SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Divided loyalties

The Great Maratha Milquetoast recently asserted that the mid-term elections would once again throw up a fractured verdict, and that "power and decision-making are getting more and more centralised" within the Congress. Sharad Pawar wasn't the only one to toss the gauntlet at the Shroud. Jairam Ramesh, too, stated that the elections wouldn't draw a clear mandate in favour of any single party in the coming years. If that weren't enough, two days later, Pawar declared that his party had a "limited future" unless the third front was marginalised.

What the boys did was effectively kick in the teeth their own propaganda machinery. All that hype about the Congress marching to power with an unambiguous majority given by a "coalition-fatigued" electorate -- and all due only to the Shroud's supernatural powers -- has come to naught. The next time a Congresswallah hyperventilates over the party securing a clear majority on its own, the fundies only have to say, "Boo! Pawar!"

When I think of the Congress, the word that jumps to mind is "emasculation." I've always maintained that Mrs Indira Gandhi was the only man in the party. No matter the harm she did to India's political institutions and to Punjab, she had the balls to go nuclear, to asunder Bangladesh from Pakistan, and to stare the US squarely in its arrogant face. Her gofers never recovered: She had left nothing whole for any future stitch-up jobs. What a woman. But the fall-out is, we have to put up with eunuchs trained to genuflect before the dynasty. Why else would veterans believe the Shroud to be "our only leader"? Can't this nation of a near billion produce ONE indigenous Congress president?

If Pawaretti revolts, I swear I'll never call him names again. But I needn't worry about such an eventuality -- as we all know, his defiance results from his being made an errand boy. It has zero to do with the wishes of the electorate or the dynamics of the party; it's for the welfare of Pawar. Still, it's a beginning. That a Congressman took the risk of openly flouting the Shroud's line, is a miracle.

The secularists' logic, like that of Stalin and Hitler, is based on exclusivity: if you don't mouth minorities-oriented platitudes, you're a bigot. Diwakar of The Economic Times has analysed the scenario correctly: "[Sonia's failure] has brought to the fore the limits of the hitherto successful efforts to create a bipolar polity with 'communal' and 'secular' as the two extremes. The Congress' gameplan to have power all by itself had clearly hinged on its assumption that all those who voted against the Vajpayee government can refuse to back Ms Gandhi's prime ministerial bid only at the peril of being called 'communal'. It was, to put it bluntly, the politics of 'secular blackmail' which Surjeet played successfully to coerce a reluctant Congress into helping the UF form the government after the 1996 election... This time, it was the Congress' turn to play the same card by making support to its bid for power the litmus test of one's commitment to secularism."

It's as clear as the mere 233 votes: Negative agendas are doomed to sink.

Atalji obviously had this truth in mind when he expressed his disapproval of a debate on the Shroud's foreign origin. It got him kudos from ToI (probably Padgaonkar): "These columns can only heartily endorse the prime minister's wise words... propriety demands that the Congress's foes counter the party politically. The Election Commission should also make it clear that negative references to the Congress leader's race or national origin would violate its code of conduct."

Aw shaddup. If Sonia hasn't relinquished her Italian citizenship formally, her Indian citizenship *is* flawed in law and she remains a non-Indian. Even AICC general-secretary Pranab Mukherjee, who took great pains to establish that Sonia is an Indian citizen, has no inkling if she holds dual nationality: "I don't know," is what he said when asked if she continues to be an Italian citizen. And, he admits that dual citizenship was allowed by several countries. Even so, "there should be no controversy about it" since "elections must be fought on issues and not individuals." Really? But then what about "our only leader"??

Exactly what are the implications of Sonia's being a foreigner? Tall and Gorgeous (aka Dr Gautam Sen) enlightened one with possible scenarios. The issue involves not only the risk attached to the Shroud's gaining access to critical national secrets, but also her management:

One, Italy, being a NATO country, keeps few secrets from the US. In fact, from the disclosures that surfaced in the wake of the murder of Italian politician Aldo Moro, we know that the ties between the two countries are unusually close due to the Americans' having set up the Italian secret services at the end of World War II. What is the guarantee that our restricted files, including those on India's nuclear programme, will not find a quick route to the US?

Two, what will be Sonia's attitude to an oil embargo against India in case of US-sponsored economic sanctions in which Italian warships are sent to patrol our waters? Will she authorise attacks on them? You see, there's this trivial thing that can evoke silly emotions at climacteric junctures: It's called "motherland"...

Three, if the household of a prime minister is permanently occupied by nationals of other countries -- as, indeed, 10 Janpath is -- can the Shroud guarantee the safety of official files? Several Italian relatives of the Shroud are living -- at the expense of the Indian taxpayer -- in Janpath. How can anybody certify that these foreign individuals have not been and never will be recruited by foreign intelligence services?

Who can warrant Sonia's conduct? The *last* thing we need is a PM to sign on some dotted lines and then hey-ho to Euro. It's not just a matter of citizenship -- even if she's a bona fide Indian, the security risk doesn't vanish: A dual citizen has dual loyalties. The prime minister of India cannot have divided loyalties. If Rajiv's wife could seek asylum at the Italian embassy at the first instance of a governmental crisis, she will do it again. Are law-makers of advanced countries nuts to secure preventive measures in their countries' charters? Why are diplomats and defence personnel barred from marrying foreign nationals? How the devil can a PM be exempt of the security implications? No, Atalji, you are dead wrong. The lapse in our Constitution must be scotched.

Virendra Kapoor says the SPG -- created by an act of Parliament as late as in the mid-80s -- "did not visualise a time when it would be called upon to locate its commandos in a particularly crime-infested part of Italy." THAT is the essence of India. The founding fathers were just as far-sighted when they drafted the Constitution. Protective thoughts don't occur to the subservient.

Mr Rai Singh, who once served as a diplomat in Rome, has related an incident involving reciprocity, a cardinal feature of international relationships. In the mid-50s, Italian director Roberto Rossellini married a Bengali actress called Sonali. As his legal wife, she acquired Italian citizenship after duly renouncing her Indian one. However, more than a decade later, when she wanted to stand for an elective office at the municipal level, she was told she wasn't entitled to do so under law. Sonali approached the Indian embassy in Rome. After informal inquiries, Mr Rai learnt that there's no reciprocal protocol, treaty or law between India and Italy. So much for Sonali's being an Italian citizen of Indian origin. And at the municipal level, too...

Monu Nalapat's worried me with that bit about Natwar Singh's having indicated a willingness to freeze Agni when he spoke to the Chinese. Meaning, the Shroud approved it. So that's why Surjeet wanted her so bad! This is so dangerous. As the NATO forces bomb Yugoslavia, it's clearer than ever how vital it is to have a solid defence. The US has shown that it will have its way regardless of world opinion and international law. One either kowtows to it or gets bombed...

The US launched Cruise missiles against Sudan and Afghanistan, the provocation being terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa; it slammed and bammed while the international community watched silently. No-fly zones over and striking targets in Iraq have become routine. And, of course, Yugoslavia. The world's judge, jury and policeman doesn't commit itself to nuclear disarmament; in fact, it has now declared its anti-missile air defence system programme a priority. Once that's completed, the US can launch missiles at anybody it perceives as a threat -- without fear of losing a single pilot. Today, it's Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. Tomorrow it could be India. The security challenge is devastating.

A new arms race is poised to result from the US opting for the missile defence system. The attack on Yugoslavia has led Ukraine to rescind its earlier renunciation of nukes. Russia is revising its nuclear doctrine towards a more proactive stance. The US itself has increased its defence budget. Various arms control agreements like Start II and CTBT may never be ratified. A destabilised Balkans definitely increases the risks of nuclear proliferation. Ethno-nationalist groups (eg, Kashmiri separatists) could create violence (eg, massacre Pandits) to elicit US intervention. You see, only the allies of the US can dare to oppress their minorities, eg, Pakistan with its 'Haris' and Mohajirs.

Just after the end of the Cold War, when military relations between the US and India eased, the US Department of Defence commissioned the Rand Corporation to study India's future strategic role and power potential. Defence analyst George Tanham concluded that India lacked strategic thinking and that there were no strategic planning institutions in the country. The largest democracy in the world had no defence strategy in place. That is, till last year...

But what do these Bidwais and Vanaiks and D'Souzas and Kampanis care? If they aren't physically located abroad, their loyalties are. So they advocate nuclear disarmament; agitate against a government which put India on a strategic path; and convey signals that the Indian ethos is slave to Western propaganda. The West watches the results of their monkeyshines with glee -- and plans its moves accordingly. I've a suggestion: After the Agni is scuttled, and the US 7th Fleet steams into the Bay of Bengal, India should defend itself by dispatching these pacifists, seated royally on public toilets and leading an army of Pardhis, to face the intruders. The West won't know how to deal with hot gas.

No, let's give the dorks what they want. I propose as PM a man who has zealously guarded the relics of Stalinism in one tiny pocket of the world. A man who's covered himself with glory in administering it since 22 years. A man under whose leadership said pocket has developed industrially, economically and educationally besides excelling in corruption. His dominion has all the manifestations of sound government: roads in disrepair, housing in short supply, inadequate transport, scarcity of drinking water, diminishing scope for employment, poor infrastructure, appalling work culture, coercive trade unionism, unethical politics and ineffective law and order. A man whose party of collaborationists maintained till the mid-50s that yeh azadi jhuti hai. A party that called Netaji a "quisling". A party that backed China during the 1962 border war. A party that opposes India's nuclear programme and economic reforms...

You see, whether Sonia or Basu, only a person with divided loyalties is accepted by the scum to lead this country into the new millennium...

Varsha Bhosle