Ancalagon the Black Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 No relation to the Mahatma, but the heirs of Jawaharlal Nehru. Not as socialist as in days gone by, and FAR less Hindu nationalist than the ousted BJP. _____ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23091-2004May13.html Gandhi-Led Opposition Wins Upset in Indian Elections Prime Minister Vajpayee Resigns By John Lancaster Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, May 13, 2004; 9:42 AM NEW DELHI, May 13 -- India's Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee resigned Thursday following the stunning electoral defeat of his Hindu nationalist-led coalition, which has governed India for the last five years. Vajpayee's Bharatiya Janata Party had conceded defeat after early parliamentary election results pointed to a clear win by the secular opposition alliance led by India's Congress Party, headed by Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, widow of slain Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The outcome of the three-week elections marked a dramatic and unexpected reversal for Vajpayee and the BJP-led coalition, which only a few weeks ago had been expected to coast to victory on the strength of India's booming economy, Vajpayee's personal appeal and a popular peace initiative with neighboring Pakistan. It also marks a comeback for the Congress Party, which led India for almost half a century after independence from Britain in 1947. Sonia Gandhi is now a strong candidate to succeed Vajpayee as prime minister, depending on the outcome of negotiations among Congress and its coalition partners in the coming days. Rajiv Gandhi was the son of assassinated Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the grandson of India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The prospect of an Indian government led by the Congress Party and its left-leaning allies is likely to cause some apprehension in Washington. The Bush administration has enjoyed warm relations with Vajpayee's government, with which it shares common views on Islamic extremism and economic policy. Congress Party leaders have been critical of the BJP's closeness to Washington and have blamed its economic policies for neglecting the poor. Based on early returns from counting that began Thursday morning, television stations by midday were predicting that Congress and its allies would easily surpass the 272 seats required for a majority in parliament's lower house, called the Lok Sabha. Projections also showed that Congress alone won 149 seats, up 35 from the last election, while the BJP won 136, down 44. If those numbers hold, the outcome would mark the first time that Congress had occupied more seats than the BJP since 1996. Officials from the BJP-led coalition, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), expressed shock at the outcome. "There was an invisible undercurrent in the Indian electorate against the NDA that none of us could gauge," Sushma Swaraj, a minister in Vajpayee's government, told reporters at BJP headquarters this afternoon. "The results are totally against our expectations. We will have to sit in the opposition." Swaraj added, however, that the election results are "not a verdict for Sonia Gandhi to become prime minister either . . . We should not conclude that people of India have accepted a foreigner as prime minister. My mind still does not accept Sonia Gandhi as the prime minister." Besides attacking Gandhi's foreign roots, the BJP and its allies also campaigned on the theme of "India Shining," highlighting the country's rapid economic growth and its success in capitalizing on the boom in outsourcing of service jobs from the United States and other developed countries. The theme played well within the country's growing -- and predominantly urban -- middle class, but it apparently failed to resonate in the impoverished rural villages where most of India's billion-plus people still live. "The ground reality and the results have called the bluff of the artificial atmosphere of feel-good that the NDA had created," Ahmed Patel, Ghandi's political secretary, told reporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Secular=progress, India is headed in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 This has to be a huge blow for the Bush administration Secularism is good, but I am worried about India's Congress Party economic views and policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 From what I hear and read of the Indian leftists, this is not a positive. They are extremely hostile to the US and while they may not be as socialist as back-in-the-day, I doubt their policies are going to remind anyone of Adam Smith or free markets. The Communists were secular too. What is this party's stance towards Pakistan and the terrorists in Kashmir? But feel free to correct me. I'm MORE than happy to be wrong on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 The Congress party started the economic reforms that the BJP carried through. It's a lot less leftist than in the past. It also is keen to progress with Pakistan (and will be helped by the fact that it's not allied with the Hindu fascist parties such as the Shiv Sena). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Does progress with Pakistan mean give away Kashmir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miragv Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 The BJP did really well but they opened up the gap between the rich and the poor. India needs to create a larger middle class by giving the poor an oppurtunity to succeed. I actually did not pay attention to the Congress Party views because I was sure the BJP would win. I just hope the Congress Party does what they say they will do. I will be pissed off if India does not take a step in the right direction. I am sure I will be hearing a lot about this when I go in less than two weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Does progress with Pakistan mean give away Kashmir? If they want to commit political suicide, then yes. If they have any political savvy at all, then no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 LOL OK, just checking on what you meant by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Give away Kashmir? If you have really read the history of Kashmir it never should have been India's. But then again who am I to spark debate on another 57 year old problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 SHF, I'm just commenting that the relinquishing of Kashmir to Pakistan would be utter foolishness on Congress' part. Not putting any value judgements on that. And aren't you talking about Indira Gandhi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 ATB you are right. I am speaking of Indira. My bad on that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miragv Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan Give away Kashmir? If you have really read the history of Kashmir it never should have been India's. But then again who am I to spark debate on another 57 year old problem I guess you have not read the history of Kashmir then..... Do you really think Kashmir should go to Pakistan just because the majority if Muslim?! There are more Muslims in India then there are in all of Pakistan. Gimme a break with that BS, if you have any other reasons why it should go to Pakistan then let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan Give away Kashmir? If you have really read the history of Kashmir it never should have been India's. But then again who am I to spark debate on another 57 year old problem Well that certainly justifies the decapitations of Hindu families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 The Constitution party is going to have to ally itelf with the leftists to form a government and thats never a good idea. So much for the progress that the last 6 years has brought to India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Oldskool The Constitution party is going to have to ally itelf with the leftists to form a government and thats never a good idea. So much for the progress that the last 6 years has brought to India. Err...could you tell me about this "Constitution party"? Do you, in fact, have any idea what you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingJeremy Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 UHF"Next week, on U62, he's back! And this time, he's mad... Gandhi II! No more Mr. Passive Resistance. He's out to kick some butt. This is one bad mother you don't want to mess with. "Don't move, slimeball." He's a one-man wrecking crew. But he also knows how to party. "Gimme a steak. Medium rare." "Hey, Baldie!" There is only one law - his law. Ghandi II." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Point is the chance of a nuclear war with Pakistan just diminished greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Err...could you tell me about this "Constitution party"? Do you, in fact, have any idea what you're talking about? http://www.indianchild.com/indian_government_and_politics.htm The Indian Consitution party is the party that originated from the independence movement from Great Brittian. As for them needing to ally themseleves with leftist, well they are more center/left while the BJP--Indian People's Party, is more center/right.. As you know in a parlimentary style government, you need the help of smaller parties to reinforce the main party to create a majority to rule. Sorry Ancalagon, for the most part I DO know what Im talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Oldskool, Happy birthday. Maybe you have parties on the mind, because your link had a lot about the constitution, but nothing about any Constitution Party. Yes, the CONGRESS (this is what you're actually talking about, yes?) party will have to ally itself with left-wing parties, but its agenda these days is pretty centrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 the Congress is a bit more centrist and moderate. However, I personally still preferred the BJP. Being Indian myself(though born and raised here), I have visited there recentlyand my family can politicize it enough as well. The BJP was at least a more pro-Hindu government, and there is no real 'official' Hindu state. Granted the greatest number of muslims in the world live in India, and therefore, we need a government that makes both sides happy, which I suppose the Congress would be more likely to do. However, Vajpayee imo was a good leader and still did well to help ease border tensions. To skinshokiefan, Kashmir has always been a part of India, it was never meant to be in the original partition plan, and Pakiston wants it on the basis of there being a high Muslim population there. For a bit of history, Pakistan also wanted current day Bangladesh and had it as East Pakistan, however they eventually called on India's aid for freedom, which they got and are now Bangladesh. Kashmir also has a lot of Buddhist's living there, maybe they should call for independence as well. Personal point, Sonia Gandhi, no matter who she was married to, is not even a born Indian, shes Italian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 The BJP was at least a more pro-Hindu government, and there is no real 'official' Hindu state. Exactly. Why does a country of 81% Hindus need a "pro-Hindu government"? What's wrong with a secular government? I'm not even going to get into Kashmir, because it's a far too contentious topic. Even Bangladesh is a contentious topic. And Sonia Gandhi was born Italian, but she has been in India for a long, long time now. And she might not become Prime Minister. If she does, well, the people will have spoken and I have no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Exactly. Why does a country of 81% Hindus need a "pro-Hindu government"? What's wrong with a secular government? I'm not even going to get into Kashmir, because it's a far too contentious topic. Even Bangladesh is a contentious topic. And Sonia Gandhi was born Italian, but she has been in India for a long, long time now. And she might not become Prime Minister. If she does, well, the people will have spoken and I have no problem with that. Looks like someone beat me to posting Gandhi II quotes. Anyways, I recall the Pakistanis going Nanjing on Bangladesh. Seems that any country finding itself bordering Pakistan is "contentious" but we could ask the East Timorese and Israelis about that, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Graudated SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Well its interesting about Kashmir. The one thing is that there is an intellectual movement in Pakistan the last few years to "forget about Kashmir" Basically the educated people of Pakistan are asking themselves "Is Kashmir worth it?" A lot of people are starting to say "No it is not at this price" Still the fundies of course say "Yes it is" Until the liberals get hold of this debate the stalemate will remain. Does Kashmir justify beheading Indian families? Of course not. That is just an absurd, riddiculous notion that I will no longer respond to. And because India has more Muslims then Pakistan does it mean that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan or have the right to self detmermination? Well the whole thing is Kashmir is India's only majority Muslim state. According to the instruments of partition of India in 1947, the rulers of princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into consideration the geographical and ethnic issues. In Kashmir, however, the Maharajah hesitated. The principally Muslim population having seen the early and covert arrival of Indian troops, rebelled and things got out of the Maharajah's hands. The people of Kashmir were undoubtedly demanding to join Pakistan. The Maharajah, fearing tribal warfare, eventually gave way to the Indian pressure and agreed to join India by 'signing' the Instrument of Accession on 26th October 1947. Kashmir was provisionally accepted into the Indian Union pending a free and impartial plebiscite. This was spelled out in a letter from the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, to the Maharajah on 27th October 1947. In the letter, accepting the Accession, Mountbatten made it clear that the state would only be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir. Having accepted the principle of a plebiscite, India has since obstructed all attempts at arranging one, even one MANDATED BY OUR FRIENDS AT THE U.N (which is part of why I hate the UN and their lack of balls) Hyderbad, which is now part of India, had a Muslim ruler in 1947. However it being majority Hindu it rightfully became a state of India. Kashmir, all of it "free and unfree" should be a part of Pakistan based on the 1947 Partition agreement, and the geogrphic and cultural considerations as well as the UN resolution requesting a plebiscite. As ATB said though giving away Kashmir would be political suidicide in India as it would be in Pakistan. But does India still have the right to constantly send mortar fire and shell Kashmir and destroy the Muslim population of Azad Kashmir? (And for the record I am a fan of the BJP party in terms of cooperation with Washingotn and its economic advancement as well as the sustained democracy India has had. I can only wish Paskitan could sustain democracy for so long) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.