The Invictus

Been following the brouhaha created by some in Ashi's comment box in response to a simple forward that she happened to post. Thought this particular article below would be a good answer to some of them. As the title mentions, this is an article written by Gurumurthy (Swadeshi Jagaran Manch) published in the TOI..Naturally, I don't wish to comment either for or against what has been written (my views on this are exactly that: my own, and wouldn't want to add them here).

It is certainly not a matter of pride to have Sonia as the Prime Minister.You cannot be electing a person as Prime Minister and not feel proud of having elected her. When someone wants to lead this country, it must be a matter of pride for its people to have that person as their leader. Imagine the depths to which this issue has descended.

"What is wrong if she is the Prime Minister," is an argument that comes not from the ordinary people of India, but from the educated Indian. This comes from the Chidambarams and from the Rajdeeep Sardesais of this country; this comes from editorial writers sitting in cities. So let us analyse this issue with all its implications for a country like India, which has an unbroken civilisational continuity.

India is indeed a civilisation behind the facade of a nation. It is now facing the might of the nation-state, which has evolved in the west. The nation-state mechanism in the west is basically aggressive, violent, conquering, invasive, dominating, imperialistic. It is a concept which the Indian mind cannot internalise, understand, or exhibit in its attitude. So, now we are conceding that foreigners can become prime ministers and presidents of India, provided they hold a citizenship certificate.

Odious comparisons are being made by a few who are bent on justifying Sonia as the prime minister. Look at Sister Nivedita, they say. She rebelled against the British for India. And her name was Margaret. Swami Vivekananda called her Nivedita because she had surrendered herself to this country. Where then is the comparison?

Compare Nivedita with Sonia Maino. She came to India marrying a very good-looking man. When she came to India in 1968, she was wedded to an Indian who was the son of that country's Prime Minister.

People say it is our tradition that when a woman enters her husband's home, she becomes part of that family, and so Sonia too is an Indian. It is a sentimental attitude. Look at the acts. Sonia did not apply for Indian citizenship in 1968 when she married Rajiv and came to India. It is what any good Indian wife would have done.

She filled an application in 1968 for permission to stay as a foreigner in India for five years. She said, "I am married, I am married into the Indian Prime Minister but I would still like to remain a foreigner." So she was given a certificate in 1968 to reside in India as a foreigner for five years. In 1973, after the first five-year period expired, she again applied for the permit to stay on in India for another five years as a foreigner. And this is the person who is going to live and die for us. My friend Cho Ramaswamy told me not to believe what she says, There is not only a
complete divorce between what she says and what she does; there is also a clue that she will do precisely the opposite of what she says. I will come to it later; there are instances and instances.

So, she again applied for a foreigner's permit. You know why? Between 1968 and 1973, there were indications of war with Pakistan over East Pakistan. And sure enough there was the Bangladesh war. During that conflict, when all commercial pilots were asked to forego their leave and enter service, she asked Rajiv to go on long leave. He was given special permission and they left the country. Throughout the period of the war, they were in Rome. Why? Because the American Seventh Fleet was moving towards India, and Sonia Gandhi probably had serious doubts about India's survival!

So she deserted the country with her husband. She returned only after peace was restored, and after India had won the war because of Indira Gandhi. This is where the stark contrast between Sonia Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee is most glaring. Look at their conduct after the two wars.

After the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, Vajpayee, who was the Leader of the Opposition, stood up in Parliament and congratulated Indira Gandhi for her courage and vision and praised her as Durga. He was a patriot. At that important moment, he never thought that acknowledging the achievement of his political adversary will cost him votes. Yes, he and his party lost votes in both Partiament and Assembly polls, but not because Vajpayee stood tall in his praise oflndira Gandi. After the Kargil war, Sonia Gandhi told the NDA Government, "Please do not ask for any credit." This is meanness, pettiness, smallness, and foreignmindedness.

Sonia Gandhi played politics even with the self-esteem of this country by choosing the wrong moment to demand an explanation from the government, to raise issues of corruption in defence deals. Her praise of our armed forces came after she realised that the people of this country were not taking her criticism very well. That she was a foreigner and had no business asking for explanations came across very clearly. Every intelligent lndian knew there were problems, including corruption associated with some sections of the army and that it was these problems that resulted in the Kargil invasion.

Should it be used as an occasion to expose a small number of people and defame the entire army in the process? The army today represents the core of Indian nationalism. This was the occasion for the nation to rise above everything and pat the army for its heroism, courage and sacrifice.

But only a nationalist will think like this. However, Sonia Gandhi, who was after votes and political power, could not think like this. Now let us come to the period between 1973-1978. In 1977, when Indira Gandhi was defeated, Sonia sensed the mood of the nation, took refuge in the Italian Embassy and refused to come out of it. She said she was going back to Italy. Sanjay Gandhi had to go and plead with her to return.

Is this is the person who is going to live and die for India? To live in India is very different from living for India. And to live in India in such glory, with such protection and resources, is very different from dying for India. Nationalism will not come by merely wearing saris. It is as much a fancy dress today as any other dress can be. But some Indians are very happy to see Sonia in a sari, and regard her stay in India as their good fortune. Why? I am going to say something which many of you may not like.

Some of you may even say I am a racist. I was discussing this issue with Cho Ramaswamy. He told me something he may not write but I will share this with you. Cho said, and I quote, "If Sonia Gandhi had been black, had been a person of African origin, this problem would never have arisen."

Do you understand what this means, unpalatable though it may be to some of you? It is this fascination for the white skin and it is we, the English educated Indians, who are responsible for this. Tamil patriot and poet Bharathi said, " Ayiram undingu jathi, enil anniyar vanthu pugal enna neethi. " Yes, we may have hundreds of castes but that is no reason for an alien to fish in our troubled waters and play arbiter here. That is what Tilak mean by Swaraj first. We may fight among ourselves, we may even kill each other, but we don't want a foreign arbiter.

I know of several political leaders saying that the Indian English Press will stand against us. Only because the Indian English Press is bound to take a hostile attitude towards those who consider Sonia as a foreigner and a reluctant citizen, many political parties are unwilling to make this a national issue. This is the terrorising influence that the English educated Indian intellectuals have on the political class. Another argument is that this is not an issue in the rural areas. If you do not make it an issue, how will it become an issue there?

The Emergency was imposed in India. The national TV, the Press, everything was controlled by the government. The cities revolted against the Emergency; in six months it spread and percolated, and then the villages revolted, too. Ideas always percolate, but if they are edited at the top, the nation remains confused. Never in the history of the world has a foreigner ruled another country except by invasion.

But what is abnormal here is that we are in danger of electing a foreigner to rule this country. Some Indians do not want to be seen as being narrow-minded or less liberal. What is this liberalism? One-sixth of humanity living together is in itself the greatest symbol of liberalism. We are one-sixth of humanity and we live together and live well together.

Let us now recap what Sonia did in 1978, after Indira Gandhi lost the elections in 1977. Sonia again applied to stay on in India as a foreigner. In 1968, 1973, 1978- for three five-year terms - Sonia applied for a resident's permit to stay in India. On April 30, 1983, her third five-year permit expired. By that time it was certain that Rajiv was to become the heir to Indira Gandhi.

And so, even on April 27, three days before the permit expired, she had still not opted for Indian citizenship. She wanted to be a foreigner till the last day the permit allowed her to be so. And this is precisely what Sharad Pawar asked her in the Congress Working Committee (CWC), in May 1999 It all happened suddenly. Pawar described to me how it happened. On that day, the CWC was to discuss the Goa election and Pawar was supposed to present his analysis of the situation in Goa. The lady came with a prepared speech (please note, even in the 20-member working committee, she comes with a prepared speech).

She began reading her speech. Everybody was surprised at what she had to say. She said that the Sangh Parivar, against which her mother- in-law carried on a campaign to finish communalism, against whom her husband did this and that, had now decided to destroy her.

"They are branding me a foreigner. I will fight them to the last drop of my blood. But, I don't want this issue to drag on till the elections. I want it decided today because if it is decided now, we can fight it out at the time of the election, and it will be no issue at all. So, I want to know first whether any of you have any objection to my becoming the Prime Minister,"she said.

All these fellows remained silent. And then Madhav Rao Scindia spoke, "Madam, you do not have to fight the Sangh Parivar propaganda, I will fight it. This is not your battle, this is my battle:' This set the tone for the rest of the discussion and soon most members began to ask, who are these RSS people to dub Sonia a foreigner?

Soon it was Sangma's turn to speak. Sangma said, "Madam, I have very different views on this issue. I don't know anything about you; There are people who are saying that for 17 years you lived as a foreigner in India. If the voters ask me, how will I explain? Please tell me why you did not opt for Indian citizenship in 1968? I cannot convince the people of my own state, my own constituency on this." And then it was Pawar's turn.

He told me he was sitting immediately to her right. He was the last to speak. He was the first one to organise a public meeting for her, a massive rally in Maharastra. He told Sonia, and I quote, "In that rally, you said I am an ordinary humble Congress worker. You said I don't want any position, I don't want power, and I am associated with the Congress family. You also said I don't even want to become a Congress member. I can't bear to see a party with which my mother-in-law, her father, her grandfather, and my husband were all associated, decaying like this. So, I want to strengthen this party. This is what you said on that day." Then Pawar told the rally, "If she is willing to do such a generous job for a nationalist party, there should be no objection. She does not want to be the president of the party, she does not want to be in any position and she doesn't want to be an MP."

Pawar told me that he had recounted the statements made at that rally to Bal Thackeray in defence of Sonia Gandhi. "But the day she ran to the President of India and told him that she had the support of 272 MPs to become the Prime Minister of India, which was a lie, all of us changed and I changed, too;" Pawar told me.

Sonia said she was not interested in politics, and that she would never enter politics. She said she would not become a Congress member but will only help the party as a person belonging to the Congress fami1y. She said and I quote, "I am just a four anna member, I will not occupy any position." But what happened thereafter? She physically threw out Sitaram Kesri from the office. The poor fellow was in the toilet. His chair was empty. And do you know what happened? The Congress goons bolted the toilet door from outside and made Sonia occupy' his chair, The elderly man wept. This is how she became the president of the Congress Party.

In the same way the western armies in the past invaded other civilisations and seized power, she seized power in a 'coup d'toilette'. This is the disconnect between her word and her action. Her conduct was the very reverse of her profession. she said she had no ambition to be the Prime Minister. But who ran from pillar to post to bring down the Vajpayee government?

Again, when the media probed her about the money paid by Bofors to her friend Quattrocchi, she said, "Yes, the CBI is saying he is a suspect, but they have not produced any papers; and unless you produce papers to prove that somebody is guilty, you cannot say he is guilty."

But what is the truth about Quattrocchi ? In the Bofors deal, the quality of the gun was not the issue. It was always rated as a good gun, but there was a better gun called Sofma. In 17 meetings, the negotiating committee kept the Sofma gun ahead of the Bofors gun from 1984 June to early February 1986. For two years, in 17 meetings, the army brass involved in the decision making had preferred Sofma to Bofors. But everything changed on February 17 that year. Please mark the dates. The competition among arms manufacturers to sell guns to India was on from 1980.

On November 15, 1985, a company called AE Services entered into an agreement with Bofors. It said, "Gentlemen, I will get you the Government of India order for Bofors guns. And I will get this order by March 31,1986. And if I get it by March 31, you will give me three per cent commission, which is $36.5 million or Rs 160 crore at the current rates of exchange. So, if I get you this order by March 31, you will give me this commission and if I don't get it you need not give me anything. You owe no obligation to me."

Who can enter into this kind of a contract except the person who can get it? Fina11y, the cat was out of the bag. The person who signed the contract filed an affidavit in the Swiss Court saying it was Quattrocchi who advised him to enter into this contract.

The sequence was as fo11ows: On February 17, 1986, the Bofors gun was nowhere in the picture. However, on March 15 and 16, Rajiv told the Swedish Government ( on a State visit to Sweden) that he will give Sweden the order for supply of Bofors guns. On March 17, the negotiating committee cleared the deal in 48 hours. Eleven officials and Rajiv Gandhi signed the deal and on March 21, 1986, 10 days ahead of the deadline to which Quattrocchi had committed himself, the contract was signed.

The bribe agreement between this shady company AE Services, and Bofors said: "Bofors will pay AE Services proportionate to the amount the Government of India pays to Bofors." The Government of India paid 20 per cent of the money to Bofors and exactly three per cent of 20 per cent was released in September 1986 to AE Services.

Within 13 days, that money was transferred to an investment company and two years later, after The Hindu and The Indian Express came out with exposes on the deal, with documents as proof, it was transferred to another company and the Swiss Police unearthed the fact that the persons behind all the three companies into which these monies had gone was Quattrocchi and his wife.

Only they had the authority to sign the secret accounts. When this was found out and the bank documents were being transmitted, Quattrocchi filed an appeal against the transmission of documents in the Swiss Court but the court said he was a dishonest man and overruled the objection saying Quattrocchi was involved in the deal. He has taken bribes and he is related to the Indian administration at the highest level, the Swiss Court said.

The Swiss Court order came in July 1993 when Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister and the Interpol told the Government of India that Quattrocchi 's appeal in the Swiss Court had been dismissed, which meant "Arrest him." The powers-that-be gave Quattrocchi one week's time to escape. Just like Win Chadha has been allowed to escape an year earlier. And this man too flew out of India. When the CBI raided his home and found his diary notes,. these revealed Quattrocchi had been having dinner meetings with Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi. They found photographs and letters that had been exchanged, and everything was seized. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court issued an
arrest warrant against Quattrocchi. He appealed to the Interpol which was dismissed.

The Delhi High Court also dismissed it saying his presence was needed and he had to be arrested. These are all judicial orders printed, published, and available in the public domain. Thereafter the matter went to the Supreme Court. Quattrocchi told the Supreme Court through his advocates that he would come and present himself, and that he should not be arrested. The Supreme Court said, since the man says he will come and present himself and be available for interrogation, why should he be arrested?

However, Quattrocchi defied the orders of the Supreme Court and did not turn up. He filed an affidavit in the Swiss Court saying that India was a brute nation and he cannot get justice in the judicial system of India. And Sonia Gandhi is defending this fellow Italian. It is, therefore, a blatant lie to say there are no documents to prove Quattrocchi's guilt.

It is also a lie that Sonia did not know his plans to abscond from the country. It is impossible that somebody who resided in Delhi for 20 years, who shared weekly evenings with Rajiv and Sonia, would have suddenly left Delhi , without even telephoning to her. She must have been privy to all these things and she has the audacity to ask where is the proof?

So, truth has nothing to do with Sonia Gandhi. There is an absolute disconnect between her words and deeds. Now the issue is whether Sonia in politics is a national shame.

Whether it is a national shame or not, it is certainly a danger to national security. Why do we have rules in the army which prohibit a foreigner, a foreign born person, even though he is a citizen, from occupying certain high-ranking offices in the army? Why do we say that our IPS officers should not be of foreign origin? Why do we say that our IPS officers cannot marry foreigners? Now, herein comes the idea of the modern nation-state.

A modern nation-state has a built-in insecurity and that is the reason why it has to secure itself. But can the Prime Minister have a foreign wife? Can the Prime Minister's son have a foreign wife? Sitting in the Prime Minister's Office, in the Prime Minister's home, a foreign wife for 15 years; who ran away with her husband when the nation was at war, breaching the discipline of commercial pilots is now a well, established fact. In India, the MLAs, MPs, and ministers are not subject to any rule or discipline. Even today whether an MLA or MP is a public servant is a matter that is being debated in courts.

So, can an MP have a foreign wife.? Can a minister have a foreign wife? This distortion has crept into the system. And what are the consequences of foreigners penetrating our polity?

When George Fernandes spoke on this issue on the national television, it was chilling. He spoke of a particular file whlch contained all the secrets of the government. Where are the nuclear weapons, where are the missiles, who can press the button, which missile points in which direction, who are our spy links in different countries? This single file contains all this information.

That file is not handled by anybody other than the Prime Minister of India. If Vajpayee ceases to be the Prime Minister and Sonia becomes the Prime Minister, he will have to hand over this file to her. It will have every nationa1 security secret. If it falls into wrong hands, it will strip India naked before inimical forces.

`Can we afford to hand over these secrets to her?` Fernandes said even the Defence Minister cannot do anything; he cannot look at that file. Even the services chiefs know only their part of the secret. The combined, collective national secret is in the hands of one man that will be handed over to this foreigner, should she achieve her political ambition.

Whether somebody can speak tolerable Hindi or not is not the issue; it is far more serious. It goes to the root of the existence of the nation, its security and its survival. Sonia's loyalty to India will always be in doubt. If there is even a millionth of a chance that her loyalty to, this country is in question, it should be enough to disqualify her from prime ministership. The issue is not whether Sonia will succeed in becoming the Prime Minister, but the very idea that somebody like her can nurse such an ambition.

If the intellectuals of India, whose duty it is to preserve the mind of India have failed, I am certain that at least the ordinary people of India will succeed in protecting national interest as they did in 1977.