When I first saw the news in Wikipedia, I was elated, and a little surprised. surprised because I had never heard of her. This had never happened before. I guess this shows how far I am moving away from my country. I do not keep track of news from my country anymore :( information is really too much, and I am not being able to filter it effectively.
Anyways, the moment I overcame my surprise, I was shrouded by disbelief. And yes, for an instant there, I did waver in my religious support to Wikipedia and its authenticity. Again, maybe because compared to the elections in the US where the woman candidate continues to play the woman card to garner her votes, this did not happen in India. In all fairness to Hillary Clinton, the 2 posts can not be compared, one is titular while the other, to quote a columnist has the power to destroy the world at the push of a button.
Overcoming my disbelief and feeling guilty at the ephemeral sacrilegious thought on Wikipedia, I clicked on the link, to read about a person I had never heard of before (and I can be blamed for that given the posts she has held previously as the governor of Rajasthan). And then I was sorely disappointed.
In this hour of triumph for feminism in India, a country still fighting with equality and reservations, I was appalled to see the number of controversies surrounding the new President. It was a moment of triumph for feminism, but a grave one for the nation. In my opinion, Presidents in the past have had relatively less controversy. We have never had 'mudslingable' presidents. And now we do! Knowing India, I believe this will now go down the usual path of degradation before we start swearing in crooks as President. It is funny, I was actually hoping for a scholar, along the lines of K R Narayanan, but the person I found seemed not to be. Of course, it could be that I am jumping to conclusions. After all, I have known this person for only all of 20 mintes. And also a case can be made that she may have been pressured by her family. It is not that this has not happened in the past in India. Some theories claim that Indira Gandhi's (India's first woman Prime Minister) ascendancy to the highest political office was because people viewed her as pliable. And then we have our very own Rabri Devi (Chief minister of Bihar) who was 'put in the post' by her husband since he was being charged (and did a mighty good job of staying there and coming out of his shadow, though ultimately losing the elections). But coming back to Pratibha Patil (the inspiration for this post) I think she has help way too many high offices to not take the blame for any of the scandals surrounding her. I think every person in high office deserves a part of the blame surrounding him/her. And so does our President.
Having said that, I hope she does a good job as President. There have been people in the past who have had scandals all around them, including a respected Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. And yet they have shown a love for the nation above one's own family. Whatever her past, I hope for the nation that she is able to conduct herself as an ambassador for women in India as well as a head for the state.
If she is able to conduct her office with dignity, it will be a giant leap for the nation. We would have shown the world that despite our poverty, despite our shortcomings, despite a democracy(which can be and has been made to conform to various party interests) we are making progress. And though this is not the same as Clinton saying a small boy in America a chance to dream, a woman in Rajasthan, a Dalit and a Muslim have all been the head of the state of India. I doubt many nations have so many minority people in such a powerful position.
And maybe we can dream of a day where India will be based on meritocracy alone, and not on caste, religion or sex (exactly the principles we claim not to be biased by). Though eons in the future, we can dream......
Anyways, the moment I overcame my surprise, I was shrouded by disbelief. And yes, for an instant there, I did waver in my religious support to Wikipedia and its authenticity. Again, maybe because compared to the elections in the US where the woman candidate continues to play the woman card to garner her votes, this did not happen in India. In all fairness to Hillary Clinton, the 2 posts can not be compared, one is titular while the other, to quote a columnist has the power to destroy the world at the push of a button.
Overcoming my disbelief and feeling guilty at the ephemeral sacrilegious thought on Wikipedia, I clicked on the link, to read about a person I had never heard of before (and I can be blamed for that given the posts she has held previously as the governor of Rajasthan). And then I was sorely disappointed.
In this hour of triumph for feminism in India, a country still fighting with equality and reservations, I was appalled to see the number of controversies surrounding the new President. It was a moment of triumph for feminism, but a grave one for the nation. In my opinion, Presidents in the past have had relatively less controversy. We have never had 'mudslingable' presidents. And now we do! Knowing India, I believe this will now go down the usual path of degradation before we start swearing in crooks as President. It is funny, I was actually hoping for a scholar, along the lines of K R Narayanan, but the person I found seemed not to be. Of course, it could be that I am jumping to conclusions. After all, I have known this person for only all of 20 mintes. And also a case can be made that she may have been pressured by her family. It is not that this has not happened in the past in India. Some theories claim that Indira Gandhi's (India's first woman Prime Minister) ascendancy to the highest political office was because people viewed her as pliable. And then we have our very own Rabri Devi (Chief minister of Bihar) who was 'put in the post' by her husband since he was being charged (and did a mighty good job of staying there and coming out of his shadow, though ultimately losing the elections). But coming back to Pratibha Patil (the inspiration for this post) I think she has help way too many high offices to not take the blame for any of the scandals surrounding her. I think every person in high office deserves a part of the blame surrounding him/her. And so does our President.
Having said that, I hope she does a good job as President. There have been people in the past who have had scandals all around them, including a respected Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. And yet they have shown a love for the nation above one's own family. Whatever her past, I hope for the nation that she is able to conduct herself as an ambassador for women in India as well as a head for the state.
If she is able to conduct her office with dignity, it will be a giant leap for the nation. We would have shown the world that despite our poverty, despite our shortcomings, despite a democracy(which can be and has been made to conform to various party interests) we are making progress. And though this is not the same as Clinton saying a small boy in America a chance to dream, a woman in Rajasthan, a Dalit and a Muslim have all been the head of the state of India. I doubt many nations have so many minority people in such a powerful position.
And maybe we can dream of a day where India will be based on meritocracy alone, and not on caste, religion or sex (exactly the principles we claim not to be biased by). Though eons in the future, we can dream......
No comments:
Post a Comment