|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the last five years, somewhere in the haze of India's rapid economic growth and the glowing corporate performance, the spotlight turned away from one man who years ago had changed the way India's economy moved.
Dr Manmohan Singh.
As finance minister in Narasimha Rao's government of the nineties, Manmohan Singh was the man who ushered in the reforms that liberalized India's economy, changing the fundamental way that in corporate India thinks and with it the lives of millions of middle class Indians.
Singh is an accomplished economist and had spent much of his career as a bureaucrat -- he was even the Governor of Reserve Bank of India from 1982-85 -- before he got inducted into politics and into Rao's cabinet as the finance minister.
Baptism by fire
In the 1991, when Singh became the finance minister, India's economy was in a shambles. The country had an unsustainable fiscal deficit of close to 8.5 per cent of the gross domestic product -- almost double of what it is currently.
There was a huge balance of payments deficit. The current account deficit was close to 3.5 per cent of GDP and there were no foreign lenders who were willing to finance it.
India had barely a billion dollars in terms of foreign exchange reserves -- roughly equal to two weeks' imports (today forex reserves stand at over $118 billion).
In short the country was on the verge of bankruptcy.
The healing process begins
Singh slowly started the process of restructuring the economy.
By 1994, when he presented his historic budget, the economy was well on its way to recovery. Yet he ploughed ahead instituting deep changes in the institutions of the country.
He went to Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and told him that India needed a strong vision to take it forward.
"I said to him it is possible that we will still collapse, but there is a chance that if we take bold measures we may turn around, and that, I said, is an opportunity. We must convert this crisis into an opportunity to build a new India, to do things which many people before us have thought and said should be done, but somehow were never done," said Singh in an interview to PBS in 2001.
Rao backed Manmohan Singh to the hilt and India embarked on a path of reforms.
Under Singh, that year, the government of India entered into an understanding with the Reserve Bank of India to deny itself the right to 'draw' on the RBI to fund its deficit. This put paid to the unlimited monetisation of fiscal deficit, and was a historic step.
Looking back, Singh says that when he stood up in Parliament stating the case for reforms his argument was that in the midst of an unprecedented crisis, it was time to think big rather than 'tighten the belt.'
"We could, in a traditional way, tighten our belt, and we did that, tighten and tighten. But persistence on that path would have led to more misery, more unemployment, and I said there is an alternative path. Stabilisation plus a credible structural adjustment programme would shorten the period of misery. It would release the innovative spirit, [the] entrepreneurial spirits which were always there in India in [such] a manner that our economy would grow at a much faster pace, sooner than most people believed. That's exactly what happened," says Singh in that interview.
During his speech in Parliament while presenting the Budget in 1994-95, he quoted Victor Hugo: "No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come."
His dream was that in a crisis India should undertake basic structural changes, which would lead to the emergence of a new country that would become a major global player in the world economy.
Singh started the process of simplification and rationalisation of the tax system. Many controls and regulation on the industry were removed, which meant the death of the Permit Raj and a free rein to entrepreneurs.
The result was that productivity in the Indian industry grew like never before.
An unassuming personality
After the Congress was voted out of power, Singh kept a rather low profile, though he was the leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha.
Always a quiet, unassuming personality, out of the spotlight Singh faded into the background.
Except when his name began to be tossed around as an alternative to the position of the prime minister to those who could not accept Sonia Gandhi.
Singh himself never said a word about his ambitions or aspirations and has pretty much been a loyal supporter of the Gandhi family.
On matters political, Singh has always remained quiet -- both during his stint as finance minister and out of power. His only indulgence in the last two years has been to comment on the Budget.
Last year's budget (2003-04) put forth by Jaswant Singh came under severe criticism by Singh who termed it a budget of 'tokenisms.'
Manmohan Singh felt that Jaswant Singh, the finance minister, had refused to address the basic problems facing the economy in terms of eradication of poverty, infrastructure development, agriculture development and fiscal consolidation.
He holds an M.A., D.Phil. (Oxford), D.Litt.(Honoris Causa); I.N.C.(Assam).
He was born in Gah, West Punjab, on September 26, 1932 to Mr Gurmukh Singh and Mrs Gursharan Kaur.
If he comes back as the finance minister, Singh faces a very different economy from what he inherited about 10 years ago.
Far from being close to defaulting on its international debts, this time the economy is sizzling, having posted 10.4 per cent GDP growth last quarter. There is also a national consensus on the need for economic reforms, liberalisation and corporate-friendly policies.
While Singh has never elucidated on his vision of how to take India ahead, there cannot be any doubts that the economy will be safe in his hands.
Dr Manmohan Singh is the 'father of the reform process' in India and his return to North Block and the chair of the finance minister will only bring the original visionary back to the throne.