i thought sonya gandhi was italian or something....meh, what do i know....

i suspect since many people here were born abroad, raised in the USA, and have been asked "where are you from?" their whole lives, they're a little more inclined to cut sonia a little slack on not being native born and brown.

Mrs. Gandhi's citizenship is Indian.

I think Vidya is Manu Chhabria's widow. Manu used to own Shaw Wallace in addition to Jumbo electronics which was one of the biggest liqour companies in India. He went on from trading radio parts in Lamington Road in Bombay to establishing a $1.5 billion empire.

C'mon Sonia Gandhi has to be ranked higher than Indray Nooyi. Like it or not, Sonia has a say over the lives of 1/6 of humanity. Indra: fizzy drinks.

Mrs. Gandhi's citizenship is Indian.

ah. didnt realize that.

ah. didnt realize that
One of the most shameful things that happened in Indian politics was the amount of vituperation against Sonia's Italian past.While I myself was not comnfortable with the idea that the Congress could find no alternative to Sonia and dynastic rule , the kind of attacks she faced because of her origins (from the BJP and others in the Opporition party) were horrible and really xenophobic.After all, this is a woman who moved away to a strange country, adopted ts language and customs and lost her beloved mother-in -law and husband to political assasinations.To then question her commitment to India was ,in my opinion, in the worst possible taste.

Runa's comment is not accurate at all. When Sonia married Rajiv, she insisted they live in Italy and expressed distaste for India as a whole. It was only after it was clear they could continue to wield their undemocratic, monarch-like influence over the country that she agreed to return. Furthermore, from everything I read, Indira Gandhi was hardly her "beloved" mother-in-law.

It's hardly Xenophobic to want an Indian to rule India, and I mean that knowing about Puppet Singh official position. Everyone knows Sonia calls the shots with the support of the Congress faithful. [redacted]

and another assassination might do the country a lot of good.

calling for a political assasination is hardly an acceptable form of political discourse.

It's hardly Xenophobic to want an Indian to rule India

anyone sick of being an immigrant to the US, and not being accepted as an american? how are you defining "an indian"?

And by the way, before anyone starts with the argument about whether or not we are really American and shouldn't talk 1) America is a land of immigrants, India isn't. India has a large indigenous population that agitated for self-rule; Sonia is essentially a colonialist in my view. 2)Despite the fact American is a land of immigrants (except for Native Americans), it is illegal for even naturalized citizens to hold the highest office. Therefore, while Sonia could rule India despite being born Italian, my parents and most brown people in America could not be president. Not to mention no ethnic minority has ever held either of the highest positions in the U.S. If anything, America is less tolerant of diversity in its political leaders than India.

Not to mention no ethnic minority has ever held either of the highest positions in the U.S. If anything, America is less tolerant of diversity in its political leaders than India.

thast exactly my point. being intolerant of diversity in political leaders isnt a good thing. why would you want to replicate that in india, where they have a better way of doing things.

America is a land of immigrants, India isn't. India has a large indigenous population that agitated for self-rule; Sonia is essentially a colonialist in my view.

the fact that she took indian citizenship says that it is possible to immigrate to india. if you can immigrate to india, you can become indian. therefore blanketly claiming that india is not a land of immigrants is not fair to anyone who has immigrated to india. if someone takes citizenship of any country, they change nationalities.

Sonia is essentially a colonialist in my view.

colonialists dont change their citizenship to local and then run for political office in a democratic system. it takes more than 1 person to be a colonialist.

Clearly you don't know much about Indian politics. Assassinations have been the most effective form of regime change throughout modern Indian history. And without them, we'd still have Rajiv Gandhi and his mother trying to convince us that following the Soviets and artificially restricting competition through socialism so the government officials could enrich themselves is good for the common people. TO say nothing of forced sterilizations, government mandated dictatorship, years of subpar economic growth and failing infrastructure, caste-based discrimination, and on and on and on...

yes. i do know a bit about indian history. just because some people like to kill their leaders in india, doesnt mean that calling for murder on SM is a civilised form of discourse. im not saying that all indian leaders were good, but murdering a democratically elected leader isnt a very good way to go.

would sgandhi be as popular if she was black or at lets say what would be considered non fair skineed in India?

Yes but changing nationalities does not mean you should be entitled to lead the country. What does Sonia Gandhi know about the lives of real Indian people? She married into the first family and has been surrounded by wealth and opulence her entire life. India needs leaders who come from the people and understand what the concerns facing them in their everyday lives are, not some Italian lady who happens to have gotten lucky in love and married the de facto prince of the country.

don't feed the troll people.

Hillside

Puh -leeze! I agreed that its ok to not want Sonia as the PM( I said so myself). But I said and will continue to say that the kind of vile attacks heaped on her were xenophobic and not necessary at all.

Sitting here in the USA , I hardly think its appropriate for us to question the Indianness of someone who chooses to make India her home. Also ,I think its fairly clear that Sonia had a good relationship with Mrs.I.Gandhi ( not so much Menaka G ,I know!)

As far as the law goes, the Indian constitution does NOT require a person born to be born in India to serve public office there. If there is a problem with the law, then the law needs to be changed. Sushma Swaraj's public chest-beating and threats of head-shaving is NOT the way to go.Not in a democracy.
As for advocating political assasinations, that is so far out that I will not even dignify it with a response.

Razib,
Too late

SM Intern : Please feel free to delete everything - including my comments.I feel that the discourse has taken an ugly turn which has no place in SM

Yes but changing nationalities does not mean you should be entitled to lead the country. What does Sonia Gandhi know about the lives of real Indian people? She married into the first family and has been surrounded by wealth and opulence her entire life. India needs leaders who come from the people and understand what the concerns facing them in their everyday lives are, not some Italian lady who happens to have gotten lucky in love and married the de facto prince of the country.

her being surrounded by wealth and not knowing the plight of the average man has nothing to do with her birth nationality. you can have a lot of leaders that are indian from an upper crust background that dont know the life of poverty. This is not an issue of her italian heritige.

i concur with the do over.

The problem I have with Sonia Gandhi making it to this list is that she did nothing to deserve it and it was handed to her by default. She did not climb the treacherous corporate ladder by hard work, she did not raise the productivity of a city or a state, she did not participate in reducing crime, she did not invent a cure for a deadly disease nor did she start a business that created wealth/jobs.

Nothing. Not an iota of value was created by her.

She married, tried to flee to Italy twice during India's crisis, secluded herself, became a widow, secluded herself again, rushed to become PM, failed and then secluded herself again, tried to become PM yet again, failed, and now remote controls a dingbat who hallucinates on national TV that Hindus conducted havans for his death. All because India's greatest political party lost its internal democracy under her mother-in-law.

M. Nam

Strangely enough, I'm half-Italian and half-punjabi and I must admit, no two cultures could be more alike in their traditionalism and general undercurrent of xenophobia. That being said, I would vote for a martian if they took the interests and the plight of the masses to heart, and did something other than line their pockets and the pockets of their friends. In that way, I get you, hillside. It's the absolute injustice of it all that makes you rage. My Italian side isn't even offended by your Malcolm X-ian argument.
My vote is on Arundhati Roy for leader of the world. :)

Strangely enough, I'm half-Italian and half-punjabi and I must admit, no two cultures could be more alike in their traditionalism and general undercurrent of xenophobia.

do you think it is a coincidence that these are the two cultures you have seen up close? ;-)

Gandhi making it to this list is that she did nothing to deserve it and it was handed to her by default

Well, she ran the 2004 campaign that brought Congress back to power; the one in which the BJP claimed India was "Shining".

If she were assasinated, Congress would call a snap election and win 350 seats. The BJP would be reduced once again to its Jana Sangh-like historical totals.

Hillside - you are conveniently mixing two issues which need separate consideration.

- Should a person not of Indian origin be allowed to be the head of state in India?
Absolutely, if the person deserves to be one, has a knowledge as good as any local and his loyalty to the country cannot be doubted more than the average Indian.

- Did Sonia Gandhi have what it takes to be the PM?
Probably not, she just had the Gandhi family name and that was her only claim to fame.

MoorNam,

To be fair to her.

It is true that she started as a reluctant Indian. Her credentials as a politician and a leader were seriously doubted, rightfully so.

However,

In last few years, she has become quite a power-broker even at the most basic level. She pulls a lot of crowds in rallies all over the nation, helped Congress stage a comeback from cold storage, is a huge vote getter, a national symbol for her party in a country where regionalism still is very alive, and runs a national party in 2nd most populous nation that is a democracy. Right now, she does all the politics for her party, and she has started showing signs of deftness (I personally was leery of her but she pulled Congress out of doldrums).

Sure, she is not the part of the Government.

That list has a fair amount of female politicians, so she is not the only one.

One of the most shameful things that happened in Indian politics was the amount of vituperation against Sonia's Italian past.While I myself was not comnfortable with the idea that the Congress could find no alternative to Sonia and dynastic rule , the kind of attacks she faced because of her origins (from the BJP and others in the Opporition party) were horrible

As far as I know: the main consternation was that she didn't apply for indian citizenship even after living about a decade in India, but only decided to do so when Rajiv decided to contest the elections.

Razib, lol!
Excellent point, well made. I concede.

I do concur with Kush, that was then when there was opposition to her becoming PM. In the last few years she has shown a reasonable amount of skills, and compared to a lot of dingbats in the Indian political scene, she is not so bad and I wont have as many issues about her becoming PM now.

Plus, people keep bringing up her lack of affection for India in her early years but to think of it, she had never lived there. You cannot become accustomed overnight and she has indeed stuck around for a greater part of her life. Blaming her for everything that is wrong with the congress is a little unfair though as it's leader she can change things. Don't vote for the congress but not because Sonia is of Italian birth.

by 'She' I meant 'Sonia Gandhi'.

Kush,

Agreed that she's a crowd puller and is useful during elections and power brokering. I owe that more to the slavish mentality of the current day grassroots congress worker.

But that's not enough. To become a PM, you have to make decisions on controversial issues and get a consensus. She's not demonstrated that quality even once. In the current nuclear deal brouhaha, she could not convince the leftists to support Congress.

M. Nam

Pepsico's Nooyi ranked above Sonia Gandhi? Since when selling sugared water was of greater import in the grand scheme of things than making decisions that might affect, for better or for worse, the future of 1.3 billion people? Define power.

I have the typical businessman's admiration for Nooyi and suspicion of politicians. But I still say that these "most powerful" type rankings are usually silly. Another problem I have with the selection process is the glaring absence of Aishwarya Rai from the list. She is far prettier than Katie Couric (#63), and even using Forbes's preferred business metrics, a much bigger economic franchise than Couric. Define power.

To all those billions of women who didn't make the list, I say that the hand that rocks the cradle..., something, something.

Pepsico's Nooyi ranked above Sonia Gandhi? Since when selling sugared water was of greater import in the grand scheme of things than making decisions that might affect, for better or for worse, the future of 1.3 billion people? Define power.

I have the typical businessman's admiration for Nooyi and suspicion of politicians. But I still say that these "most powerful" type rankings are usually silly. Another problem I have with the selection process is the glaring absence of Aishwarya Rai from the list. She is far prettier than Katie Couric (#63), and even using Forbes's preferred business metrics, a much bigger economic franchise than Couric. Define power.

To all those billions of women who didn't make the list, I say that the hand that rocks the cradle..., something, something.

although india is over a billion people, having power in india just doesnt translate in peoples minds. it doesnt matter how many poeples lives you effect. its how many "rich" peoples lives you effect.

MoorNam,

I do not think she wants to be PM, either for many reasons, one of them future prospects of Rahul Gandhi.

Thousands or more people showing up on rallies are aam janta (common people), not slavish congress foot soldiers. They do find some connection with her.

Personally, both in Indian and US politics, I have a centrist, independent stance. I will support Congress if it makes sense, and BJP, if it makes sense for that particular issue.

I also think PM Singh is asserting his own independence too - recent example is Indo-US deal, Manmohan Singh has taken open tough stance irrespective of political fallout.

Sorry, hit post before I was done and then had to go do some work for awhile, the kind that can pay a bill or two. But what I was curious about was how does Forbes define power for the purpose of the list? I too was surprised to see Indra Nooyi ranked higher than Sonia Gandhi.

I too was surprised to see Indra Nooyi ranked higher than Sonia Gandhi.

power over filthy poor brown people dont count. power over rich white people does count. not sure if its any more complex than that.

power over filthy poor brown people dont count. power over rich white people does count. not sure if its any more complex than that.

Puli, I don't entirely agree with this statement. Given that this is Forbes, they probably rank a person with more influence over a few rich people higher than one with influence over many poorer people, but I don't think race has anything to do with this list. It's just Forbes - Playboy for capitalists. Both Indra Nooyi and Sonia Gandhi would probably be trounced at this listing contest by (say) Lakshmi Mittal, who in turn would be crushed by Buffet and Gates.

I too was surprised to see Indra Nooyi ranked higher than Sonia Gandhi.

power over filthy poor brown people dont count. power over rich white people does count. not sure if its any more complex than that.

It might be the lack of understanding of parliamentary systems. They may equate being the head of the Congress party in India with being the head of the Democratic or Republican party here in the US. One forms governments (and typically takes the PM spot), the other officiates primaries and fund raising.

Hillside, your comments are out of line and offensive. I can't believe I have to type this, but calling for anyone's assassination on SM will not be tolerated. Stop. Be civil and reasonable or don't comment.

As for everyone who went there:

This post is not about your personal opinion on Sonia Gandhi's legitimacy or whether her in-laws suck. This post is about a list from Forbes. Getting back on topic would be recommendable at this point, for several reasons, righting the "ugly turn" this thread has taken especially.

SM Intern: [redacted] Thanks for bringing this back on track

Pepsico's Nooyi ranked above Sonia Gandhi? Since when selling sugared water was of greater import in the grand scheme of things than making decisions that might affect, for better or for worse, the future of 1.3 billion people?

Given that obesity is on the rise in India (and in the US), and with junk foods like PepsiCo's playing some role, I'd say she has power. I think the health-care and pharmaceutical industries will agree too.

why wouldnt the president of india be considered one of the powerful people? why is she a woman behind the woman?

Forbes writes, "Our second ranking of the world's most powerful women illustrates how fleeting power is." Maybe it should instead read, "...illustrates how arbitrary our rankings are." Yeah, they've posted the outline to some vague and confusing formula concocted to quantify each list members' power (described as "a composite of visibility measured by press citations and economic impact"), but the very idea of quantifying power in an abstract sense is f$%^in stupid. Methinks it likely that some white, Ivy league-educated male editors concocted this list in an effort to sell more Nair ads. But what do I know...

Isn't PepsiCo the second or third largest stock traded on the NYSE? I have no idea -- I'm not into the stock market at all, but I vaguely remember watching a presentation on the primacy of Coke, and it was like 8x bigger than PepsiCo. Not saying that that makes one person more powerful than another, per se, but Forbes is kind of business/market-oriented, so it seems their "power" measure privileges those types of things over others...

Sugar water? Give Ms Nooyi some credit. PepsiCo is one of the biggest food & beverages company. Revenues of more than $35 billion and over 168,000 employees (link). Not that she should rank above SG.

I do not think she wants to be PM, either for many reasons, one of them future prospects of Rahul Gandhi.

Kush, you nailed it...everything that Sonia does...EVERYTHING...is done with the ultimate goal of Rahul becoming prime minister one day...and knowing the voters of India, I'm sure it will happen. But what that means is, she will play any political game to make it a reality...and there can't be much concern for the people of India in that.

Isn't PepsiCo the second or third largest stock traded on the NYSE?

nfw....

On Pepsico's Nooyi - she took over as 'President and CEO' on October 1, 2006, and then somewhat suddenly, on May 2, 2007, she became 'Chairman and CEO'. Link

Setting aside the issue of whether 'Chairman' is the right word for her - in many corporate governance structures, the 'Chairman' is usually a figurehead, and the real power resides with a President or COO. On the other hand, she is also CEO, so maybe she does carry some real heft in the Boardroom. But up until fairly recently, Pepsico put her in their 'Diversity Timeline' - Link.

why wouldnt the president of india be considered one of the powerful people? why is she a woman behind the woman?

* Broad brush strokes. Prez has some powers. Could bore you w/ technicalities if interested.

#45 should've been companies.

I found this article interesting about pepsi-politics in India:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2007/gb20070531_868198.htm

It suggests that Nooyi's ascension to such a high position may have thawed the chill between pepsi and the most influential Indian anti-pepsi activist, a woman named Sunita Narain.

"power over filthy poor brown people dont count. power over rich white people does count. not sure if its any more complex than that." Puliogre--

How about powre (oops, I mean power -- must have been thinking of spelling Puliogre) influence over rich brown people and filty, poor white people? Really. The stereotypes that are perpetuated here of all places.

Let's hope Sonia Gandhi doesn't pull a George Fernandes on Pepsi after reading these rankings.

How about powre (oops, I mean power -- must have been thinking of spelling Puliogre) influence over rich brown people and filty, poor white people? Really. The stereotypes that are perpetuated here of all places.

oh. i dont buy the steriotypes, but i think thats how power is defined. brown peeps are poor and dont count.

The problem with Sonia Gandhi is this (other than the usual lack of qualifications to lead a country):
1) She would not even be in the running for freaking town coucilperson if she stayed back in Italy.
2) She never embraced India willingly. She is there because her prospects are the strongest in India and her husband's legacy probaby has some emotional hold in making her want to stay in India.
She is a foreigner, even if no longer technically. Arnold is more American than she is Indian. I don't think she even remotely thought she was Indian even in her 30s. She probably did not aquire any Indianness until she was well into her 40s. It's not like she was Indian in spirit until she moved to India.

Here is Vidya Chhabria's background, according to Forbes magazine:
Chhabria became chairman of the $2 billion conglomerate, the Jumbo Group, when her husband, takeover titan Manu Chhabria, died in 2002. Headquartered in Dubai, the company oversees 28 companies operating in as many as 50 countries, with interests in durables, chemicals, machinery, liquor products and agriculture. The company is best known for its ownership of Jumbo Electronics, one of the world's largest distributors of consumer electronics, information technology, telecom products and home appliances. Two years after divesting most of its businesses in India, the Jumbo Group is considering re-entering India this year.—Helen Coster

Chhabria became chairman of the $2 billion conglomerate, the Jumbo Group, when her husband, takeover titan Manu Chhabria, died in 2002. Headquartered in Dubai, the company oversees 28 companies operating in as many as 50 countries, with interests in durables, chemicals, machinery, liquor products and agriculture. The company is best known for its ownership of Jumbo Electronics, one of the world's largest distributors of consumer electronics, information technology, telecom products and home appliances. Two years after divesting most of its businesses in India, the Jumbo Group is considering re-entering India this year.—Helen Coster

i NEED a sugarmomma. is marrying into wealth and power an option for dudes?

Pravin@54, I do give Sonia credit from stopping congress becoming totally non-existant. I do not support either bjp or congress but I feel there should a healthy 2 or more party competition, and no monopoly. She was wise to not opt for the PM position, and does well to control the congress, although I think she should give more leeway to the prime minister and leash arjun-OBCquota-singh.

Pravin@54, I do give Sonia credit from stopping congress becoming totally non-existant

I wish the Congress Party would become non-existant.

The list seems a little arbitrary, Nancy Pelosi speaker of the house and two heartbeats from the presidency trails Melinda Gates at #26?

i NEED a sugarmomma. is marrying into wealth and power an option for dudes?

As far as Japan kicking Russia's butt in the Russo-Japanese war, 1904-07, Japan was emboldened by the Anglo-Japanese alliance. Still, Russia's was an awful big butt to have kicked, and the victory did assure that Japan entered the 20th century as a power to be reckoned with, and a determination to grow a taller population. (the average Japanese male was less than 5 ft tall and this bothered them a lot). Nevertheless, this made their victory all the more impressive.

They would, however, never have gone in without a backup plan. This alliance also brought them the Rothschilds from the London bureau, a mutual-admiration-society relationship that lasts to this day, introducing to the world scene the geat Takahaishi. [Takahashi Korekiyo, the Rothschilds and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1907. Richard Smethurst recalls the genesis of the relationship between the Rothschild banks and one of the gret figure in Japan's history, Takahashi Korekiyo.]
http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/annualreview

I'm not sure how this comment relates to "powerful women in the early 21st century" but I believe Takahashi's daughter was important to the scenario but haven't researched that enough to comment.

Not at all, Puli. You missed the big catch, tho, Mittal's daughter. :-(

Nah, Mittal's daughter no sugamomma. She will bring a lot of wealth fer sure but then one would have to deal with Mittal and co. I'd rather get a sugamomma too busy running her business to have no time for me, she gives me the money, I fool with the hotties who love me for my(her) money and when big momma needs a date for a dinner or some crap, I do 'my job'. Mr Bond would be proud of me!!

i NEED a sugarmomma. is marrying into wealth and power an option for dudes?

First off : Vidya Chhabria did not necessarily marry into money.Like Dhirubhai Ambani,Manu Chhabria started small in Mumbai selling radio parts .He then moved to Dubai and made it big.I'm gonna hazarda guess and say he wasn't all that big when he got married!

However:Yes, Dudes can marry into wealth and power. One word:K-Fed :-)

SM Intern et al: I want to apologize if my earlier comments somehow sparked off that whole nasty bit in the middle. Was not intentional

Indra's photograph seems to indicate that she has recovered from that finger problem she had a few years ago.

One word:K-Fed :-)

k-fed gets a $hitload of style points. he got wealth, AND looks.

Hillside.

America is a land of immigrants, India isn't.

If immigration to America stops today, and the current population mix continues forward, will immigrants in a few decades or centuries be unwelcome? Will they be less American?

India, and the population worldwide that identifies as "Desi", are arguably more heterogenous than America is or ever will be. We could get into a dissertation on the waves of invaders in the past and the more recent waves of migration, but the bottom line is that India, like America, has thrived on incorporation and assimilation of diverse people. Whether you see it or not, I believe using the immigration-to-America angle is a very relevant analogy to why Sonia is and should be accepted as Indian.

As far as the law goes, the Indian constitution does NOT require a person born to be born in India to serve public office there. If there is a problem with the law, then the law needs to be changed

in writing the indian constitution, ambedkar (and the drafting commitee) was inspired by many constitutions, esp. the US and british formats. when the US constitution clearly requires a president to be a native-born citizen (and this is the only political position for which an american leader may not be a naturalized citizen) i do not see why india neglected to write this in for the PM. granted, at that time, they prob. never foresaw a non-indian even wanting to run the country, but given the recent split from the empire and pakistan/bdesh, it actually would have made much sense to reiterate this point, just for safety's sake. alternately, this could have been added at any point during sonia's rise in the INC. there was no point in crying over spilt milk - the politicians have only themselves to blame for sitting on the fence for so long. furthermore, the reason why they cast aspersions on her character, intentions towards india, patriotism, race etc (i won't argue the validity or invalidity of such arguments) was because they knew the law was not on their side.

as for the the list, it's good to see women in general in such prominent positions. and my mom is all for her hometown-girl indra nooyi.

have a happy labour day!

*sigh* I don't wanna get into an is-she-or-isn't-she argument, so I won't state my unpopular opinion on that (though I'm sure y'all can figure it out by that)... but I concur with what someone said above, NO WAY in hell would Sonia Gandhi have as much power as she does if she happened to be black. C'mon, Indians are obsessed with 'the other,' having the history of invasion/migrations/assimilation that they do. The white 'other' to be more specific. I don't believe that immigration and assimilation carry quite the same meanings in our post-WW2 postmodern world though.

Given that obesity is on the rise in India (and in the US), and with junk foods like PepsiCo's playing some role, I'd say she has power. I think the health-care and pharmaceutical industries will agree too.

Ah, so she's the one responsible for worsening the diabetes epidemic?

but given the recent split from the empire and pakistan/bdesh

ak,

They couldn't possibly insist that the PM had to be born in what is ( post 1947 ) India.Else people like L K Advani ( born in what is now Pakistan) would be forever barred :-) .If they chose to , the writers of the constitution could have specified exactly which areas /states would be counted and that presumably would have been too cumbersome .. Pervez Musharraf for example, was born in Delhi :-)

there was no point in crying over spilt milk

delurker on August 31, 2007 12:32 PM · Direct link

Mrs. Gandhi's citizenship is Indian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will always hate her for taking up the citizenship much much later than you would you expect her to. Its not like the Indian government INS is like the US INS

runa, i was thinking about that, but if the definition of citizen excluded modern-day pakistan, bdesh citizens etc (e.g. as they exclude current pakistani citizens from PIO cards) and simultaneously required that those who fall under the term 'citizen' must also have been born in what was formerly india, it might have worked - only those who moved to india later would be considered a citizen, and expanding their birth place to allow for bdesh- and pakistan-borns would allow people like advani to be PM, but not somebody like musharraf. basically, the solution should be to combine the geographic and political definitions of 'indian' in some way. perhaps it was an inability to get around this situation in 1952 that led to this omission; but, as i said, there was nothing to prevent them from adding it in later.

They couldn't possibly insist that the PM had to be born in what is ( post 1947 ) India.Else people like L K Advani ( born in what is now Pakistan) would be forever barred :-) .If they chose to , the writers of the constitution could have specified exactly which areas /states would be counted and that presumably would have been too cumbersome .. Pervez Musharraf for example, was born in Delhi :-)

Also, some of the leaders were not even born in undivided India.

Even in undivided India, Manmohan Singh is from Lahore. Zia-ul-Haq was Delhi bred.

Many Indian leaders (Gandhi included) were born in princely states in Indian subcontinent - and some of those princely states although puppets of British India were technically separate in all sense of the word. Moreover, there was incredible hodge podge at that time, states would be independent for a while, and then incorporated into British India at some point.

Ambedkar and his team were very smart cookies, and they thought through the whole thing very carefully.

Its not like the Indian government INS is like the US INS

Pappu( like that handle!) ,

I lowe my Yindia and all that ... but unfortunately, I have to point out that INS maybe a little better :-(

Per wiki:

Citizenship of India by naturalisation can be acquired by a foreigner who has resided in India for twelve years. The applicant must have lived a total of 11 years in India in a period of 14 years, and must have spent in India the past 12 months preceding the application.

I think in the US you can apply for citizenship in 5 years after you get permamnent residency .Assuming you get your green card 5 years after you land here, that still makes it only 10 years compared iwth 12 :-)

Also ,per Wiki, I found out something that I had not known .Can anyone verify this:

"Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or if one parent is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth."

At least the USA has not stripped children of illegal immigrants of citizenship!

ak: I get what you are saying now

"Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or if one parent is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth."

Yes, this rule was changed due to illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. That is a very hot button issue in India.

This said, you can become an Indian in 15 minutes - get a fake ration card, and through that you can get everything else.

Ah, so she's the one responsible for worsening the diabetes epidemic?

What do you think?

"Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or if one parent is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth."

the USA could learn a thing or two from india ;-)

Ah, so she's the one responsible for worsening the diabetes epidemic?

What do you think?

i blame it on the complan boy (and girl) - have you guys seen how much fat, sugar, and calories are in one serving? horlicks is the same, though it's lovely to have every once in a while....

This said, you can become an Indian in 15 minutes - get a fake ration card, and through that you can get everything else

Kush,
Sigh! Can't argue with that.
Thanks for verifying the info. I can't believe that I missed that- I think its very unfair to not give citizenship to any kids born in India.

What if neither parent is Indian but the kid is born in India? ( for example: a American couple moves to India and has a child there)Looks like the law does not extend Indian citizenship to the child

RE: diabetes

Don't forget how much sugar they put in tea over there! And drink it every afternoon, too.

I remember I spent one summer with my grandmother's sister in Tenali. Her friend would come over every afternoon to sit on the verandah and drink tea and eat biscuits. It was DELICIOUS. And it was so good to do in that heat.

That grandmother's sister now has diabetes. :(

At least the USA has not stripped children of illegal immigrants of citizenship!

Runa, different countries, different situations, different "what works." Not all countries have to model their laws on US immigration laws.

What if neither parent is Indian but the kid is born in India? ( for example: a American couple moves to India and has a child there)Looks like the law does not extend Indian citizenship to the child

First, Indian citizenship is not that prized. It might become in 10-20 years from now.

I think Indian citizenship laws have undergone multiple changes - they started pretty lax - but since Indian border with Nepal** and Bangladesh are porous, they had to tighten them. Also, they have been some technicalities with the Tibetans*!

** Nepal, technically, they can hold dual passports under some circumstances, like if they (their parents) were/ are in British or present-day Indian army. I have met Nepalis with dual passports. You can cross Nepal-India border though rickshaw or cycle.

*! Tibetans born in India can become Indian citizens but Dalai Lama and Tibetan council discourages it because it dilutes their cause for the homeland. Some do.

nala, I'm aware of the sweet tooth that Indians have, plus the low priority of regular physical activity. There's a higher genetic disposition to diabetes among Indians (razib?). Some of my relatives have diabetes. That's why I highlighted "some" in my original post. I really see no point to add junk food to the already sweet Indian diet, given that it doesn't improve the situation, and in fact, may help worsen it.

Correction: Tibetans born in India become Indian citizens but Dalai Lama and Tibetan council discourages it because it dilutes their cause for the homeland. Some do opt for citizenships, others opt for refugee status.

First,Indian citizenship is not that prized. It might become in 10-20 years from now.

Ouch :-(

Not all countries have to model their laws on US immigration laws.

Agreed,Amit,I am not saying that.My response was in context to the statement that Indian Immigration is "better" than the INS.

I guess my conflict arises from my personal beliefs and experience: I believe that children of illegal immigrants are innocent victims and should not be penalized for their parents' mistakes. Seeing many of my acquaintances who are desis moving here from India, getting a reltively smooth path to citizenship and having US citizenship conferred upon their children born here just makes me feel its a better system here , more humane? Again this is just a personal opinion so we can agree to disagree.

No more thread jack from me

for example: a American couple moves to India and has a child there)Looks like the law does not extend Indian citizenship to the child

so i guess, technially the child has no claim of citizenship to any country when he/she is born - and the only way to get it in this case is if his parents file for it in the states? or he/she gets nothing at all???

amit - there was a recent article in nyt about a study published in the ny area - desi (men, mostly, i think) had an astonishingly high rate of diabetes. but india doesn't need pepsi to bring in the junk food - murukku, halwa, chiwda, chakri etc - we seem to do fine on our own...

murukku, halwa, chiwda, chakri etc - we

Yum,yum,yum,yum
- carb starved Runa weeps silently

There's a higher genetic disposition to diabetes among Indians (razib?).

yes, controlling for diet this seems true. "western" diet is bad for brown people. we seem to suffer more ailments when obese compared to northern europeans (so be cautious about using BMI measures designed for whites as the standard for health).

also, by the same measure, northern europeans likely don't gain as much health from the "mediterranean diet" as people from the mediterranean region.

Runa, I agree with you in principle, but the humane treatment to children of illegal immigrants (in granting them citizenship) has to be balanced with what's best for the society/country overall, and different countries may have different needs. I'll have to look up the US citizenship requirements/laws (whether they are flexible or sacrosanct-enshrined in the constitution) and I wouldn't be surprised if a decade from now, the US immigration laws for citizenship look different from what they are today. I know of a case where a Green Card was canceled because the Indian dude continued to live in India and visited US just to satisfy the requirements to maintain that status. He was told in no uncertain terms that his intention was to stay in India and that's not what the Green Card is for.

ak, yes, we have plenty of "junk" food already, though such foods were a treat growing up and not a daily thing. I'm all for eating healthy food and being moderate.

Also, the child of the American couple will be a US citizen (because of parents) even if s/he is born in India (I think).

Runa,

You might want to read this - Don’t let their children be ‘refugees’ too

Thanks, razib.

Runa, also found this, the "4. Congressional Actions" section is quite interesting.

#67
in writing the indian constitution, ambedkar (and the drafting commitee) was inspired by many constitutions, esp. the US and british formats. when the US constitution clearly requires a president to be a native-born citizen (and this is the only political position for which an american leader may not be a naturalized citizen) i do not see why india neglected to write this in for the PM. granted, at that time, they prob. never foresaw a non-indian even wanting to run the country, but given the recent split from the empire and pakistan/bdesh, it actually would have made much sense to reiterate this point, just for safety's sake. alternately, this could have been added at any point during sonia's rise in the INC. there was no point in crying over spilt milk - the politicians have only themselves to blame for sitting on the fence for so long. furthermore, the reason why they cast aspersions on her character, intentions towards india, patriotism, race etc (i won't argue the validity or invalidity of such arguments) was because they knew the law was not on their side.

There was a probable reason why the born citizen was not written into the constitution. On that count many postindependent Indian leaders would be disqualified to run for high public office. To wit, Mr. Gujral could not have held the post of Prime Minister of India on that count as he was born in the present day Pakistan.

I think Vidya is Manu Chhabria's widow. Manu used to own Shaw Wallace in addition to Jumbo electronics which was one of the biggest liqour companies in India. He went on from trading radio parts in Lamington Road in Bombay to establishing a $1.5 billion empire.

Shaw Wallace = booze, Jumbo Electronics = not booze.

ak

As far as the law goes, the Indian constitution does NOT require a person born to be born in India to serve public office there. If there is a problem with the law, then the law needs to be changed

in writing the indian constitution, ambedkar (and the drafting commitee) was inspired by many constitutions, esp. the US and british formats. when the US constitution clearly requires a president to be a native-born citizen (and this is the only political position for which an american leader may not be a naturalized citizen) i do not see why india neglected to write this in for the PM. granted, at that time, they prob. never foresaw a non-indian even wanting to run the country, but given the recent split from the empire and pakistan/bdesh, it actually would have made much sense to reiterate this point, just for safety's sake. alternately, this could have been added at any point during sonia's rise in the INC. there was no point in crying over spilt milk - the politicians have only themselves to blame for sitting on the fence for so long. furthermore, the reason why they cast aspersions on her character, intentions towards india, patriotism, race etc (i won't argue the validity or invalidity of such arguments) was because they knew the law was not on their side.

Well now, it's still counterintuitive that someone born elsewhere should lead India. America is pretty unusual about accepting naturalized citizens in positions of authority-- I mean, would you expect a nice Spanish lady to become PM of Japan, just because she married into a powerful Japanese family? Or a Nigerian lady running the Philippines? I think the Indian Constitution is ripe for at least a couple or three amendments. One, Indian-born PM and President. Two, Indian Parliament has final approval about international agreements signed by Govt. 3) President chosen by electoral process out of candidates proposed by all parties.

Sonia can't help it, she has Western values under her pleated sari.

in writing the indian constitution, ambedkar (and the drafting commitee) was inspired by many constitutions, esp. the US and british formats. when the US constitution clearly requires a president to be a native-born citizen (and this is the only political position for which an american leader may not be a naturalized citizen) i do not see why india neglected to write this in for the PM. granted, at that time, they prob. never foresaw a non-indian even wanting to run the country, but given the recent split from the empire and pakistan/bdesh, it actually would have made much sense to reiterate this point, just for safety's sake. alternately, this could have been added at any point during sonia's rise in the INC. there was no point in crying over spilt milk - the politicians have only themselves to blame for sitting on the fence for so long. furthermore, the reason why they cast aspersions on her character, intentions towards india, patriotism, race etc (i won't argue the validity or invalidity of such arguments) was because they knew the law was not on their side.

This is ak's

hoipolloi @ 92 - did you read my #71, in response to runa's same point at 69?

amrita - i agree with you; i don't think anything i have said has contradicted your PoV? but i still stand by the point that given that this was an explicit part of the US constitution, why not have provided it in the indian version for safety's sake - either in 1952, or afterwards? there was plenty of time between sonia gandhi's entrance into politics to her assuming the lead in the INC. not to mention that she was somewhat coaxed by indian leaders themselves to become active in her own right, after RG's death...

Citizenship of India by naturalisation can be acquired by a foreigner who has resided in India for twelve years. The applicant must have lived a total of 11 years in India in a period of 14 years, and must have spent in India the past 12 months preceding the application.

I think in the US you can apply for citizenship in 5 years after you get permamnent residency .Assuming you get your green card 5 years after you land here, that still makes it only 10 years compared iwth 12 :-)
.............................................................................................................................................

Oh common now Runa... that never happens.....Been here 7 years and m still in the LCA stage of the Green Card... Pappu kab pass hoga ? :-(

First, Indian constitution was passed in 1950, not 1952.

I think what I read there were debates in 1949 about the citizenship in Indian Constituent Assembly. They decided that there is no difference in citizenship (hence the eligibility to the highest office), whether it is acquired by birth or naturalization or any other means. This issue came to Indian Supreme Court as recent as 2004.

Some of it might have to do with politics of the period - states were being acquired to the Indian Union at that time (1949), Kashmir, Hyderabad. Later Goa, Pondicherry, and Sikkim.

Correction: Indian constitution was passed in 1949, and enacted in 1950.

They decided that there is no difference in citizenship (hence the eligibility to the highest office), whether it is acquired by birth or naturalization or any other means.

That was very sweet of them, Kush, but I think it mainly applied to Indian-born and Pakistan-born, as above. At the time, people from further afield didn't much come to live in Desh except the Staying On types, and Lord knows they weren't running for office, or, I should say, standing for election. Still, equality as a citizen is separate from eligibility for office-- I mean, a twenty-two year old is not as fit to serve as Minister for Agriculture as, say, a forty year old, them's the breaks, although they may be equally well suited to be empowered to vote. You can't get it absolutely right the first time for all time. That's why there are amendments.

amrita - i agree with you; i don't think anything i have said has contradicted your PoV?

We are utterly in harmony, ak, I just wanted to make the point that I wasn't claiming authorship of your excellent words.

and rajiv gandhi wasn't so socialist. he began the economic liberalization that occurred full force in 91 with changes that helped create a small technocratic class before then.

Pro Sonia guys,

Your beloved USA will never allow a desi immigrant to be the president. that's the law. sto stop comparing the immigrant experience in US. Remember that after all these centuries, kallus are still 'black americans',a nd not 'americans'. So, do not for a moment think that you are on so beloved in the USA.

Sonia can rule India when an Indian immigrant is allowed to head a political party in her Italy and while italians accept him as the leader and wash his feet.

Goras is any goraland never like any brown skin. they might be okay with a brownie female, if she's good looking, but as for a brownie male with an attitude and ambition, good luck. Esp the ambition part.

boohoo. we can't all be prezident. we're brown. we can't be George Washington or Ronald Reagan or Ronald McDonald. Meanwhile, Sonia dalla Italia gets to be elected president of India? It's a fluke. Will never happen again. Italians are not flocking to live in India and powerful Indians are not bringing home farangi spouses in any numbers. You have no fear of an Italian coup and the Brits sure as hell aren't coming back. Now. How about Obama? Does he make you feel better. He's got a shot at it. The American president is an iconic representation of power--they all find that out when they get the Oval Office; often a confusing and humiliating circumstance, because we have to thank the likes of Henry Kissinger for saving us from Nixon's wiggly old finger on the little red button. True power resides behind the curtain, people. The really big power-brokers know that. Only childish roustabouts really think the man on the throne controls the works. That shocked, numb, suddenly aged look that Presidents get is proof of their discovery. One person out of 200 million somehow gets elected to what amounts to a figure head position and we don't have "power?" Get over it. Real power is not posited in that position anyway--anybody think Bush's brain is in his own head? No, that disgusting quantity is snuggled in the chubby skull of the recently departed Rove missile.

Another odd fact that puts the highest American office in perspective. Many of the American presidents, with the obvious exception of JFK, were related to each other and to the old, early WASP and scotch-irish families. I have even read that Colin Powell is related to a number of these families, though i can't verify that claim.
It's amazing, but Bush and Clinton are both distantly related to the Windsors--8th cousins or so. Now you may say that many people are related when you go back a some generations, but the American president cousin-club is nevertheless surprising and remarkable. This presidential phenomenon has persisted down to this day, and may be some sort of plot by these nefarious bluebloods, to keep the masses out of power--even white massess, much less brown and other colors. But I doubt it was planned. It's just who you know and who your relatives are. And how smart you are, and how smart you seem. Indians understand those facts very, very well.

http://www.who2.com/relatedpresidents.html

boohoo. we can't all be prezident. we're brown. we can't be George Washington or Ronald Reagan or Ronald McDonald

i cant stop laughing everytime i read this...

for example: a American couple moves to India and has a child there)Looks like the law does not extend Indian citizenship to the child

Why would they not want the child to have US Citizenship? Plus India does not allow dual citizenship.

Tibetans born in India become Indian citizens but Dalai Lama and Tibetan council discourages it because it dilutes their cause for the homeland. Some do opt for citizenships, others opt for refugee status.

Similar logic is used by the Arab leadership as well when it comes to Palestinians.

How come oprah isn't #1?
she's O magazine is my bible

Sanjaya for president of Amerinditaly in '08!

it doesn't matter whether Mrs. Gandhi's citizenship is "indian" or not. She is still not Desi. Most of us here probably have US citizenship....but we are Desi. The term has always been used as a reference to ethnicity, not nationality. This is evident in how it is used for all South Asian nationalities.

Very cool! I had the privilege of having a one-on-one breakfast meeting with Indra Nooyi several years ago in Dallas, TX to discuss business. She is truly an impressive person who is not afraid to make the tough decisions. She was also extremely helpful!

How can Indra Nooyi and Sonia Gandhi both be Indian? We can claim only one of them either ways. Indra Nooyi if it is by birth and Sonia gandhi if it is adoption.

What about Benazir Bhutto???

Kush/Amit,
Thanks for the interesting links.

Its a sobering thought that US citizenship also may not be always granted to anyone born here

Pappu,
Sorry :-( did not mean to "jale pe namak chidakna" .I did not realize that it takes so long for LCA clearance now
Hope it speeds up for you

I'm surprised that this has become a discussion about Sonia Gandhi, and not bashing the depredations of the Pepsi Corporation.

Come on, people, it's a multinational...

chachaji @ 48,

nooyi is all that. she carries tremendous clout in the boardroom and is respected widely in the company. the board voted for her to become CEO unanimously. She engineered the Quaker and Gatiorade acquisitions and dumped the pizza hut-KFC-Tacobell chain of restaurants. sharpest person i have ever met.

as for sonia, her reluctance to accept indianess initially and being handed everything on a platter is all true. but she has also come in to her own recently. I wonder what people prefer. An indian born man of the people that understands what ails society but continues to rape and plunder (Laloo) or a foreign born immigrant that has maybe started feeling for the people if only so that her son is perceived positively and has a chance at the throne. Are we concerned with means and motivations or end results?

Gimme the martian prime minister that will make roads than the homie who'll just get votes.

@ 67 ---As far as the law goes, the Indian constitution does NOT require a person born to be born in India to serve public office there. If there is a problem with the law, then the law needs to be changed

It was not a oversight on Ambedkar's and the fathers of the indian constitution. It was left out deliberately so that people of indian origin, who fled India during their fight against British slavery to other countries ro theones that were forcibly sent to the caribbean and fiji islands, and had progeny there could feel welcome to come back to their motherland and be indian if they wanted to and have a chance at ruling the country.

The more i read about ambedkar, i wish i had lived in his time. one of the truly great people. I would give anything to have met him.

Delirium, thanks for the enlightenment on Nooyi.

On the subject of why India chose not to require 'native born citizenship' for Prime Ministerial office - two points.

One, on the US comparison: the question really is why the US chose to have such a requirement. At the time of the US War of Independence, a substantial plurality of settlers were 'Loyalists', who continued to bear allegiance to the British Crown. The proportion of such Loyalists was very high among the more recent immigrants, and the 'Founding Fathers' wanted to rule out the possibility that someone such could become President. So they put in the 'fourteen year residence rule' for the immediate time, and the requirement to be a native born citizen for the future. As it was, the British never gave up their claim to the Thirteen colonies for quite a while, and Canada functioned as both a refuge for escaping Loyalists from the Northern states, as well as being a seat of British power in North America well into the nineteenth century. And a state of more or less permanent war existed between the nascent US and Great Britain till about 1814 or so. Anyway, maybe all that is well known here (among ABDs anyway! :).

But the other issue is also that India, when formed in 1947-50, was a civilizational entity that was straitjacketing itself as a unitary nation state. I think there may have been an expectation that the nation state would someday come to be as large as the said entity, and in particular, that Pakistan would 'come back' into the Union at some point. Such eventualities had been considered extensively during discussion of the Cabinet Mission plan(s) 1942-46. While Muslim League representatives had declined to participate in the proto-Constituent Assembly in 1946, Jinnah had been making noises about holding a separate Pakistan Constituent Assembly in Delhi at least till mid-1947. Certainly there was no expectation that a permanent antagonism would arise between the two states. So there was no need to rule out the idea that people born in the area now in the other jurisdiction could hold high public office in the first. And as it happened, many people, both in India and in Pakistan immigrated to the other country after anywhere upto a decade of living in the first, and subsequently held high public office. And I don't think anyone foresaw even remotely an eventuality such as that an Italian-born woman someday get close to becoming PM.

Final thought: while both the US and the Indian constitutions represent elite interests, the US elite of that time was profoundly nativist, while the Indian elite had elements that were more cosmopolitan, but also many who were inspite of that, quite socially conservative. The subsequent written documents, in my (non-lawyerly) opinion, clearly reflect these inherent biases.

And as it happened, many people, both in India and in Pakistan immigrated to the other country after anywhere upto a decade of living in the first, and subsequently held high public office.

Chachaji, excellent comments, but can you point me to any Pakistan-born Indian who remained in Pakistan for up to 10 years after Partition (as a conservative guess I'd say over 99% of non-Muslims had left West Pakistan by 1948 at the latest) and then later held public office? I know that there are Indian-born Muslims who had the luxury of living in India post-1947 but did eventually move to Pakistan more than a decade after Partition, and then ran for public office. The inherent unfairness and double-standards infuriate me.

With all due respect, I don't see why we always try to equate the two countries or the experiences of the minorities within; is it just to be nice?

Amitabh, thanks for the good words. Sorry, I missed reading your response to my comment before just now.

You are right that the two-way flows between what is now Pakistan and what is now India do not have the same distribution. But while I agree that virtually all Hindus and Sikhs who were going to migrate from West Punjab had probably done so by 1948, the Hindus from Sind, especially Karachi, did continue to migrate later, and in fact continue to do so even today. People with business interests for example, living in relatively cosmopolitan Karachi, may not have left immediately, partly because they may not have felt the need, or because they would have had to sustain huge losses if they had. In fact, some of them are still there. It's worth remembering that there are nearly 3 million Hindus in Pakistan, mostly in Sind, and most of them 'Dalits' (forming in all less than 2% of the population).

I seem to remember Ram Jethmalani, who was Law Minister in India, saying on BBC Urdu a few weeks ago, that he spent a few years in Pakistan before finally returning to Bombay to resume his practice. I might have misheard, and haven't been able to get details of his exact career during 1947-57 on the web. Had I not heard that, I might not have written what I did, or worded it differently to more strongly emphasize the asymmetry in population movement over time. He was the example I had in mind.

More generally, while I agree that there is a lot of wishful thinking and PC-ness around the subject - I do not agree, for example, that anything deeper can be read into the asymmetry of the population flows other than that it was an accident of history, geography, economics and demography.