05-23-2004, 11:32 PM
My Webpage
Perhaps Sonia was wiser than we think
TAVLEEN SINGH
Let me begin by saying that never in the nearly 20 years of this columnâs existence has it received more letters than I got in response to the piece I wrote last week. More than 600 at last count and, unusually, most of them were supportive of my views. Less than 5 per cent attacked me for objecting to India having an Italian prime minister, with the other 95 per cent acknowledging passionately that it would have been a matter of deep personal shame.
Speculation continues about why Sonia graciously declined, but there is no point now in going into her reasons, I would like to say only that she was wise to do what she did. With the clamour in her ears comparing her to Jesus and the Buddha and the pathetic paeans of her courtiers in the media, it would have been easy not to notice the groundswell of shock and shame.
It was subterranean and a bit like those chapatis that Indian freedom fighters used to conceal their revolutionary activities from the British. The modern equivalent was SMS and messages went like this. Ab to khush ho na Hindustani? Raj karegi imported rani/217 hijdon ne ek videshi ko di kamaan, ab kabhi na kehna mera Bharat Mahaan.
Whatever her reasons, I would like to believe that the real reason for Soniaâs ââsacrificeââ was that she could hear the rumble of the groundswell and read between the lines our liberal, leftie commentators wrote welcoming her. Speaking of which, two of the most outstandingly ill-informed articles I read came from Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy, who must stay away from political comment. Especially since they write such good fiction.
Rushdie got not just his analysis but his facts wrong. Without noticing that Delhi and Mumbai voted against the government he wrote that ââthe urban bourgeoisie voted for the government, while the impoverished Indian masses mostly voted against itââ. And, Arundhati experienced a âârare, ephemeral moment of celebrationââ because she saw the election result as a vote against ââcomunalism, and neo-liberalismâs economic reformsââ. She went on to attack the Vajpayee governmentâs record in Kashmir and its imposition of POTA without noticing that Kashmir was denied democracy for nearly 40 years under Congress and POTA was a mild version of TADA, the Congress law.
Vajpayee may not have been able to solve all the problems he inherited from 50 years of Congress rule but he was a good Prime Minister and brought more visible prosperity to rural Indians than they have ever known before. It was largely because of the spread of television, telephones and technology that the average Indian villager became aware that it was his right to demand water, electricity, roads, schools and hospitals.
Unfortunately, even a magician could not have provided them in five years because the delivery mechanism (set up mostly by Congress governments) has been in a state of decay for decades. You cannot deliver education and healthcare if the infrastructure to deliver them has totally collapsed and anyone who believes that the collapse happened in the past five years needs to spare us further political analysis.
This includes Sonia, who in her farewell speech last week talked of ââundoing the damage done by the last governmentââ. What damage? Our new prime minister, in merciful contrast, said not one bad word against the last government and sounded so much like our last one that you could have been fooled into believing that nothing had changed.
Alas, in terms of Indiaâs economic future and in terms of bettering the lives of the poorest of the poor, much is likely to change under the new government for the worse. This is largely due to the presence in it of the likes of Laloo Yadav and the Marxist parties. Laloo is famous for sneering at such necessary tools of development as computers and infrastructure.
As for our high-minded Marxists, could they explain why West Bengal has become so much poorer under their charge? Could they also tell us if they think Chinaâs economy is still socialist and whether it is not true that the reforms we seek to carry out in our economy began in China as long ago as 1979?
With their passion for distributing poverty before creating wealth, the good Dr Manmohan Singh is going to find it hard to continue the process of reform he himself began. And with Andhraâs new Congress government promising free power to farmers and allies like Laloo clamouring for money for the secular socialist republic of Bihar, there is not going to be much left for progress. Perhaps, Sonia was wiser than we think
Perhaps Sonia was wiser than we think
TAVLEEN SINGH
Let me begin by saying that never in the nearly 20 years of this columnâs existence has it received more letters than I got in response to the piece I wrote last week. More than 600 at last count and, unusually, most of them were supportive of my views. Less than 5 per cent attacked me for objecting to India having an Italian prime minister, with the other 95 per cent acknowledging passionately that it would have been a matter of deep personal shame.
Speculation continues about why Sonia graciously declined, but there is no point now in going into her reasons, I would like to say only that she was wise to do what she did. With the clamour in her ears comparing her to Jesus and the Buddha and the pathetic paeans of her courtiers in the media, it would have been easy not to notice the groundswell of shock and shame.
It was subterranean and a bit like those chapatis that Indian freedom fighters used to conceal their revolutionary activities from the British. The modern equivalent was SMS and messages went like this. Ab to khush ho na Hindustani? Raj karegi imported rani/217 hijdon ne ek videshi ko di kamaan, ab kabhi na kehna mera Bharat Mahaan.
Whatever her reasons, I would like to believe that the real reason for Soniaâs ââsacrificeââ was that she could hear the rumble of the groundswell and read between the lines our liberal, leftie commentators wrote welcoming her. Speaking of which, two of the most outstandingly ill-informed articles I read came from Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy, who must stay away from political comment. Especially since they write such good fiction.
Rushdie got not just his analysis but his facts wrong. Without noticing that Delhi and Mumbai voted against the government he wrote that ââthe urban bourgeoisie voted for the government, while the impoverished Indian masses mostly voted against itââ. And, Arundhati experienced a âârare, ephemeral moment of celebrationââ because she saw the election result as a vote against ââcomunalism, and neo-liberalismâs economic reformsââ. She went on to attack the Vajpayee governmentâs record in Kashmir and its imposition of POTA without noticing that Kashmir was denied democracy for nearly 40 years under Congress and POTA was a mild version of TADA, the Congress law.
Vajpayee may not have been able to solve all the problems he inherited from 50 years of Congress rule but he was a good Prime Minister and brought more visible prosperity to rural Indians than they have ever known before. It was largely because of the spread of television, telephones and technology that the average Indian villager became aware that it was his right to demand water, electricity, roads, schools and hospitals.
Unfortunately, even a magician could not have provided them in five years because the delivery mechanism (set up mostly by Congress governments) has been in a state of decay for decades. You cannot deliver education and healthcare if the infrastructure to deliver them has totally collapsed and anyone who believes that the collapse happened in the past five years needs to spare us further political analysis.
This includes Sonia, who in her farewell speech last week talked of ââundoing the damage done by the last governmentââ. What damage? Our new prime minister, in merciful contrast, said not one bad word against the last government and sounded so much like our last one that you could have been fooled into believing that nothing had changed.
Alas, in terms of Indiaâs economic future and in terms of bettering the lives of the poorest of the poor, much is likely to change under the new government for the worse. This is largely due to the presence in it of the likes of Laloo Yadav and the Marxist parties. Laloo is famous for sneering at such necessary tools of development as computers and infrastructure.
As for our high-minded Marxists, could they explain why West Bengal has become so much poorer under their charge? Could they also tell us if they think Chinaâs economy is still socialist and whether it is not true that the reforms we seek to carry out in our economy began in China as long ago as 1979?
With their passion for distributing poverty before creating wealth, the good Dr Manmohan Singh is going to find it hard to continue the process of reform he himself began. And with Andhraâs new Congress government promising free power to farmers and allies like Laloo clamouring for money for the secular socialist republic of Bihar, there is not going to be much left for progress. Perhaps, Sonia was wiser than we think