SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Martingale
Posts: 511
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 7:54 pm

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 18th, 2004, 6:22 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: zerdna Ppauper, if this guy with red ring pulls the trigger, i'll have to say that this is natural selection at work.I concur I also noticed he had ring on his right hand, isn't the ring supposed to be on left hand? Or is it like they have drivers seat on the other side of the wheel in UK?
 
User avatar
balaji
Posts: 480
Joined: December 20th, 2003, 2:46 pm

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 1:06 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: TheInvestmentBikerI dont understand why it is harping on the secular & minority tag, totally unnecessary & misleading. I dont know why the international media keep calling the BJP Hindu Nationalist? Just as an example Muslims (in general) in India are far better off than in most Islamic states.Uh..oh. a few pogroms here and there in Gujrat is negligible.
 
User avatar
unquantifiable
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: March 1st, 2003, 4:43 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 3:27 am

now ...i concur and i'm glad the way things have panned out.
 
User avatar
TheInvestmentBiker
Posts: 157
Joined: July 15th, 2002, 8:03 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 3:34 am

Quote Uh..oh. a few pogroms here and there in Gujrat is negligible. How does _1_ incident give you the right to brand a large group of people as fundamentalists?Gujarat should be viewed in context - there have been extremely deep communal divisions in the state for longer than India has been an independant country. Agreed it was a horrible incident but this is not the first time communal riots have taken place and BJP is not to blame as it would have happened irrespective of whichever goverment was in power.View the incidents in context - why were the kar sevaks burnt by a mob of 2000 muslims? If you believe the newspapers it is because of they got into a squabble with a fruit vendor. Balaji, do you really believe all the shit that is published in the press?Why dont you call the systematic elimination of Hindus from Kashmir in the last 40 years (while the congress was comfortably in power) as 'state sponsored ethnic cleansing'. They knew it was happenning but did nothing because they were 'secular' which in case you havent realized has become a synonym for 'minority a** licker' in India atleast.Why is that some sections of these 'minorities' hoist the Pakistan flag & celebrate on Pakistans independance day even today?Why is it that all the congress did was cool their a**ses when Pakistan slowly grabbed large parts of Kashmir for us? They arent even able to defend the countries borders or do anything for that matter.Why is it that Vajpayee single handedly pushed for peace with Pakistan (an Islamic nation which the Cong only waged war against) when he had the nukes and could foment more nationalism and fundamentalist pride by going to war. Respect his restraint and maturity and give him credit where its due. When Vajpayee was pushing peace with an 'Islamic' country the Congress only said that he had a 'hidden agnda'.Also regarding all the hue and cry over their saffronizing text books - do you call things the renaming of the 'Sepoy Mutiny' to the "First war of indpendance' as tainted?Let me remind, it was the BJP that pushed for Abdul Kalam (a muslim in case you havent realized) for the post of president while the congress & left were looking for others. Why didnt they push some RSS guy for the post when they could have? Did they do it because they are fundamentalists?Give me a significant number of examples of their supposed 'Hindu Fundamentalism' and I will believe you.Till then,'Unsecular' and proud of it.
 
User avatar
pfortuny
Posts: 7
Joined: May 7th, 2004, 4:52 pm

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 6:44 am

I am curious, unquantifiable: did you really think what you were writing?
Last edited by pfortuny on May 18th, 2004, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
balrog
Posts: 189
Joined: March 12th, 2002, 1:29 pm

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 7:07 am

One example of the idiocy spouted by the self-proclaimed champions of 'secularism' in India and happily echoed by the intl press is the following: "the BJP is a Hindu Nationalist Govt" - now: 1. the Hindu bit, well you could argue - but their backing is from entities such as the RSS and I can understand the rationale for this2. Government - arguable again!however this: "Nationalist" - well what the fuck do you want? Which govt in the world is not nationalist and if they are not then why are they governing? The sheer stupidity of this is laughable - but was is unforgivable is the credulity of Indians who fall for this shit and think nationalism is somehow an evil - for a country which needs to be more nationalistic, surrounded by neighbours who would quite happily see it torn to pieces - and mugs in India still spout such crap. Wake me up when any other govt anywhere is condemned as 'nationalist'
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 7:17 am

How does _1_ incident give you the right to brand a large group of people as fundamentalists?Sad how a prticular view of religion, "fundamentalist" now seems to be universally equated to violent madman.In any case my limited understanding of Hinduism doesn't allow for "fundamentalist" in the true sense of someone who genuinely believes that the exact literal words in the original documentation are the complete word of God. BJP is not to blame as it would have happened irrespective of whichever goverment was in power.Keeping order is the primary duty of the state. The BJP are to blame even if they hadn't incited it. To be sure Congress has any number of equally bad failures. If I were Indian, I'd vote Communist, frankly I'd vote for George Bush rather than the corrupt cretins on offer. Why is that some sections of these 'minorities' hoist the Pakistan flag & celebrate on Pakistans independance day even today?India is a badly assembled state. To be fair though, you will find it hoisted in London and New York as well. Flag waving does not make you a bad person.Why is it that all the congress did was cool their a**ses when Pakistan slowly grabbed large parts of Kashmir for us? They arent even able to defend the countries borders or do anything for that matter.Yeah, and the current nucelar arms race is sooo coool.Why is it that Vajpayee single handedly pushed for peace with PakistanLots of people want peace with Pakistan, there are people from many nations trying, and for the moment succeeding.When Vajpayee was pushing peace with an 'Islamic' country the Congress only said that he had a 'hidden agnda'.Do you know for a fact he didn't ? People do good things for bad reasons. I don't know his, do you ? How ?do you call things the renaming of the 'Sepoy Mutiny' to the "First war of indpendance' as tainted?It is always bad when a government starts renaming historical events and places. At the least it shows a poor sense of priorities, and usually is the first step down a very nasty road.A good objective metric for the quality of a place is how often things get renamed. Zimbabwe, 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia, Iraq, and many other places have play the renaming game. The name "Britain" comes from a gang of Italians who conquered bits of it, we're grown ups, we just live with it.In any case it is only a "war of independance" if you win. Esle it is a mutiny, struggle, uprising, attack, resistance etc.
Last edited by DominicConnor on May 18th, 2004, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
unquantifiable
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: March 1st, 2003, 4:43 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 8:36 am

pfortuny...why do you say that?
 
User avatar
balrog
Posts: 189
Joined: March 12th, 2002, 1:29 pm

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 10:49 am

QuoteThe IndependentMay 19, 2004A DOSE OF POLITICAL REALITY IN INDIAMRS SONIA Gandhi's decision yesterday not to pursue the post of prime minister after her party's unexpected victory in the Indian election is disappointing but was probably inevitable. She has so far kept silent as to the reasons. But in the hard language of politics they seem to boil down to this: her foreign origins as an Italian had become too big an obstacle to the negotiation of an effective coalition in parliament and she lacked the driving ambition herself to overcome the hostility her candidature was arousing. It is easy enough for her supporters, and the outside world, to dismiss this as xenophobia. And it is certainly true that some politicians, notably among the defeated BJP, have proved particularly vicious in their ethnic criticism, threatening to boycott her investiture and even leave the parliament altogether solely on the grounds that she is a foreigner.But the real surprise must surely be that she came as close as she did to the job. United States law does not allow a foreign-born president and it is inconceivable that it would be acceptable in, say, France or even her home country of Italy. That she was acceptable to so many - indeed that she won an election - is a tribute both to her personality and, of course, to her name.The benefit of that name has been widespread recognition and adulation. The penalty has been the passion it has always aroused, a passion which has seen both her husband and her mother-in-law assassinated. Fear of a repetition of that violence may have played a part in her calculations. Certainly her family were concerned at her safety. And she herself, whilst showing great personal courage, has always seemed in two minds as to whether she wanted the tension and personal toll that comes with high political office.But the more pressing reason was that, in a political situation as delicately poised as this, the formation of a successful coalition requires a leader of accepted authority to all. Reluctantly or not she seems to have finally decided that her candidature was arousing too much opposition to proceed. And the markets at least have judged that decision as the right one, for all the political uncertainty it causes.Surely a tribute to Indians no and not the damned Gandhi name - or is it actually to their shame for even the bloody whiny, pink-as-they-come, preaching Independent can see the sheer hypocrisy of western commentators deriding 'xenophobic' 'nationalists' (wtf??) when their own damned countries explicitly ban foreign-born citizen from the leading - remember beam in your own eye, mote in others and all that???
Last edited by balrog on May 18th, 2004, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 2:18 pm

Surely a tribute to Indians no and not the damned Gandhi name - or is it actually to their shame for even the bloody whiny, pink-as-they-come, preaching Independent can see the sheer hypocrisy of western commentators deriding 'xenophobic' 'nationalists' (wtf??) when their own damned countries explicitly ban foreign-born citizen from the leading - Oh dear. Indian politicians are being racist, and somehow it is the west's fault for being just as bad ?There is no requirement in Britain for being born here, indeed I can't think of anyone apart from the USA which does, in fact only the President is required to be born a citizen.I will share with you that Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the most powerful elected peple in America qualifies for both British and Austrian passports.People of Indian origin are quietly doing rather well in British politics, I'd give it a decade before one of them is up for PM.Even if we were as bad as India, the fact is that racism is bad. It doesn't make India's behaviour rational or moral if grown up countries behave as badly.
 
User avatar
TheInvestmentBiker
Posts: 157
Joined: July 15th, 2002, 8:03 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 5:10 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: balrogOne example of the idiocy spouted by the self-proclaimed champions of 'secularism' in India and happily echoed by the intl press is the following: "the BJP is a Hindu Nationalist Govt" - now: 1. the Hindu bit, well you could argue - but their backing is from entities such as the RSS and I can understand the rationale for this2. Government - arguable again!however this: "Nationalist" - well what the fuck do you want? Which govt in the world is not nationalist and if they are not then why are they governing? The sheer stupidity of this is laughable - but was is unforgivable is the credulity of Indians who fall for this shit and think nationalism is somehow an evil - for a country which needs to be more nationalistic, surrounded by neighbours who would quite happily see it torn to pieces - and mugs in India still spout such crap. Wake me up when any other govt anywhere is condemned as 'nationalist'Nationalism has been rebranded as 'wrong' by the great 'secular' forces (political parties and the supposed chamions of Indias secular fabric - the media) of the country. Indians are in dire need of lessons in national pride. For some strange reason people today feel uncomfortable about standing for their country on simple issues. Just an example, something I have observed on several forums on in the internet - if you say something even remotely against China, all the Chinese on the forum would immediately support their country's stand with their opinion. But if it something to do with India its not uncommon to find that the Indians themselves are squabbling amongst themselves. It is true that we have problems in our country but nothing that is not unsolvable. But I find it extremely sad that Indians will not resort to doing simple things like correcting facts misrepresented by media and published in international circles. Rather most of them would only be the pointing fingers at each other and finding faults in their country. Just a thought...
Last edited by TheInvestmentBiker on May 18th, 2004, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
kanukatchit
Posts: 143
Joined: December 5th, 2003, 10:49 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 9:21 pm

Last edited by kanukatchit on November 20th, 2009, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 19th, 2004, 11:32 pm

Last edited by ppauper on December 14th, 2004, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
TheInvestmentBiker
Posts: 157
Joined: July 15th, 2002, 8:03 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 20th, 2004, 2:45 am

Whose inner voice?Pioneer News Service/ New DelhiDid Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because her "inner voice" suddenly told her to do so? Why did this "voice" speak now, despite her being elected Congress Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of support from all allied parties?Apparently, it was not the "inner voice" but certain queries that could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name.Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her eleventh-hour retreat as a "personal decision" spurred by her children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink. The President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject her candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so, he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by legal luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok Sabha election results.That probably explains why Ms Gandhi's decision to opt out came only after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That could also explain why she did not allow the entourage of allied parties to accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom.According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised, he would need some more time to examine the matter. Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May 19 - a date unilaterally announced by Left leaders and enthusiastically endorsed by Congressmen on Monday without consulting the Rashtrapati Bhawan.Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the basis of various petitions submitted to him, the President could have sought to clarify a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said to have informally communicated to her on Monday evening that certain queries needed to be answered, even as he invited her to have a discussion on Government formation.On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj against any person of foreign origin occupying a top constitutional post, and the legal advice that he had obtained from top constitutional experts, the President could have sought three clarifications from Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience for Ms Gandhi. The BJP leaders had already declared that they would continue to support any form of agitation on the foreign origin issue.The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought relates to Article 102 of the Constitution that says: "A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament" on any or more of five possible grounds. Clause(d) of the same Article says "... or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state".The term "adherence" had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi in her affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli parliamentary constituency had stated that she owned ancestral property, namely portion of a house, in Orbassano, Italy, the country of her origin. This fact of ownership, legal experts say, makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be interpreted as "adherence" to a foreign country. Since this portion of the ancestral property was apparently bequeathed to her by her father in his will, she inherited it only after his death. Consequently, the property was not her's when she filed her 1999 nomination affidavit.Article 103 states that "if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to disqualification mentioned in Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision to the President and his decision shall be final". Clause 2 of the Article says: "Before giving any decision on such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion."This means that the President is required by the Constitution to undertake an elaborate process of examining the legal and constitutional issues involved. Thus, Ms Gandhi's swearing-in could not happen before the matter was fully clarified and resolved.Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity provision whereby citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign origin is circumscribed by the rights that particular country confers upon foreigners seeking citizenship there.The crux of this provision of "reciprocity" is that a person of foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that particular country.While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal luminaries pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the issue of her surrendering Italian citizenship. It is believed that while acquiring citizenship through registration in 1983, she surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Ambassador in New Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the Italian Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled.This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few days, but it would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch of the campaign once the citizenship issue returned to the fore.Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma Swaraj pointed out that as the Supreme Commander of India's Armed Forces, the President should examine a key issue. It referred to the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj's petition demanded to know.What could have prevented Sonia?Article 102 of the Constitution says: "A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (d) if he or she is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state." Sonia Gandhi, in her affidavit, had declared she owned a house in Italy and may thus invite, the term "adherence" of the said provision.Under Article 103, the President is the sole adjudicator on the issue who has to decide on such matter in consultation with the Election Commission.Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, dealing with the reciprocity clause for a person who registered herself as an Indian citizen, says the said person could not enjoy more rights than those available to an Indian born person in that other country if he/she acquires citizenship of that country, like Italy for instance.The clauses of the Citizenship Act were apparently not fully met when Ms Gandhi relinquished her Italian citizenship
 
User avatar
poochie
Posts: 28
Joined: May 20th, 2004, 4:36 am

Does Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have the moral right to be the Indian PM?

May 20th, 2004, 6:35 am

Dubious
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On