Ramanisblog

Tag: Democracy

  • Sonia Gandhi’s Discussion with Maria Shriver

    Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, United Progressive ...
    Image via Wikipedia
    

    Friday, 04 August 2006, 13:17
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 NEW DELHI 005495 
SIPDIS 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR INR/B 
EO 12958 DECL: 08/04/2016 
TAGS PGOV, PREL, PINR, PHUM, SCUL, KWMN, PINS, IN 
SUBJECT: A GARRULOUS SONIA GANDHI OPENS UP TO MARIA SHRIVER 
Classified By: Charge Geoff Pyatt for reasons 1.4 (B,D)
1. (C) Summary: In a relaxed August 3 conversation with California first lady Maria Shriver, Sonia Gandhi revealed a rare glimpse of herself. Usually withdrawn and reserved in public, she spoke at great length and radiated confidence on women’s’ issues and some aspects of her private life. Mrs. Gandhi demonstrated a strong commitment to a progressive left-of-center agenda aimed at combating socially conservative forces bent on oppressing Indian women. However, she was also realistic, revealing an in-depth knowledge of Indian culture, especially the rural/urban divide. At times suppressing her emotions, she spoke about the compulsions of political life, her parents’ objections to her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi and the sacrifices she and her family have made. Her comments and demeanor put the lie to cocktail party suggestions that she courts Manmohan Singh’s job. End Summary.
Two Dynasties Meet
------------------ 
2. (C) Maria Shriver, California’s first lady and wife of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, met with Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi on August 3 as part of her official visit to India. Shriver is in India to discuss her various initiatives on women’s’ affairs and to solicit Indian involvement. She is also laying the groundwork for a proposed trade mission led by Governor Schwarzenegger around February, 2007. After her stay in Delhi, she will go to Dharamshalla to meet the Dalai Lama. In addition to the Gandhi meeting, Shriver met with the head of the National Commission for Women and toured NGO’s involved in women’s’ affairs. Mrs. Gandhi was accompanied by former Cabinet Minister Karan Singh.
Indian Women Bear a Heavy Burden
-------------------------------- 
3. (C) Shriver and Gandhi engaged in an over one hour exchange that was lively and open and covered many issues, both personal and political. Shriver explained that she was concerned with women’s issues, including sexual abuse and exploitation and trafficking. Mrs. Gandhi replied that the situation for women in India is more troubling and traumatic than that in the US and other developed countries, as Indian women must deal with myriad problems not found in the west, such as child labor. In addition, most Indian women live in remote villages with severe “cultural compulsions” that work against women, making it difficult for the GOI to enforce the law. She pointed out that Indian women remain largely uneducated which is a “big problem” for Indian society and makes progress difficult. This compels the GOI to rely on television and radio to reach women with messages aimed at their concerns. Mrs. Gandhi noted that while she had a deep personal interest in women’s’ issues, she “only rarely” gave personal interviews aimed at female audiences.
And Sonia Bears a Personal Burden
--------------------------------- 
4. (C) Without prompting and at her own initiative Mrs. Gandhi then spoke at length about her personal life. She revealed that after her mother in law’s murder Rajiv Gandhi was under intense pressure to take up the political mantle of the Gandhi family, but both Rajiv and Sonia were intensely
NEW DELHI 00005495 002 OF 005
personal and had no interest in politics. According to Mrs. Gandhi, she urged her husband repeatedly to avoid politics, but he insisted. After Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister, Sonia was determined to avoid the limelight and “kept in the background.” She clarified that she accompanied her husband to official events, but refrained from making political statements. After her husband’s assassination, Mrs. Gandhi withdrew, working only on a charitable foundation established in Rajiv’s memory. In a candid revelation of her personal political stance, Mrs. Gandhi stated that “the right was becoming strong in India and Congress weak,” tipping her hand and “compelling” her to enter politics to protect the Gandhi family legacy. She also revealed that her children were “not keen” about the idea, but eventually told her, “whatever you decide, we will back you.”
Turning Down the PM Spot
------------------------ 
5. (C) Mrs. Gandhi was reluctant to provide details regarding her decision to turn down the Prime Minister post after the UPA’s surprise 2004 electoral victory, stating that “I am often asked about this, but tell people that I will write a book someday with the whole story.” She would only say that she “felt better” that someone else became PM and “did not regret” her decision. Shriver congratulated Mrs. Gandhi for her resoluteness and described her as “courageous.” Clearly embarrassed by this adulation, Mrs. Gandhi made no response. She elaborated, at Karan Singh’s insistence, saying that she was under lots of pressure, as the “party workers” were “very upset.” They “could not understand” why she, as party President, was not taking up the post, since they had voted for her and won a majority.
Politics and Women
------------------ 
6. (C) Shriver noted that she chairs a “Women’s Conference” that brings 11,000 women to California to discuss relevant issues, and reinforced the point that “women can change the world.” Shriver invited Mrs. Gandhi to attend next year. She pointed out that last year’s keynote speaker was Sandra Day O’Connor, who spoke about balancing public and private life, and how she left the Supreme Court to look after her ailing husband and spend more time with her children. Shriver emphasized that Justice O’Connor also did not want to enter public life but was “pushed by her husband,” and noted how difficult it is to be a wife and mother and play a public role. Mrs. Gandhi made no commitment to attend.
Indian Steps to Bring Justice
----------------------------- 
7. (C) Mrs. Gandhi explained the steps that her UPA government had taken and planned to take to help women achieve greater social mobility and rights. She explained that the GOI had instituted a “Panchayati Raj” program under which major decisions regarding the economic development of villages are made by Panchayats (village councils). To ensure female participation, Rajiv Gandhi had “reserved” 33 percent of the positions on the Panchayats for women. Although there were “some complaints” that the women were “manipulated by their husbands,” Mrs. Gandhi asserted that “research had confirmed that women will invariably take the right decisions.” She noted that the UPA now wants to extend the same reservations to Parliament and the Legislative
NEW DELHI 00005495 003 OF 005
Assemblies. Mrs. Gandhi confirmed that currently the number of female MPs was “very small,” as “some parties believe that women should not be in power.”
The Indian Contradiction
------------------------ 
8. (C) Shriver pointed out that her trip had made her aware of the “great contradiction” between a society in which women occupied many leadership positions, including, at times, Prime Minister,” but still were denied many basic rights. Mrs. Gandhi agreed with Shriver, noting that several Indian states had female Chief Ministers, and that an increasing numbers of Indian women are CEOs of major corporations, doctors, and scientists, and “we will keep fighting.” She explained that the situation for women varied from state to state, and that South India was “more progressive” than the North for various historical and cultural reasons, and that, for example, the state of Kerala supplied nurses to much of the Middle East.
Possible Indian Collaboration
    

    For transcript in detail click link . http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2006/08/06NEWDELHI5495.html

  • Improving national Security and Defense Budget.

    While it is true that corporations-military nexus has to be shunned, it is not correct to presume that increase in Defense spending diminishes Security level.
    What is of relevance is the use of appropriate use of methods in tackling security issues, with out the nexus grabbing a pie in every deal to sign in fancy and irrelevant technology .
    The concept of updating technology is fine, but corruption at the individual level is to be stopped.
    Also the so called lobbyists and party funding is the root of this problem;unfortunately this is one of the natural ugly faces of Democracy where money is needed for power and not character.
    This problem is endemic in all Democracies.
    Media can play a vital role in exposing the same periodically.

    Story:

    Washington – Speaking last week at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with journalists, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, remarked that he hoped to avoid “massive cuts” in defense, which “would be dangerous now, given the national security requirements that we have.” Yet cutting the baseline defense budget, which is now even higher than it was at the height of the Reagan buildup, may ironically be one of the best tools we have to meet our national security needs.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s//csm/330810

     

    Related;

    Larison finds little reason to believe that Obama will ever trim the military budget. He also argues that we shouldn’t confuse military spending and defense spending:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/obamas-big-big-spending-on-defense-the-military.html

    AfrikaansAlbanianArabicBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChineseCroatianCzechDanishDetect languageDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHaitian Creole ALPHAHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnameseWelshYiddish⇄AfrikaansAlbanianArabicBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChineseCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHaitian Creole ALPHAHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnameseWelshYiddish 

    Detect language » Hungarian
    AfrikaansAlbanianArabicBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChineseCroatianCzechDanishDetect languageDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHaitian Creole ALPHAHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnameseWelshYiddish⇄AfrikaansAlbanianArabicBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChineseCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHaitian Creole ALPHAHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnameseWelshYiddish

    Detect language » Hungarian

  • Andhra MLAs resign protesting Telangana creation decision

    When political parties want to come to power even at the cost of splitting the state,they should have thought of of these consequences.
    The formation of Telengana has not only jeopardized the livelihood people of other parts of Andhra living in Twin Cities, it is also likely to breed animosity between the new state and the erstwhile AP.What is the fate of Twin cities? Will you form a new Union Territory?
    Ridiculous to form a state for for about eight districts.
    Maoists shall have a field day demanding something akin to a state for the areas controlled by them.You have opened a Pandora’s box.
    Andhra Pradesh plunged into a fresh political crisis on Thursday with 60 MLAs from Congress, PRP and TDP from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions and an MP belonging to Congress resigning in protest against the Centre’s decision to carve out a separate Telangana state.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Andhra-MLAs-resign-protesting-Telangana-creation-decision/articleshow/5322981.cms?from_toi_newsltr=1

  • My compatriots’ vote to ban minarets is fuelled by fear

    Fact is Muslims never integrate into the society in which they live, excepting in Muslim countries.It is too much of a simplification of the issue that Europe has been waiting for an issue.No.It is due to terrorism unleashed in the Name of Islam and also the transnational loyalty of Muslims..People who follow Islam,,can stop both acts if they take concrete steps by openly ostracizing terror groups,instead of being ambivalent.
    Remember, as you sow, so you reap.
    Story:

    The Swiss have voted not against towers, but Muslims. Across Europe, we must stand up to the flame-fanning populists

    By Tariq Ramadan guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 November 2009

    It wasn’t meant to go this way. For months we had been told that the efforts to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland were doomed. The last surveys suggested around 34% of the Swiss population would vote for this shocking initiative. Last Friday, in a meeting organised in Lausanne, more than 800 students, professors and citizens were in no doubt that the referendum would see the motion rejected, and instead were focused on how to turn this silly initiative into a more positive future.

    Today that confidence was shattered, as 57% of the Swiss population did as the Union Démocratique du Centre (UDC) had urged them to – a worrying sign that this populist party may be closest to the people’s fears and expectations. For the first time since 1893 an initiative that singles out one community, with a clear discriminatory essence, has been approved in Switzerland. One can hope that the ban will be rejected at the European level, but that makes the result no less alarming. What is happening in Switzerland, the land of my birth?

    There are only four minarets in Switzerland, so why is it that it is there that this initiative has been launched? My country, like many in Europe, is facing a national reaction to the new visibility of European Muslims. The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol.

    Every European country has its specific symbols or topics through which European Muslims are targeted. In France it is the headscarf or burka; in Germany, mosques; in Britain, violence; cartoons in Denmark; homosexuality in the Netherlands – and so on. It is important to look beyond these symbols and understand what is really happening in Europe in general and in Switzerland in particular: while European countries and citizens are going through a real and deep identity crisis, the new visibility of Muslims is problematic – and it is scary.

    At the very moment Europeans find themselves asking, in a globalising, migratory world, “What are our roots?”, “Who are we?”, “What will our future look like?”, they see around them new citizens, new skin colours, new symbols to which they are unaccustomed.

    Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates – violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few – it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor. There is a great deal of fear and a palpable mistrust. Who are they? What do they want? And the questions are charged with further suspicion as the idea of Islam being an expansionist religion is intoned. Do these people want to Islamise our country?

    The campaign against the minarets was fuelled by just these anxieties and allegations. Voters were drawn to the cause by a manipulative appeal to popular fears and emotions. Posters featured a woman wearing a burka with the minarets drawn as weapons on a colonised Swiss flag. The claim was made that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Swiss values. (The UDC has in the past demanded my citizenship be revoked because I was defending Islamic values too openly.) Its media strategy was simple but effective. Provoke controversy wherever it can be inflamed. Spread a sense of victimhood among the Swiss people: we are under siege, the Muslims are silently colonising us and we are losing our very roots and culture. This strategy worked. The Swiss majority are sending a clear message to their Muslim fellow citizens: we do not trust you and the best Muslim for us is the Muslim we cannot see.

    Who is to be blamed? I have been repeating for years to Muslim people that they have to be positively visible, active and proactive within their respective western societies. In Switzerland, over the past few months, Muslims have striven to remain hidden in order to avoid a clash. It would have been more useful to create new alliances with all these Swiss organisations and political parties that were clearly against the initiative. Swiss Muslims have their share of responsibility but one must add that the political parties, in Europe as in Switzerland have become cowed, and shy from any courageous policies towards religious and cultural pluralism. It is as if the populists set the tone and the rest follow. They fail to assert that Islam is by now a Swiss and a European religion and that Muslim citizens are largely “integrated”. That we face common challenges, such as unemployment, poverty and violence – challenges we must face together. We cannot blame the populists alone – it is a wider failure, a lack of courage, a terrible and narrow-minded lack of trust in their new Muslim citizens.

    Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss citizen, is professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University. His most recent book is What I Believe.
    http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/my-compatriots-vote-to-ban-minarets-is-fuelled-by-fear/#comment-22282

  • Are sections of Pakistani media destabilising democracy?

    The ideal that journalists are impartial is followed in the breach.True, there are some who are above partisan reporting.Again it is not the journalists alone to take the blame;publishers are equally responsible .In fact proprietors dictate editorial and news policy,
    The premise that Indian news papers are impartial is a myth.Only difference from other countries is that the Fourth Estate is more subtle.For instance a popular National News Channel, which also has a very good market share is so parochial and slanted in reporting that it would even attack the ruling paty at the centre, but send a comment about Sonia Gandhi,it will be promptly removed.So much for Free Media in India.(This is not to say that there are no impartial press in India).
    This issue apart, the presumption that Zardari government is not corrupt and the press is out to embarrass the Govt. is so blatantly untrue even from the eyes of Indians, that it is laughable..
    At times Pakistani Media seems to go overboard,anchor and participants for they have ir is the only forum to discuss, to give vent to their feelings and views.
    The flip flap of Zardari on Indian planes intruding into Pak air space;Gilani’s faux paus on Kasab’s nativity and you can go on.You can not take the blame from them and pin it on the media.
    Taliban is true,terrorism is true,corruption is true, Geo TV attack is true,gagging the press is true,double talk on Kashmir is true,same double talk on Us true,economic mess is true, Pakistan as a country is in danger of sliding into anarchy is true.
    When the media reports it,it becomes untrue!?
    Where is democracy in Pakistan to destabilize it?
    Story:

    Bilal Qureshi has contributed this piece for PTH. We do not necessarily agree with all the contents of this article but the issue is important enough to be debated. (RR – ed PTH)

    Journalism 101, that is, the very first lesson of journalism is impartiality. In other words, journalists, at least in civilized societies don’t take any position on issues. And editors make sure that personal opinion don’t seep into the work that the journalists are assigned. This is common practice, and even in India, if you read the papers or watch their talk shows, it is impossible to associate journalists with any particular political party. So, in this light, it is utterly nauseating to see media in Pakistan, both electronic and print (especially Urdu media) engage in efforts to destabilize a democratically elected government. Especially, a channel backed up a by large paper is maliciously attacking everything that the government does day after day in print, and night after night on television.

    This must be stopped.

    No, this level of journalistic activism can never be defended or worse, tolerated. Zardari did the right thing when he spoke clearly and aggressively against the conspiracy theorists when he addressed a rally in Karachi.

    Now, the government must come out swinging against the types of immoral, unethical, and extremely biased anchors that we see in Pakistan today.

    I am not suggesting censorship, and neither am I asking the government to exert pressure on any media group with one exception. And we all know that particular channel responsible for spreading, fear and hatred and I want the government to confront the lies that this particular channel is presenting as facts.

    Media, as I understand is not the answer for everything. Yes, no doubt that the media can play a very constructive role in helping societies progress and move in the right direction. However, it is with great regret that I note that the media in Pakistan, as I have observed during my extended stay in Pakistan, has become a mouth piece for those who were decisively rejected by the electorate in the last election. Worse yet, the media in Pakistan has become an apologist and an unofficial spokesmen for the Taliban. Therefore, in this extremely poisonous political environment, it is the duty of the government to strike back hard, demand explanation for the derogatory remarks and corruptions charges casually thrown around by these so-called journalists, both in print and on television.

    Today, the elected government, a government that is full of people who fought not one, but two dictators, a government full of people who rejected of the offers of signing confessions and in return moving to plush ‘exiles’ in foreign countries. Today, this government is made to look like a corrupt and incompetent government, thanks to the right wing pro Taliban anchors and ‘experts and analysts’. This is simply unacceptable, period. So, on behalf of progressive, objective and non-conspiracy theorists, I ask the government to fight back, and fight back really hard, fight for your political life. Otherwise, the constant drip drip of corruption is going to stick and the people in Pakistan are going to buy into this notion that the government is actually corrupt and incompetent. I ask the government in Pakistan to take on the militant and pro Taliban right wing anti democracy, anti progress and hateful people who are trying to destroy the country by presenting the horrible Taliban as heroic fighters, which they certainly are not. And there are plenty of people in the media across Pakistan who can be persuaded to join the government in this effort to root out useless talking heads from the television. But first, the government has to aggressively hit back.

    Mr. Gilllani, are you ready to save the future of Pakistan? Are you ready to stop kissing up to Nawaz Sharif and take a bold stand to defend your party, your president and your people? Are you?
    http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/are-sections-of-pakistani-media-destabilising-democracy/#comment-21909