers want it to…and because they see in them, their only chance of getting in power..
Thats just the harsh reality of current day politics in India.
***
@ Bharat: Thanks for the links. I will have a look at them.
May be of interest: An LTTE-Sonia family link? April 29 2008 by S Gurumurthy
Personally, I see this as fabricated stories against Gandhi family. Politically they may be rivals to anybody but in matter of family, I see genuine efforts to over come hatered and anger towards anyone. They are uplifting spritually them selves to come to the term with their daily life. I dont see any truth in all these stories.
Who is Raul Vinci?
You heard of The Da Vinci Code, the worldwide bestseller mystery/detective novel by US author Dan Brown. Did you heard of Raul Vinci Chronicles? Discover it and Enjoy.
1. The Raul Vinci Chronicles
http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2008/05/03/the-raul-vinci-chronicles/
2. Restraint is the hallmark of Indian political discourse
Swapan Dasgupta
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040507/asp/opinion/story_3209523.asp
…how was Rahul awarded an MPhil without a basic graduate degree?
Bharat: Thanks for the excellent set of links.
Some of the points made in Offstumped’s post are worth reproducing here. Excerpts below:
*** From Offstumped’s blog ***
First what exactly did Rahul Gandhi claim in his election affidavit ?
Rahul Gandhi’s election affidavit can be found here. Page 4 lists his educational qualifications. Here is what Page 4 has to say about his term at University of Cambridge.
M-Phil [Development Economics], Trinity College, Cambridge University in 1995
Offstumped obtained 3 official copies (2 physical and 1 electronic) of Raul Vinci a.k.a Rahul Gandhi’s Transcripts from Cambridge University and it is clear that his election affidavit mis-represents facts.
Misrepresentation #1 – The official copy of Raul Vinci’s transcript states that he read for an MPhil in “Development Studies” and not in “Development Economcis”.
Why is this significant ?
It is significant because these are two different programs.
MPhil in Development Studies is administered by the Development Studies Committee at Cambridge. There is no MPhil in Development Economics at Cambridge. There is a MPhil in Economics In fact Offstumped confirmed with the Faculty of Economics at Cambridge University that Raul Vinci’s MPhil was not administered by that department.
…
Misrepresentation #2 – All 3 official copies of his transcript (2 physical and 1 electronic) state that his MPhil was during the years 2004-2005.
This inconsistency between the transcript and the election affidavit may or may not be significant. It was unclear from enquiries conducted by Offstumped if Raul Vinci’s MPhil was not completed in 1995 and if as stated in the transcript he went on to complete it in 2004-2005 in the wake of the controversy that errupted during the Lok Sabha election.
…
But here is the rub on the question of competency. The transcript details Raul Vinci’s academic performance which raises pertinent questions on his fitness to be a candidate for the office of Prime Minister.
The MPhil Development Studies program requires 4 full papers to be completed and it lists 60% as a pass, 65% as eligible for an entry to PhD and 75% as a Distinction.
Raul Vinci a.k.a Rahul Gandhi while not earning any distinctions in any of the 4 papers barely managed an overall pass percentage of 62.8%.
But the real shocker is in the Paper on “National Economic Planning & Policy” he scored 58% which is not even considered a Pass.
*** End of Excerpts ***
I also have questions about his “work experience” with the consulting firm Monitor Company in London.
Some of you may know that Monitor is in the premier league of strategy consulting firms and I am told that the recruitment process is rigorous and the selection criteria are based on high standards.
But perhaps he was hired for reasons other than academic brilliance or qualifications…?
Also recommended: Was Rahul Gandhi really arrested at Boston in 2001?
FYI.
Rahul accused of indulging in caste politics
Rourkela (Orissa): Ruling Biju Janata Dal on Monday accused AICC General Secretary Rahul Gandhi of introducing caste-based politics in Orissa and said peace-loving people of the state will reject the move to teach Congress a lesson in the next elections.
“After his (Rahul’s) failure in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Gujarat, Rahul Gandhi is coming to Orissa to divide the people on caste lines. But people of the peaceful state like Orissa will realilse the motive of Gandhi family and reject them,” BJD President of Rourkela, Anand Mohanty told newspersons here.
“People of Orissa do not believe in caste politics, Rahul should realise it and refrain from dividing them on caste basis,” he said while criticising the young Congress MP.
Rahul Gandhi, during his last visit to Orissa, arranged meetings specially for separate lower caste people in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar where people belonging to other castes, even the Congress leaders, were not allowed.
© Copyright 2008 PTI. All rights reserved.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1402304
Top marks for honesty:
From Rahul wants to end dynasty politics
Dear Sir,
I totally beg to differ with Shri. Rahul. It has been even mentioned in the most secular paper and by the most secular media that in th CPI and the BJP no relations of any sort can make you come to the top, it is sheer hard work.
Regards,
vck
Good point vck!!
Can he say that honestly about his degree and false affidavit?. He said truth wht he knws cannot hide, about being in politics, that was the obvious answer.
Seems like the “Prince” still has a lot to learn:
From The Partying Prince:
Does Rahul Gandhi have no sense of timing or decency? The country is in mourning. The bodies of 180 innocent men, women and children of the ghastly Mumbai carnage are still warm in the morgue. The citizens are angry and horrified at this latest slaughter of Indians by the Muslim fanatics reared in Pakistan’s hate factories of jihad. And in this funeral atmosphere, this grand-child of Indira Gandhi can spend all night partying hard, listening to ghazals with a glass of champagne and a plate full of Mughlai kabab, even as the NSG commandos are locked in a room-by-room battle with the terrorists in the pitch-dark interiors of the Taj Hotel?
This is not the first time Rahul Gandhi has embarrassed and horrified everybody with his immaturity and indiscretions.
While campaigning during the last UP elections, he left the tired Congress leaders and party workers behind on the dusty road of Rai Barelli and coolly walked into an air-conditioned mall to have a McDonald burger. The party-men sweating in the sun were obviously not amused and grumbled about how Rajiv Gandhi would have sat on a charpoy under a tree and shared a meal with them.
Rahul Gandhi went to Afghanistan a couple of years ago. An Afghan journalist asked him why he wanted to visit Afghanistan. Now instead of saying something profound for the occasion, such as the Afghanistan-India relations since ancient times, the shared history, the Gandhara school of art or the story of “Kabuli wala†that we have all read in childhood, Rahul Gandhi mumbled something about how he was in Delhi getting bored and some of his friends suggested that a government delegation was going to Afghanistan and he should tag along! The leaders accompanying him were reported saying that this episode shows how much Rahul Gandhi has to live and learn.
Can political leaders not have a private life too? I don’t know if you are updated abt the furore on Haryana DyCM (bhajanlal’s son) Chandramonhan’s conversion to Isalam and second marriage..
PS: Political leaders are certainly entitled to private lives…
But the solemnity of the situation (while people were still being killed and the attacks were still going on) was perhaps overlooked. The worrying thing is if such errors of judgement become part of a pattern and/or are repeated…which is why I though IndianRealist’s post above (comment #21) was interesting.
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
…we dont want any dynasty rule in India.. We want a nationalist government with all political parties participating.
1.implement Uniform civilcode.
2. release Hindu Temples from government hands
3.No shariat law for Muslims in India.
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
@ Sakthi: You are on the edge of my moderation threshold here. Pl. be careful with your words. If you don’t want dynasty rule in India, get into active politics…Ditto for points 1,2 and 3.
Shouting from the sidelines does not help.
From One question I’m dying to ask Rahul Gandhi:
The declaration of financial assets and liabilities as a prerequisite for contesting elections has become a joke. As a personal confessional offering a peek into the probity of the candidate (and his/her family), the clause is unexceptionable. But at the hands of wily politicians, their lawyers and auditors—and individuals and institutions happy to look the other way—the affidavit has become just another piece of paper.
Bogus numbers are bandied without batting an eyelid, but neither opposing candidates nor the Election Commission, or the income-tax department or the media, are interested in digging deeper to establish their veracity. Even the supposedly wise voter, it seems, cannot be bothered about such niceties beyond a point.
A good case in point is the honourable Member of Parliament from Amethi Lok Sabha constituency, Rahul Gandhi.
# In 2004, he declared total assets of Rs 22 lakh. In five years, the assets of the first-time MP have shot up 10 times to 2.25 crore.
# In 2004, he held bank deposits of Rs 11 lakh, £30,000 and $19,200; shares of Rs 3.9 lakh; LIC and other savings certificates in Rs 3.80 lakh; jewellery worth Rs 1.25 lakh; and a farm house worth Rs 9.8 lakh.
# In 2009, he holds bank deposits of about Rs 20 lakh, LIC and other savings certificates of Rs 10.2 lakh; land worth Rs 40 lakh, jewellery worth Rs 1.5 lakh; and two shops in a mall worth Rs 1.63 crore.
What is the one question you are dying to ask Rahul Gandhi about his assets and liabilities? Keep your questions short, civil and proportionate to your known source of income.
There is also one comment which I found hilarious. Rahul What is your investment strategy?
Interesting article written in 2004.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040507/asp/opinion/story_3209523.asp
Link to news-report re. Rahul’s degree
Thanks for the links Gajanan – esp. the one about Rahul Gandhi’s educational qualifications.
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Pl. stick to comments on relevant threads. Use “Search” or “Categories” drop-down menu to find the appropriate post.
A Nice Boy To Know (Really)
Further to comments #2 and 4, please read these excerpts from A Surya Prakash’s article,”NDA’s perfidy on foreigner issue”
The BJP raised the foreigner issue many years ago and made it a key campaign point in the run-up to the 1994 as well as the 2004 elections. Meeting after meeting, leaders of this party told voters that for the sake of national pride and national security, they must ensure that only a natural-born Indian headed the Union Government. Ms Sonia Gandhi, by virtue of her Italian origin, was unfit to be the prime minister, they said. Given these assertions, the general perception was that the party was committed to the position that naturalised citizens should be kept out of constitutional offices. Available evidence suggests that this is more fiction than fact.
It may surprise readers to know that despite this public posturing, the BJP-led Government took deliberate steps to clear the way for foreigners. Further, while the people were made to believe that the party was fighting a political battle with Ms Sonia Gandhi and people around her, elements in that Government were shielding some of her friends.
There are three reasons why I say this: (i) The cunningly executed amendment of the Citizenship Act to remove a major obstacle in the path of naturalised citizens seeking political office in India; (ii) the NDA Government’s preposterous assertions in an affidavit before the Delhi High Court in a case pertaining to Ms Gandhi’s citizenship; and (iii) the NDA Government’s refusal to grant permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to prosecute Mr Satish Sharma in respect of cases pertaining to petrol pump allotments made by him.
While the world at large believed that the BJP leadership stood committed to barring naturalised citizens from constitutional offices, the Government led by it pushed through the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003, in the Rajya Sabha on December 18, 2003. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha the very next day and passed by that House on December 22. Thereafter, the Government acted hastily to obtain the President’s assent on January 7, 2004.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill claimed that it had two main purposes: Creation of a new category of citizens called Overseas Citizens, to grant dual citizenship to the Indian diaspora, and introduction of a scheme for compulsory registration of every citizen of India and issuance of national identity cards. These objectives were indeed laudable, but embedded in these provisions was a politically significant pro-foreigner provision, which the Statement of Objects made no mention of!
The amendment, which had the effect of weakening the case against naturalised citizens like Ms Sonia Gandhi, was that relating to Section 5 of the Act. The section refers to a category of citizens called Citizens by Registration, which includes foreigners who marry Indian citizens. Section 5 said that subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, such persons could be granted citizenship. This Section also had a proviso which was most inconvenient for Citizens by Registration. It said: “Provided that in prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which persons of any such country may be registered as citizens of India under this clause, the Central Government shall have due regard to the conditions subject to which citizens of India may, by law or practice of that country, become citizens of that country by registration.”
Deciphering this mumbo-jumbo: With such a law coming into force, if a foreigner marries an Indian citizen and applies for Indian citizenship, the Government should, while granting citizenship to that person, impose such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed on an Indian seeking citizenship under similar circumstances in the applicant’s country of origin. In other words, this proviso makes it incumbent on the Government to ensure reciprocity to ensure that a Citizen by Registration does not acquire civil and political rights which are not available to Indians seeking citizenship in the applicant’s country. Strange but true, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill deleted this important proviso removing the biggest legal impediment faced by foreigners nurturing political ambitions. The NDA could not have given a better gift to Ms Gandhi! Why did the NDA Government remove this provision? Why was it done in stealth? Who in the Government was batting for Ms Gandhi?
That the Government’s intentions were not sanguine are obvious from the Statement of Objects and Reasons that was appended to that Bill. Apart from the fact that it made no reference to the deletion of this important proviso, it actually tried to mislead Members of Parliament and citizens by saying that the purpose of the amending bill was to make acquisition of Indian citizenship by registration and naturalisation more stringent!
The other act of the BJP-led Government which ran contrary to its public utterances vis-Ã -vis the foreigner issue, was the Counter Affidavit filed by the Central Government before the Delhi High Court on September 5, 2001, in the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha Case. In this affidavit, the Government repeatedly asserted that there was only one class of citizens in the country. Once citizenship is acquired, there remained no distinction in the citizens thereafter, it said. This assertion, which is blatantly false, was made 17 times in the said Affidavit.
Anyone who reads ‘The Citizenship Act, 1955’ can see the distinction between Citizens by Birth and other category of citizens. While citizenship is permanent for Citizens by Birth, it is impermanent in respect of Citizens by Registration and Citizens by Naturalisation. No Government has the power to interfere with the citizenship of a Citizen by Birth.
However, the citizenship of those who come under the other categories is subject to conditions and restrictions. These citizens have to comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 10 of the Act at all times. Should citizens falling under these categories violate these provisions, their citizenship can be cancelled. Further, this affidavit was filed on September 5, 2001, when the proviso to Section 5 of the Act (reciprocity clause) was still intact. Therefore, the argument, “There is no distinction among different categories of citizens,” was, to say the least, preposterous.
Finally, a word on the NDA Government’s kindness towards Ms Gandhi’s friends. The most glaring example was the Government’s refusal to grant permission to the CBI to prosecute Mr Satish Sharma. While its own minister Mr Ram Naik was pilloried by the Congress party for favouring friends in the allotment of petrol pumps, the BJP was unwilling to permit the CBI to proceed against former Petroleum Minister Satish Sharma, who faced similar charges.
Who in the NDA Government had put a protective shield around Satish Sharma? Who was behind the hidden agenda in the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003 and the affidavit? There are obviously some embedded Sonia-men in the BJP. The BJP cannot hope to retrieve its lost ground unless its top leadership is ready to identify those who betrayed the cause, and weed them out.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer; April 26, 2005)